Sunday, December 13, 2009
Accounting Game?!
Just found a post on Purple Pawn about Xero, an accounting support company that tries to make that tedious number work fun. I reference it here because of the slide show (at the first link) that draws a strong correlation between our willingness to do something and its fun factor. Certainly, as more and more services go online, "fun" should be a serious consideration.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Becoming a Board Game Publisher
For a while now I have toyed around with the idea of creating a board game publishing company. I've been reading blogs about board game creation, and studying business strategies in school, and I find myself getting closer and closer to the "do it" point. That is, the point at which I'm either going to be in or I'm going to be out.
Here are some things I still need to research and consider:
-Marketing: Who will be my target audience? What are their demographics? How many games can I expect to sell to them? What is the best way to publicize my company/games?
-Manufacturing/Warehousing: How much can I expect to spend on warehousing fees? Are there other manufacturers I would trust more than the ones I have already contacted? What am I going to do about the artwork?
-Product realization: How do I know when a game is good enough? Which play testers should I use? How should I qualify my research? Does this game fit my vision? How many games should I run and when?
-Business projections: Where can I expect this company to be in 1 year? 2 years? 5? What is the best thing to do with the profits I make?
Of course there is more to research and think about, but as I consider a lesson I've learned from playing games I think the "do it" point never comes when you have all the information. Analysis paralysis is no fun, and even your mother would yell at you to hurry up if you get caught in it.
Here are some things I still need to research and consider:
-Marketing: Who will be my target audience? What are their demographics? How many games can I expect to sell to them? What is the best way to publicize my company/games?
-Manufacturing/Warehousing: How much can I expect to spend on warehousing fees? Are there other manufacturers I would trust more than the ones I have already contacted? What am I going to do about the artwork?
-Product realization: How do I know when a game is good enough? Which play testers should I use? How should I qualify my research? Does this game fit my vision? How many games should I run and when?
-Business projections: Where can I expect this company to be in 1 year? 2 years? 5? What is the best thing to do with the profits I make?
Of course there is more to research and think about, but as I consider a lesson I've learned from playing games I think the "do it" point never comes when you have all the information. Analysis paralysis is no fun, and even your mother would yell at you to hurry up if you get caught in it.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Applying Video Game Mechanics
I recently receive a question regarding the applications of video games such as Madden or Halo in the workplace. While my response was directed toward video games, I think the "three questions" and "three principles" would be a good starting point for evaluating the usefulness of any types of games for management. Here is my response:
"I was thinking a little bit more about your question, and I think the answer is yes. I think games of all varieties could have applications, but the type of application would vary. There are a couple questions you could ask to get determine the level of application best suited for a game.
The first would be, what are the incentives mechanisms in this game and are there any ways I could model those incentives in management. For example, Madden creates incentive for you to keep playing by keeping detailed statistics of your performance, by increasing difficulty incrementally as the season goes on, and by imitating as closely as possible an actual football game environment. These are principles that could help govern an employee competition or help to facilitate their learning and growth.
Second, you should ask, is there any practical benefit that we could use from incorporating this game in our management structure. If you judge that the employees might like to play Halo, you could create a system of rewards based on performance that apply to the game. For example, employees could earn handicap points by meeting company goals, which could then be applied to a monthly Halo tournament that might result in some sort of monetary bonus or glory.
The last question would be, is there any specific skill I would like employees to develop, and does this game encourage training in this skill. Again, to use Halo as an example, employees could learn better communication by competing in teams to accomplish tasks. The Halo system in particular is well suited to facilitate team competition like this and there are various challenges and game types pre-structured within Halo. With this last type of application the point is education, so there should be some sort of debriefing or lesson segment accompanying it to help employees to evaluate what they experienced.
As with any time you draw from games to accomplish tasks in the workplace, you must pay attention to the three cardinal principles: fun (do employees have reason/incentive to participate in this), fairness (does the system guard against bias and ensure fair reward), and follow-through (does this system accomplish the goals I want it to accomplish)."
There may be more principles that can help aid the use of games in the workplace, but I think these three help reveal potential problems that a system might create. Without fun, employees won't participate, without fairness the system will fail, and without follow-through you will not accomplish what you set out to do. To balance these requires time, effort, and creativity, and most of all trial and error and re-design. It may not be until the third or fourth attempt that you finally realize a system that includes the right balance of the three principles.
"I was thinking a little bit more about your question, and I think the answer is yes. I think games of all varieties could have applications, but the type of application would vary. There are a couple questions you could ask to get determine the level of application best suited for a game.
The first would be, what are the incentives mechanisms in this game and are there any ways I could model those incentives in management. For example, Madden creates incentive for you to keep playing by keeping detailed statistics of your performance, by increasing difficulty incrementally as the season goes on, and by imitating as closely as possible an actual football game environment. These are principles that could help govern an employee competition or help to facilitate their learning and growth.
