How is this possible? Isn't IQ normalized? The average is always 100.

The point is gamification is not a metric system, it's a framework. It allows for non-excessively-technical managers to tune metrics (or scrap them) and incentives while keeping them transparent and understandable.

I'm sorry to hear you don't get anything but money from your job. If you work in a massive call center then it's very likely you are subject to a number of hard metrics that you must keep in mind, making the job very unsatisfying and stressful. Your place of work might not be a good place for implementing this sort of thing.

The fact that it's not a silver bullet for every situation doesn't negate the value of the tool either. In my other comments I have suggested scenarios where it works well.

What do you think he meant? It's just not possible to extort customers into giving you a positive review if the system is designed well.

Comment was meant as a joke. I'm hardly interested in selling anything here, I can get a better SNR pretty much anywhere else for commercial purposes.

If you have used Stack Overflow (or, you know, Slashdot, who's been using Karma since forever) it's possible you may not have felt the whole thing was a "game". Same thing at work, an off site day is not "pretend you are nice so you get a pay raise" day. It's honestly meant to be fun. In the same way Gamification can be used for good purposes.

It can definitely be abused, just like any other tool. But if used in a smart manner it can reap great benefits.

In this situation, gamification as a measuring concept helps you find out which ones are good and which ones aren't. Works for everyone doesn't it? :)

Sorry to hear you had such a lousy manager :(

That's exactly the point. Our product allows managers to change point assignments to tune their gamification system, and define quests that they think are important for their business. In the end, it's about giving help desk managers the ability to create a metering/incentive system that maps well to their needs.

Subjectivity is no problem. A gamification-based metric is only good as a relative metric. If you have a tech in the same position you have dealing with the same types of requests, neither of you should get an unfair score because of this type of issue. You can't expect to have an "anyone below 200 points/day gets fired" scheme, you have to understand metrics for what they are.

The interesting thing is you can then look at requests that cause trouble and see statistical information about them. If hundreds of people are complaining about this, you can actually do something about it.

I agree with pretty much everything.

Our gamification system's implementation doesn't pretend it can replace a manager. It is precisely about giving managers the tools to measure things they way they want or feel is good and place incentives where they should be.

I only disagree with your last statement. Good managers don't replace performance metrics. Good managers know how to create them, measure them, and then understand them for what they are (not less, not more). I regularly have people telling me they want to be able to "pause" an SLA because an issue will take longer than expected, for example.

This is a real problem, which is why there is great emphasis on being able to change point schemes and quest definitions to keep it current and as moving a target as feasible.

Games pull it off all the time though, and helpdesk managers typically have an extra ace up their sleeve in that they are the supporter's bosses. So many of the problems that exist for MMO don't exist when you lose the 1st "M" (the one that stands for Massive). Typically a help desk staff is not as big, and therefore much more manageable in a face-to-face way to correct issues.

I should get myself a badge for that :)

If you call do ask for Gonzalo so I can give you a slashdotter-friendly demo myself.

This is a good point. We have ideas in the pipeline for this issue as well. They either involve some sort of bounty-based scheme (where managers can set up bounties for specific tasks - usually the hard ones) or reasessing the point value of actions based on the "tough nut to crack" factor (time since inception of the issue times priority, or something along those lines).

All in all, the important part is that gamification is a quantum leap in the tools you have available for metering and tracking work (compared to, say, hours spent on X). There is still lots to be discovered and built in this direction, and we are trying to figure it out.

Not really. Management needs measuring and gamification is a great form of it, with other good side-effects. It can be done poorly, like any incentive system, but I think there is real value in the toolset.

Unlike an Internet forum, you can easily fix some issues with real life discipline. If a tech is unethically gambling the system you can address him directly. It's real life fraud, not comment spam.

My people are in a hurry? How would you possibly know that?

Gamification is a tool, like salary, bonuses, good chairs, free meals, hammers and screwdrivers. You can use them for whatever they want. I know the "combo" quests are amusing and give out nice bragging rights with the other guys in our company. Customers are liking it as well. If you come from a "fail the quest and be fired" attitude then obviously it turns into a mindless drone thing, but that is not gamification's fault, it's the managers'.