=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2359/paper14
|storemode=property
|title=A vignette study among order pickers about the acceptance of gamification
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2359/paper14.pdf
|volume=Vol-2359
|authors=Lisa-Maria Putz,Florian Hofbauer,Marius Mates
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/gamifin/PutzHM19
}}
==A vignette study among order pickers about the acceptance of gamification==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2359/paper14.pdf
A vignette study among order pickers about the
acceptance of gamification
Lisa-Maria Putz1, Florian Hofbauer1 and Marius Mates2
1 University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Department of Logistics,
Wehrgrabengasse 1-3, 4400 Steyr, AUSTRIA
lisa-maria.putz@fh-steyr.at; florian.hofbauer@fh-steyr.at
2 Schneckenreither GmbH, Traunuferstraße 113, 4052 Ansfelden, AUSTRIA
Abstract. A high percentage of total logistics costs can be attributed to order
picking. Since order picking is characterized as rather monotonous, pickers often
struggle with motivation due to the monotony. This article provides insights into
the acceptance of gamification in order picking by using gamified feedback fea-
tures for motivation. We conducted a vignette study with order pickers to inves-
tigate the individual perceptions of motivation, job characteristics and gamifica-
tion. The findings indicate that gamification in the order-picking sector appears
to be a suitable approach to increase motivation and performance of pickers. The
use of gamified feedback features was positively rated for both individual and
group performance and showed no significant preference of one type. More re-
search is needed to generalize the findings to a greater population.
Keywords: Order picking, gamification, logistics, motivation, performance, vi-
gnette study, feedback feature.
1 Introduction
Order picking plays a pivotal role in logistics and accounts for about 55.0 % of the total
warehouse operating expenses [1]. Despite increasing automation and use of highly
automated storage systems, manual operation still represents the vast majority of order
picking systems. Automated systems for picking could be implemented but would re-
quire costly investments. Indeed, these automated systems still struggle with the need
for human intelligence. Heterogeneous and changing product portfolios and dynamic
market demand require the high flexibility of manual systems and human skills [2–4].
Order picking involves intensive and repetitive tasks that are mostly done under time
constraints with the aim of minimizing errors. Demotivation due to monotony is often
connected with order picking and a widely discussed problem of a picker’s job descrip-
tion. The monotonous task often results in problems with motivation and performance
of the employees. In fact, these problems are often neglected and can lead to a lack of
concentration, dissatisfaction and mistakes [2, 5]. Currently, optimization approaches
for process improvement are mostly limited to technical aspects, forgetting about the
human factor. As a result, the motivation of pickers is crucial for an efficient logistics
system [6].
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 154
As a nascent area of study gamification has been applied in the logistics sector to
improve motivation and performance of workers, in particular of pickers [7]. Gamifi-
cation refers to the use of game elements in non-game contexts [8] and represents a new
approach which aims to increase motivation and performance. Previous studies found
empirical evidence of an increase in motivation and performance due to the use of gam-
ification [9–11].
We designed a questionnaire for order pickers about the acceptance of gamification
and focused on gamified performance feedback. Our presented feedback features in-
clude several game elements which provide information about players' success [12],
create a competitive environment, [13] and allow users to receive immediate feedback
and to know exactly how they perform compared to others [14].
The aim of this paper is to investigate the acceptance of gamification of order pickers
by using gamified performance feedback for motivational aspects. Moreover, it was
investigated if gamified performance feedback on an individual or group basis are pre-
ferred by the pickers. Therefore, a vignette study with order pickers was conducted to
investigate the individual perceptions of motivation, job characteristics and gamifica-
tion. In addition, recommendations for the use of gamified applications for order pick-
ers are provided.
2 Theoretical background
In this chapter, we discuss the importance of manual order picking in the logistics pro-
cesses as well as gamification as an approach to increase motivation and performance
in the logistics sector.
2.1 The value of order picking in logistics processes
Order picking refers to the procedure of withdrawing items from an inventory to com-
plete an order. Certain quantities (articles) from a total quantity (inventory) have to be
provided based on internal or external orders. Order picking has three major functions:
acceptance and processing of picking orders, execution of the picking process and in-
ternal and external provision of goods [15].