Second, you should ask, is there any practical benefit that we could use from incorporating this game in our management structure. If you judge that the employees might like to play Halo, you could create a system of rewards based on performance that apply to the game. For example, employees could earn handicap points by meeting company goals, which could then be applied to a monthly Halo tournament that might result in some sort of monetary bonus or glory.
The last question would be, is there any specific skill I would like employees to develop, and does this game encourage training in this skill. Again, to use Halo as an example, employees could learn better communication by competing in teams to accomplish tasks. The Halo system in particular is well suited to facilitate team competition like this and there are various challenges and game types pre-structured within Halo. With this last type of application the point is education, so there should be some sort of debriefing or lesson segment accompanying it to help employees to evaluate what they experienced.
As with any time you draw from games to accomplish tasks in the workplace, you must pay attention to the three cardinal principles: fun (do employees have reason/incentive to participate in this), fairness (does the system guard against bias and ensure fair reward), and follow-through (does this system accomplish the goals I want it to accomplish)."
There may be more principles that can help aid the use of games in the workplace, but I think these three help reveal potential problems that a system might create. Without fun, employees won't participate, without fairness the system will fail, and without follow-through you will not accomplish what you set out to do. To balance these requires time, effort, and creativity, and most of all trial and error and re-design. It may not be until the third or fourth attempt that you finally realize a system that includes the right balance of the three principles.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Buy your hours!
Thought I would mention another scheduling method I came up with recently. I was beginning to have problems with my "draft" method because the number of people needing to be scheduled has risen to about 25. With that amount of people, draft scheduling can take hours and since there are fewer shifts available per person, it seems silly to wait around for an hour an a half to pick three shifts.
My solution was this: Shift the burden of time it takes to schedule back onto me and away from the workers by giving them an availability form to fill out. I have used availability forms in the past, but I discontinued their use because it was too difficult to get people to select the hours that needed covering. When you fill out your form independently from everyone else then desirable shifts aren't "eliminated" from the running, so you choose only the shifts you like the most.
My goal on the availability sheet, then, was to provide enough incentive for people to diversify their desired shifts so that all shifts would be covered and I wouldn't have to assign anyone. You may recall from my previous posts that my mantra is: the perception of choice makes a happy worker, and a happy worker is a good worker. Therefore, it is important to me that everyone feel that the shifts they are working are the ones they chose.
To accomplish this, I gave every participant $10 (not really $10, just on paper) that they each HAD to spend on the available shifts for the week. They could spend it all in one place, or they could split it up 10 different ways, but all the money had to be "spent". The amount of money spent on a shift qualified as the priority number for the shift. That is, a person spending $6 on Wednesday had priority over somebody spending $3 of Wednesday. In order for someone to get the hours they wanted they would have to spend enough money in one place to earn priority. I was concerned, however, that many people would just spend $10 on one day, and be unwilling to work other days that were less desirable, but still necessary. To counter this, I added one stipulation: if there were any holes I would assign those people first who had spent the most money on one single shift. I hoped this rule would cause people to split their money up so that they would be choosing more times, and giving me more flexibility.
My plan was not perfect. In fact, there are a lot of things about this method that need to be improved. First among them is the problem that there were still too many options for people so that certain undesirable days still did not receive enough money. There is an easy solution to this. All I need to do is split up all the days into groups. Group 1 would be desirable days. Group 2 would be less desirable, and group 3 would be least desirable. In each group everyone would be expected to spend $10, so everyone would have to pick days they didn't like as much, but at the same time they would still have the option of picking WHICH undesirable ones they would work. I think this is a simple fix with versatile implications, and as a matter of personal interest I wonder how many groups I could divide the shifts into while still giving the appearance of choice.
My solution was this: Shift the burden of time it takes to schedule back onto me and away from the workers by giving them an availability form to fill out. I have used availability forms in the past, but I discontinued their use because it was too difficult to get people to select the hours that needed covering. When you fill out your form independently from everyone else then desirable shifts aren't "eliminated" from the running, so you choose only the shifts you like the most.
My goal on the availability sheet, then, was to provide enough incentive for people to diversify their desired shifts so that all shifts would be covered and I wouldn't have to assign anyone. You may recall from my previous posts that my mantra is: the perception of choice makes a happy worker, and a happy worker is a good worker. Therefore, it is important to me that everyone feel that the shifts they are working are the ones they chose.
