Further Challenges

I was reading on Brettspiel about a book that discusses the importance of simplicity in systems (such as board games). Among the points argued is the basic premise that the system that is presented in the simplest way, without sacrificing any internal complexity, is the best system.

In my highest-low system I have found that the perceived complexity has hindered my employees interaction within the game. While it is true that the system is not really that complex, the scoring mechanism is a completely new and foreign concept to most people it, which limits their understanding of the system. As a result I have found, for example, that most of the employees forget or choose not to participate, and those who do participate have completely ignored one of the rules I set in place: that your score for the week is the score of the category you did the least amount during the week.

Instead, they have been reporting activities in one or two catagories for an entire week, which, according to my rules, would get them zero points. At this point I begin to wonder if they misunderstand the concept entirely, or if they simply forgot that I would be tallying scores every week instead of cumulatively over the whole summer.

To solve the problem I have assumed the latter and ignored the former, supposing that I could begin scoring cumulatively without anyone knowing the difference. At the same time, this will allow me to use the chart I made, which--when people see that others are participating--may create more incentive for everyone else to get involved.

After three weeks I did not expect to have as many roadblocks as I have had so far, but I should have expected at least this. In game design there are uncountable side-effects and incentive barriers that appear once people are added to the system. My goal is to "playtest" game mechanics in real management settings as much as possible so that they can be implemented in similar situations as easily as possible. The questions, then, are: How many playtests are required to get a game right? and Are there enough opportunities to playtest the number of times that are needed to reach the goal?

Experiment adendum 1

After one week of the highest-low experiment I was slightly discouraged. People weren't reporting when they did extra actions! Was the highest-low mechanic not working? Or was something else wrong?

After talking with the staff and shrugging off my disappointment (person with the highest-low each week gets the reserved parking space in front of the building so I thanked them for allowing me to have it another week) I realized that the main problem was forgetfulness. In order to score, they were required to email me every time they did an extra action, which means they would have to remember to email me several times throughout the week. My solution (and I will see how this works out) was to print off self-reporting sheets. As they go through the week they put a tally every time they do something and then bring the sheet to our weekly staff meeting. Hopefully they will remember to bring the sheet.

I think the solution will work, but I am not sure it is the most efficient one. I had to come up with it relatively fast, which, as in the case with any new rules, could be disastrous the system. There are already at least two side-effect that I can identify: that since scores will only be reported at the end of every week, there will be no way to check other's progress and be encouraged to compete, and second, this system all but eliminates the need for the highest-low game board I made that is now hanging on the office wall. Sad.

I also forgot to mention to them that the winner for the whole summer will earn $30 to a restaurant of their choice. They didn't ask, which means that if they really embrace the game this next week (operating solely on the incentive for the parking space and to help one another) then I may cut the award down to $20 and save myself some cash.

Highest-Low Mechanic Experiment

This summer I plan to test the hypothesis I stated in the last post. I will be supervising 6 individuals. Their required duties include: scheduling appointments with camp coordinators, signing over keys to guests, holding a duty cell phone and responding to issues that arise, responding to emergencies as they arise in the building, checking rooms before guests arrive and after they leave, filling out all necessary paperwork. These are duties that are in the job description.

There are at least four other tasks that I wish to encourage through the use of a highest-low game. These include, working together on tasks to improve camaraderie, ensuring we never run out of forms, and continually monitoring bulletin boards. These are not in the job description, and I feel I prefer to not add to the list of things that they are forced to do. Instead I hope to use the highest-low mechanism to provide incentive to choose to do that which I want done.

Here is an example chart:
I acknowledge the words are difficult to read, but what can still be seen are the four catagories and four players. Each player moves to the right on the chart toward higher point values based on the number of times spent helping a co-worker with room-checks or sprucing up a bulletin board.

While in my previous post I described the highest-low mechanic as a victory condition, in this case, the mechanic only gives a score per round. I plan to add each employees score from the week based on the activity they did the least to an overall score for the summer. The employee with the best total score at the end of the summer will earn a $30 gift certificate to the restaurant of their choice.

One consideration: since the game will involve a certain level of trust (each employee will have to report to me what they did to move them up the chart), I do not want the prize to be so highly valued that there will be more incentive to cheat than to play by the rules, but at the same time the prize must be valuable enough to provide incentive to participate (the "game," after all, is optional).