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.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
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).
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).
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Highest-Low Victory
A game mechanic that has been particularly compelling to me has been the "highest-low victory." Highest-low victory, which is what I will call it (I couldn't find it in the "mechanics" section of boardgamegeek), is a type of victory condition in where players earn points in several different catagories, but the winner is the player with the highest number of points in their lowest catagory. For an example of a game that uses highest-low victory, check out Reiner Knizia's "Ingenious."
Highest-low victory provides two main incentives. First, it encourages diversity. Since it would be impossible to win the game by only improving your score in one area, players have to diversify their attention to each of the catagories. Second, it encourages competition. Players are required to compete for the same resources, which causes each resource to become more important.
As I look forward to taking on more managerial responsibilities, I am considering the ways in which a highest low mechanic can be used. Some possibilities include:
-Providing incentive to do what nobody wants to do: Specifically assigning one person boring/annoying tasks could cause that employee to feel targeted or singled-out. Furthermore, the employee assigned to the task no longer has any incentive to complete the task as fully as possible. By including the less desirable tasks within a list of required and more desirable ones, and by scoring the task that is completed least, then there is incentive for everyone to choose to do the mundane or the annoying. People will compete for the opportunity to do what they don't want to do.
-Completion of individual tasks: Employees with various individual responsibilities may tend to shirk certain responsibilities. For example, a resident assistant is required to work hours at the front desk, spend time with residents, complete paper work, and make fliers and advertisements. Highest-low victory could ensure that even paperwork gets completed.
-Requiring/Limiting Break Time: When the organization has incentive to get employees to relax, then breaks/vacations/fun tasks can be included as a category that will be scored according to highest-low victory conditions. When time-off is scored along with time-on, then it provides more incentive to work especially hard in the other areas so that they don't fall behind. This also allows employees to feel that they have control over when/where/how they relax.
-Providing incentive to learn and improve: When the highest-low is scored, then employees have incentive to improve in the areas where they struggle the most. In jobs where skill or knowledge correlates with efficiency then employees will seek out their own training tools to improve their lowest score.
Methodology of course would vary in each of the above scenarios, and one of the most important things to consider would be the type of reward given to the player with the highest low. If the reward does not match the amount of work then the game will cease to be relevant. My suggestions for the application of the Highest-Low Victory are a means for improving worker efficiency and for broadening the reach of work related incentives, as well as for giving employees a greater sense of volition in the work place.
Highest-low victory provides two main incentives. First, it encourages diversity. Since it would be impossible to win the game by only improving your score in one area, players have to diversify their attention to each of the catagories. Second, it encourages competition. Players are required to compete for the same resources, which causes each resource to become more important.
As I look forward to taking on more managerial responsibilities, I am considering the ways in which a highest low mechanic can be used. Some possibilities include:
-Providing incentive to do what nobody wants to do: Specifically assigning one person boring/annoying tasks could cause that employee to feel targeted or singled-out. Furthermore, the employee assigned to the task no longer has any incentive to complete the task as fully as possible. By including the less desirable tasks within a list of required and more desirable ones, and by scoring the task that is completed least, then there is incentive for everyone to choose to do the mundane or the annoying. People will compete for the opportunity to do what they don't want to do.
-Completion of individual tasks: Employees with various individual responsibilities may tend to shirk certain responsibilities. For example, a resident assistant is required to work hours at the front desk, spend time with residents, complete paper work, and make fliers and advertisements. Highest-low victory could ensure that even paperwork gets completed.
-Requiring/Limiting Break Time: When the organization has incentive to get employees to relax, then breaks/vacations/fun tasks can be included as a category that will be scored according to highest-low victory conditions. When time-off is scored along with time-on, then it provides more incentive to work especially hard in the other areas so that they don't fall behind. This also allows employees to feel that they have control over when/where/how they relax.
-Providing incentive to learn and improve: When the highest-low is scored, then employees have incentive to improve in the areas where they struggle the most. In jobs where skill or knowledge correlates with efficiency then employees will seek out their own training tools to improve their lowest score.
Methodology of course would vary in each of the above scenarios, and one of the most important things to consider would be the type of reward given to the player with the highest low. If the reward does not match the amount of work then the game will cease to be relevant. My suggestions for the application of the Highest-Low Victory are a means for improving worker efficiency and for broadening the reach of work related incentives, as well as for giving employees a greater sense of volition in the work place.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Economy Game
I'm watching the news today. The US government is trying to fix the economy by adding and changing rules. Rules? The economy is a system that runs on incentives and choice. In other words, the economy is a resource management game with a very complex web of rules that very few people understand. I don't follow the news very often, and I don't claim to be an expert on anything relating to politics and economics, but I am familiar with one thing. Whenever games I design get too complicated, or whenever the system doesn't work, the better option is usually to reduce the number of rules not add more. New rules sound like great and exciting ideas. This will make the game really fun! But there's a nasty hitch to some rules, and you can't know how the new rules will impact the game until you test them out.
