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).

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.

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.