Only a well-functioning picking system in collaboration with the warehouse creates
additional value for internal logistics. Picking is considered a labour-intensive and
costly part of the logistics network since picking processes are hard to standardize and
automate. In fact, picking is responsible for approximately 55.0 % of the total ware-
house operating expenses [1]. Despite the automation trend in logistics, pickers manu-
ally run around 80.0 % of all warehouses, because sensomotoric abilities enable humans
to address changes in product characteristics, such as weight or size quickly [3]. Fur-
thermore, humans are able to react faster and are more flexible to the markets dynamic
demands. The human being will remain the key resource for a flexible and high-quality
picking system in the near future [2, 5].
The overall objective of picking is an in-time and quantity correct provision of the
ordered materials for internal or external customers at the lowest possible costs [16].
Pickers play a crucial role to satisfy these goals. The working process of picking is, in
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 155
general, described as rather monotonous. Simple and repetitive work sequences in a
rather dull working environment are the main points of the job description of the pick-
ers. Additionally, employees face high stress levels due to the time pressures exerted
on them. The working procedures must be carried out quickly and accurately in order
to meet the time target and avoid mistakes. Hence, motivational problems are ubiqui-
tous but only rarely highlighted. The vast majority of the companies introduced mone-
tary incentive schemes believing that these represent the only solution to tackle moti-
vational problems. Optimisation approaches are often centred on technical aspects but
neglect the employees and their behaviour. Nevertheless, motivation plays an important
role in ensuring a fast and precise working method. In fact, the logistics industry is
enhancing its efforts to identify more intrinsic rewarding systems such as gamification
[6].
2.2 Gamification in logistics
A new approach to increase motivation in workspaces is gamification. Nick Pelling, a
British computer programmer and inventor, first coined the term in 2002 [17] and it
started to gain popularity from 2010. Gamification means the use of game-design ele-
ments in any non-game system context to achieve one or more of the following: intrin-
sic and extrinsic user motivation, facilitated information processing, better goal
achievement, and behavioural changes [8]. Gamified applications can satisfy the three
basic human needs of autonomy (through in-game decisions), competence (through on-
going feedback and progress), and social inclusion (through competition or cooperation
with other players). These three human needs are intended to increase the motivation
of humans [18, 19].
Previous research found that using gamified applications increases people motiva-
tion and engagement [20, 21]. By ascending leaderboards, collecting points and/or
badges, a motivating effect occurs that encourages people to spend longer and more
time on specific tasks or activities [21, 22]. Gamification is intended to lead people into
the so-called "flow state" [23]. Flow refers to a state of joy and happiness as well as
optimal experience, which results from intense participation and total concentration on
the complete immersion in a pleasant action. The condition occurs when a person for-
gets all worries, self-doubt and any sense of time in the execution of a task. Such activ-
ities are experienced as enjoyable and rewarding in that they are exercised for self-
purpose [24]. In addition, the balance between task difficulty and one's own abilities is
crucial to reaching the flow state. If the task difficulty exceeds your own abilities, this
can lead to overwork, loss of control and anxiety. If the task difficulty falls below one's
own abilities, this can result in under-demand and boredom [25].
The integration of game elements can increase the motivation of people who work
on monotonous and non-challenging tasks [9–11, 26, 27]. Previous studies found that
gamification is able to improve performance in monotonous and non-challenging jobs
[9–11]. An example of a gamified application in the logistics sector is the use of re-
wards. If gamified applications in the picking sector are used, pickers will receive re-
wards in form of points, etc. for a certain picking goal. Game elements such as points,
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 156
level-up or ranking promote voluntary participation and inspire employees to reach a
higher level of performance and engagement [28].