Monday, February 23, 2009
2 Rules
A beloved middle school teach of mine by the name of Mr. G____ summarized all the expectations of classroom behavior into two short and concise rules: "Be Here," and "Be Nice." While I am convinced that many middle school teachers would have nightmares about ruling a class with such simple guidelines, I am equally convinced that students, and people in general, respond to simplicity, and more importantly, to the respect that simplicity offers. I will vouch for Mr. G____'s method by saying that the freedom we experienced in his class begot knowledge and growth.
Additional rules, while they may seek to ensure conformity and standardization, confuse the process and undermine the goal. Instead of being asked to develop in maturity, a student may be asked to obey a number of set number of behavioral rules (do not shout, do not kick the chair in front of you, be here on time, bring your notebook to class everyday), which besides assuming the student's propensity to do such things, fails to accommodate all possible transgressions. "But Ma'am, I wasn't kicking Billy's chair, I was pushing it with my foot!"
On the contrary, we can assume that any sort of transgression is possible AND likely. In order to create order, therefore, rules must address the essence of the problem, not the various heads that it rears. I'm reminded of another Man who instituted a two rule system. Jesus said, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind'. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 37-40). Jesus clarified all the laws of the Old Testament in two clear, easy to understand rules. The two rules summarize the nature of the problem, give a large measure of freedom, and enable the opportunity for personal growth and integrity.
As a peer manager of college students I assume two things to be true. First, that they do not need to be told how to sit at the front desk, for to do so would be to insinuate that they lack intelligence, and second, that when people feel respected, they will do whatever they can to live up to that respect. I follow the lead of others, therefore, when I summarize all the desk expectations into two concise rules: "Be Here," and "Be Alert." All other aspects of the job stem from these two rules, and I try to give my workers as much freedom as possible to determine how best it means to follow the rules. It does not matter so much that these rules are stated, but that they are understood. It would be counter beneficial for me to post these two rules now at the desk as if to say, "You don't get it, let me explain," but if I were to begin again I might call attention to them.
Perhaps I have not adequately related this discussion to game mechanics and theory, but I am not sure that a correlative connection is necessary. Suffice it so say, people are more likely to play the game correctly when they can remember and understand the rules, and I am more likely to be pleased by the system I create when the participants do what is right, not because everything has been explained in line item form, but rather because they are fulfilling my trust in their ability to think for themselves, to understand, and to grow in maturity.
Additional rules, while they may seek to ensure conformity and standardization, confuse the process and undermine the goal. Instead of being asked to develop in maturity, a student may be asked to obey a number of set number of behavioral rules (do not shout, do not kick the chair in front of you, be here on time, bring your notebook to class everyday), which besides assuming the student's propensity to do such things, fails to accommodate all possible transgressions. "But Ma'am, I wasn't kicking Billy's chair, I was pushing it with my foot!"
On the contrary, we can assume that any sort of transgression is possible AND likely. In order to create order, therefore, rules must address the essence of the problem, not the various heads that it rears. I'm reminded of another Man who instituted a two rule system. Jesus said, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind'. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 37-40). Jesus clarified all the laws of the Old Testament in two clear, easy to understand rules. The two rules summarize the nature of the problem, give a large measure of freedom, and enable the opportunity for personal growth and integrity.
As a peer manager of college students I assume two things to be true. First, that they do not need to be told how to sit at the front desk, for to do so would be to insinuate that they lack intelligence, and second, that when people feel respected, they will do whatever they can to live up to that respect. I follow the lead of others, therefore, when I summarize all the desk expectations into two concise rules: "Be Here," and "Be Alert." All other aspects of the job stem from these two rules, and I try to give my workers as much freedom as possible to determine how best it means to follow the rules. It does not matter so much that these rules are stated, but that they are understood. It would be counter beneficial for me to post these two rules now at the desk as if to say, "You don't get it, let me explain," but if I were to begin again I might call attention to them.
Perhaps I have not adequately related this discussion to game mechanics and theory, but I am not sure that a correlative connection is necessary. Suffice it so say, people are more likely to play the game correctly when they can remember and understand the rules, and I am more likely to be pleased by the system I create when the participants do what is right, not because everything has been explained in line item form, but rather because they are fulfilling my trust in their ability to think for themselves, to understand, and to grow in maturity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