To accomplish this, I gave every participant $10 (not really $10, just on paper) that they each HAD to spend on the available shifts for the week. They could spend it all in one place, or they could split it up 10 different ways, but all the money had to be "spent". The amount of money spent on a shift qualified as the priority number for the shift. That is, a person spending $6 on Wednesday had priority over somebody spending $3 of Wednesday. In order for someone to get the hours they wanted they would have to spend enough money in one place to earn priority. I was concerned, however, that many people would just spend $10 on one day, and be unwilling to work other days that were less desirable, but still necessary. To counter this, I added one stipulation: if there were any holes I would assign those people first who had spent the most money on one single shift. I hoped this rule would cause people to split their money up so that they would be choosing more times, and giving me more flexibility.
My plan was not perfect. In fact, there are a lot of things about this method that need to be improved. First among them is the problem that there were still too many options for people so that certain undesirable days still did not receive enough money. There is an easy solution to this. All I need to do is split up all the days into groups. Group 1 would be desirable days. Group 2 would be less desirable, and group 3 would be least desirable. In each group everyone would be expected to spend $10, so everyone would have to pick days they didn't like as much, but at the same time they would still have the option of picking WHICH undesirable ones they would work. I think this is a simple fix with versatile implications, and as a matter of personal interest I wonder how many groups I could divide the shifts into while still giving the appearance of choice.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Participation points
In a class I just finished participation points were an important part of the grade. Although the value of the grade, 10%, is a typical value associated with participation points in most classes, in our course it seemed to be more important. In fact, every day turned into a competition for participation points, which spurred some lively--if not sporadic--discussion. I think there are two reasons for this.
First, our professor explained that the not only would we receive a 10% grade based on participation, but also that our grade would be based upon the ratio of our number of participation points to other students in the class. This means that if one person received 2 participation points and everyone else received 1, then the person with 2 would get the full 10% and everyone else would get 50%. Conversely, of course, if everyone had an equal number of points then everyone would earn full credit.
Second, the points were distributed directly from the professor during class time for nearly any constructive comment that was made. That is, a student contributing 3 separate and unique comments to class discussion would receive 3 participation points.
The above criteria represent the rules of the game, and the combination of both rules created incentive in the class to speak up and to speak up often. Typically I have found that participation points are awarded secretly and arbitrarily by teachers so that students don't have much idea when their contributions are contributing back to their grade or not, but in the case with this course, every comment was tangible and held weight. Not only could you control your sum of points, but proportionally you could estimate your grade compared to others based on your perception of how talkative your neighbors were.
Every so often the highest participation score would be posted on the online system for everyone to see, and, because the highest score was usually much higher than the score you had, it was usually something that caused general despair. There was even a small coalition to convince the student with the most points to shut-up during the last few class times so that the rest of the class could catch up. (I believe at this point the high amount was 23, and most people had between 6-15 or 26-65% respectively.)
If the point of the game was to achieve vocal participation, then it was obviously successful, but at what cost? There was a distinct sense at some points, that the comments made were specifically for participation credit instead for improving the learning atmosphere of the class. Then again, the ability of a comment to be thought provoking and promote further discussion does not always lie with the intention of the student to have it do so, and often the mere energy created by the high volume of comments was enough to improve learning. In this regard, therefore, I believe the game accomplished its goal, and provide an excellent example of the mechanics of the game can integrally affect the outcome of the system.
First, our professor explained that the not only would we receive a 10% grade based on participation, but also that our grade would be based upon the ratio of our number of participation points to other students in the class. This means that if one person received 2 participation points and everyone else received 1, then the person with 2 would get the full 10% and everyone else would get 50%. Conversely, of course, if everyone had an equal number of points then everyone would earn full credit.
Second, the points were distributed directly from the professor during class time for nearly any constructive comment that was made. That is, a student contributing 3 separate and unique comments to class discussion would receive 3 participation points.
The above criteria represent the rules of the game, and the combination of both rules created incentive in the class to speak up and to speak up often. Typically I have found that participation points are awarded secretly and arbitrarily by teachers so that students don't have much idea when their contributions are contributing back to their grade or not, but in the case with this course, every comment was tangible and held weight. Not only could you control your sum of points, but proportionally you could estimate your grade compared to others based on your perception of how talkative your neighbors were.
Every so often the highest participation score would be posted on the online system for everyone to see, and, because the highest score was usually much higher than the score you had, it was usually something that caused general despair. There was even a small coalition to convince the student with the most points to shut-up during the last few class times so that the rest of the class could catch up. (I believe at this point the high amount was 23, and most people had between 6-15 or 26-65% respectively.)
If the point of the game was to achieve vocal participation, then it was obviously successful, but at what cost? There was a distinct sense at some points, that the comments made were specifically for participation credit instead for improving the learning atmosphere of the class. Then again, the ability of a comment to be thought provoking and promote further discussion does not always lie with the intention of the student to have it do so, and often the mere energy created by the high volume of comments was enough to improve learning. In this regard, therefore, I believe the game accomplished its goal, and provide an excellent example of the mechanics of the game can integrally affect the outcome of the system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