An example for a gamified system for pickers is the application of Arvato. The IT
provider Arvato Systems used gamification to increase motivation in the logistics sec-
tor. Different games, such as Tour-de-France, Formula 1 or football are coded and ap-
plied to a warehouse. Logistical workflows such as picking are adapted and imple-
mented into football matches, tournaments or Formula 1 races. Various operating fig-
ures e.g. error rates are integrated into the course of the game. In the game, the employ-
ees are divided into teams. The progress of the game can be broadcasted via live-ticker
on tablets or smartphones. Additionally, analysis and feedback options are offered to
track team statistics. The game designers found that both performance and motivation
were increased through the game [29, 30].
However, incorrect implementation of game elements can also cause detrimental ef-
fects. Leaderboards represent a game element that can enhance people’s goal-setting
and motivation due to (immediate) feedback about personal performance [31]. Even
though leaderboards aim to motivate users, it can result in the opposite for those who
are at the lower end of the table. Thus, leaderboards are often viewed critically as its
use involves a certain risk of user’s demotivation [22, 32, 33]. For example, Hanus and
Fox [32] compared a gamified course using leaderboards and badges with a non-gami-
fied course. Both courses had a similar curriculum. They found that the students in the
gamified group were less motivated and engaged than those in the non-gamified group.
The demotivation might be the result of an inappropriate gamification design of the
leaderboards. Leaderboards provide limited places for a few players who can stand at
the top of the leaderboard. One measure to avoid negative effects of leaderboards on
motivation is to design team-score leaderboards instead of single-score displays. Team-
scores require collaboration and community, which supports the feeling of social relat-
edness (i.e. team affiliation) [12]. Another measure that avoids the demotivation of
lower-ranked scorers is to display only partial information e.g. TOP 5 scorers. Conse-
quently, care has to be taken over a proper design of leaderboards [32–34].
3 Method
A vignette study was conducted with order pickers at different locations in a shipping
company in Austria between March and May 2018. The shipping company chosen is a
major player in the Austrian shipping market. We developed the questionnaire for the
survey based on a literature review and pre-tested it with graduate part-time logistics
students. Subsequently, we distributed the anonymous questionnaires to 17 full-time
pickers in printed format to collect data about the acceptance of game elements in this
specific context. The pickers had one week to complete the questionnaire. The response
rate was 100%.
The questionnaire, which is presented in the Appendix, comprises a question with
selection of criteria and statements which are rated on Likert scales [35]. The first part
of the questionnaire deals with the characteristics and tasks of the job as a picker. The
second part deals with motivational factors such as money or job security. In the third
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 157
part, two different options for gamified performance feedback were presented to ad-
dress the mentioned risk of using game elements and to recognize any differences in
the perception of these feedback options. Figure 1 shows the first option and represents
a feedback feature based on individual performance, which includes the game elements
points, badges, avatars, achievements, progress bars and a leaderboard. The second op-
tion, which can be found in Figure 2, is a feedback feature based on group performance,
which includes the same game elements. Participants were asked prior the survey if
they had ever heard anything about gamification. Since the topic was not known by the
participants, we decided not to explain the concept and purpose of gamification prior
to the questionnaire and not to use the term ‘gamification’ to prevent causing confu-
sion. Instead, we informed the participants that the intention of the survey is to ask them
about their main drivers of motivation and to rate two models for enhancement of mo-
tivation and engagement. We used descriptive statistics to evaluate the results.
4 Results
In total, 17 pickers completed the questionnaires with 16 male and one female respond-
ent. The pickers had on average five years of work experience in their job. Six respond-
ents had one to three years of work experience, ten had five to ten years of work expe-
rience and one had more than ten (i.e. 19) years of work experience. Eight respondents
were between 31 and 40 years old. Five respondents were between 20 and 30 years old,
three between 41 and 50 years old and one person was older than 51 years.
In logistics literature, it is agreed that order picking is evaluated as a highly monot-
onous job [15]. The results of our study show, that only the half of the respondents
agree that their job is highly monotonous. In fact, eight out of 17 participants agreed
that the pickers work routines are rather monotonous, compared to nine pickers who
consider their daily tasks as diverse. When asked "How would you describe your work-
place?", the five most applicable criteria were: accuracy at work (chosen by 14 respond-
ents), tasks are repeated very often (monotonous tasks) (8 respondents), tasks are dif-
ferent and change often (7 respondents), enjoying work/fun at work (7 respondents) and
working in teams (7 respondents).
When the respondents were asked “What is important for you at your workplace?”,
the following five criteria were most frequently rated as “very important”: Appreciation
& recognition (12 out of 16), good salary (13 out 17), good working environment (13
out of 17), safe workplace (10 out of 17) and reward (bonus, …) (9 out of 17). With
five extrinsic motivators on top, results show that extrinsic motivators clearly outweigh
intrinsic motivators in our survey group.
The evaluation of gamified feedback features for individual performance and team
performance showed similar means. Both options achieved the same positive results in
terms of creation of fun (μ = 2.82) and increase of performance (μ = 3.29). Team chal-
lenges and personal challenges were rated similarly (μ = 2.94 compared to μ = 3.00).
Participants’ preference of individual feedback over group feedback was marginal (μ =
2.82 compared to μ = 3.00). In addition, the participants evaluated a positive impact for
gamified individual and group feedback on motivation (μ = 2.88 compared to μ = 3.06).
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 158
Fig. 1: Gamified feedback feature for individual performance. Adapted from [36]
Fig. 2: Gamified feedback feature for team performance. Adapted from [36]
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 159
5 Conclusion, discussion and limitations
Order picking represents one of the most labour- and time-intensive processes and ,thus,
resource-intense processes in internal logistics. However, the tasks of order pickers are
highly monotonous which often results in demotivated staff, a high number of errors
and thus, costs. Gamification, aimed at making the job more fun, might be one solution
to overcome motivational problems of pickers and decrease error rates. Thus, the aim
of this paper was to investigate acceptance of gamification by order pickers. Moreover,
it was investigated if gamified performance feedback on an individual or group basis is
preferred by the pickers. Results showed a positive evaluation for both individual and
group performance feedback but no significant preference for one type. Empirical re-
search for this result, as well as the reproducibility in larger study groups remains sub-
ject to future studies.
Based on the results of this vignette study, the use of gamification in the order-pick-
ing sector appears to be a suitable approach to promote motivation and performance of
pickers. For future implementation of gamification in the workplace, it is crucial to
raise acceptance for new approaches and methods such as gamification and to com-
municate the additional value gained through gamification also to the management
level. To successfully implement gamification a clearly defined concept has to be es-
tablished. When developing the concept, a common discourse with all people involved
is needed. Another crucial point is that the gamified applications must not interfere with
the work process and must not generate additional expenses for the employees. Simi-
larly to [37, 38] we conclude that after the collection of all relevant information, gami-
fication components such as scores, points and badges can be adapted to the participat-
ing person’s interests and needs.
This study has several limitations which influence generalizability. A major limita-
tion of this vignette study is the very small sample size with 17 respondents. However,
due to the uniqueness of the sample composition and the topic of this study, we hope
that the results are of interest for the gamification community. Further studies may use
the underlying results as a starting point for in-depth investigation of the research topic.
The study was only conducted at a single company in one country and results may not
be transferred to other shipping companies or hold across other cultures. Moreover,
several of the measurement scale items were slightly modified from their original and
demonstrated formats in order to fit the specific purposes of this study.
Our study reveals multiple opportunities for future research. Future research might
have a closer look at the implementation of other game elements for performance feed-
back in order-picking to identify the acceptance and suitability. Besides motivational
effects, future studies should also address and measure psychological and behavioural
outcomes to cover the full chain of the gamification process [7, 37]. Furthermore, stud-
ies should be done in various countries and companies with larger samples to verify the
existing results. Additionally, it is of interest to conduct an empirical experiment and
investigate the motivational and productivity effects of gamification for order pickers
over a longer period. This could also give further insight into the current discussion in
the literature about whether the novelty effect of gamification wears off [32, 39–42].
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 160
Qualitative interviews can be used to get a better understanding of the underlying mo-
tivational drivers of the order pickers.
Acknowledgements
This research study is part of the research field “sustainable transport systems”, which
was funded by the State of Upper Austria as part of the research program ‘FTI Struktur
Land Oberösterreich’. Moreover, we would like to thank our project partner for their
involvement.
Appendix - Questionnaire
Dear employees,
Your opinion is important to us. We would like to ask you politely to complete this
questionnaire as part of a scientific work. Please answer each question and statement
and do not skip any. Therefore, please complete this questionnaire as conscientiously,
honestly and completely as possible. There are no "right" and "wrong" answers to the
questions included in this questionnaire.
The participation on this questionnaire is voluntary and anonymous. Your personal an-
swers remain undisclosed.
Thank you for your participation.
Gender
O Female O Male
Age
Years
How long have you been working in the picking sector?
Years
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 161
1. How would you describe your workplace? [43]
Please tick the five most applicable criteria.
Tasks are repeated very often (monotonous tasks) O
Tasks are different and change often O
Simple tasks O
Complicated tasks O
Physical stress O
I don’t have to strain myself to concentrate O
I have to strain myself to concentrate O
Tasks under time pressure O
Tasks without time pressure O
Accuracy at work O
Enjoying the work/Fun at work O
Little to no fun at work O
I often work alone O
Working in teams O
High frequency of new employees (fluctuation) O
Often too little or to short training at the beginning of work O
Little to no appreciation (recognition) for achievements O
2. Order-picking tasks [43]
Please tick the applicable box.
My tasks in order-picking, … Strongly agree Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… repeat themselves very often. O O O O O O O
… are often changing and diverse. O O O O O O O
… are executed manually (by hand). O O O O O O O
… are easy to understand. O O O O O O O
… are complicated. O O O O O O O
Doing my tasks in order-picking, … Strongly agree Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… I have to concentrate. O O O O O O O
… I work under time pressure. O O O O O O O
… I have to work precisely. O O O O O O O
… no mistakes should happen. O O O O O O O
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 162
3. What is important for you at your workplace? [6, 9, 44]
Please tick the applicable box.
Very im- Important Not so Not im-
portant important portant
Good working environment O O O O
Safe workplace O O O O
Proximity to home O O O O
Further training opportunities O O O O
Career opportunities O O O O
Good salary O O O O
Appreciation, recognition O O O O
Fun at work O O O O
Reward (bonus, …) O O O O
Interesting tasks O O O O
Self-fulfilment (creativity) O O O O
Challenges O O O O
Flexible working hours O O O O
Feedback about my work perfor- O O O O
mance
Structured workflows O O O O
Regulated division of labour O O O O
4. Feedback example for personal work performance
Please tick the applicable box.
Feedback on my performance as in the Strongly agree Strongly disagree
example below … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is a good idea O O O O O O O
… would motivate me in a positive way. O O O O O O O
… brings fun to work. O O O O O O O
… would be a positive personal challenge. O O O O O O O
… would increase my performance. O O O O O O O
5. Feedback example for team performance at work
Please tick the applicable box.
Feedback on team work as in the example Strongly agree Strongly disagree
below … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is a good idea O O O O O O O
… would motivate the team in a positive way. O O O O O O O
… brings fun to work. O O O O O O O
… would be a positive challenge for the team. O O O O O O O
… would increase the team performance. O O O O O O O
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 163
References
1. Tompkins JA (2010) Facilities planning, 4th ed. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
2. Grosse EH, Glock CH, Neumann WP (2017) Human factors in order picking: a content
analysis of the literature. International Journal of Production Research 55(5): 1260–1276.
doi: 10.1080/00207543.2016.1186296
3. Moeller K (2011) Increasing warehouse order picking performance by sequence optimiza-
tion. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 20: 177–185. doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.08.023
4. Petersen CG, Aase G (2004) A comparison of picking, storage, and routing policies in
manual order picking. International Journal of Production Economics 92(1): 11–19. doi:
10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.09.006
5. Grosse EH, Glock CH, Jaber MY et al. (2015) Incorporating human factors in order pick-
ing planning models: framework and research opportunities. International Journal of Pro-
duction Research 53(3): 695–717. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2014.919424
6. Hense J, Klevers M, Sailer M et al. (2014) Using Gamification to Enhance Staff Motivation
in Logistics. In: Hutchison D, Kanade T, Kittler J et al. (eds) Frontiers in Gaming Simula-
tion, vol 8264. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 206–213
7. Warmelink H, Koivisto J, Mayer I et al. (2018) Gamification of production and logistics
operations: status quo and future directions. Journal of Business Research in press. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.09.011
8. Treiblmaier H, Putz L-M, Lowry PB (2018) Research commentary: Setting a definition,
context, and theory-based research agenda for the gamification of non-naming applications.
AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction 10(3): 129–163. doi:
10.17705/1thci.00107
9. Klevers M, Sailer M, Günthner WA (2016) Implementation Model for the Gamification of
Business Processes: A Study from the Field of Material Handling. In: Kaneda T, Kanegae
H, Toyoda Y et al. (eds) Simulation and Gaming in the Network Society, vol 9. Springer
Singapore, Singapore, pp 173–184
10.Lee J, Kim J, Seo K et al. (2016) A Case study in an Automotive Assembly Line: Exploring
the design framework for manufacturing gamification. In: Schlick C, Trzcieliński S, Lee J
et al. (eds) Advances in Ergonomics of Manufacturing: Managing the Enterprise of the Fu-
ture Gamification. Springer International Publishing
11.Kampker A, Deutskens C, Deutschmann K et al. (2014) Increasing ramp-up performance
by implementing the gamification approach. Procedia CIRP 20: 74–80. doi:
10.1016/j.procir.2014.05.034
12.Sailer M, Hense J, Mandl H et al. (2013) Psychological perspectives on motivation through
gamification. Interaction Design and Architectures Journal 19: 28–37
13.Nah FF-H, Zeng Q, Telaprolu VR et al. (2014) Gamification of Education: A Review of
Literature. In: Hutchison D, Kanade T, Kittler J et al. (eds) HCI in Business, vol 8527.
Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 401–409
14.Werbach K, Hunter D (2012) For the Win: How Game Thinking can Revolutionize your
Business. Wharton Digital Press, Philadelphia, PA
15.Glock CH, Grosse EH, Elbert RM et al. (2017) Maverick picking: the impact of modifica-
tions in work schedules on manual order picking processes. International Journal of Produc-
tion Research 55(21): 6344–6360. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2016.1252862
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 164
16.Koster R de, Le-Duc T, Roodbergen KJ (2007) Design and control of warehouse order
picking: a literature review. European Journal of Operational Research 182(2): 481–501.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2006.07.009
17.Nick Pelling (2011) The short (pre) history of gamification. https://nanodome.word-
press.com/2011/08/09/the-short-prehistory-of-gamification/. Accessed 08 Aug 2017
18.Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and
New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1): 54–67
19.Shi L, Cristea AI (2016) Motivational Gamification Strategies Rooted in Self-Determina-
tion Theory for Social Adaptive E-Learning. In: Micarelli A, Stamper J, Panourgia K (eds)
Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 294–300
20.Kapp KM (2012) The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and
strategies for training and education. Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA
21.Nacke LE, Deterding S (2017) The maturing of gamification research. Advanced Human-
Computer Interaction 71: 450–454. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.062
22.Mekler ED, Brühlmann F, Tuch AN et al. (2017) Towards understanding the effects of
individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance. Advanced Hu-
man-Computer Interaction 71: 525–534. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.048
23.Hamari J, Koivisto J (2014) Measuring flow in gamification: dispositional flow scale-2.
Computers in Human Behavior 40: 133–143. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.048
24.Csikszentmihalyi M (1975) Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA
25.Nakamura J, Csikszentmihalyi M (2002) The Concept of Flow. Handbook of Positive Psy-
chology: 89–105
26.Korn O, Funk M, Abele S et al. (2014) Context-aware assistive systems at the workplace:
Analyzing the effects of projection and gamification. In: Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on pervasive technologies related to assistive environments. ACM, New York,
NY, USA, 38:1‐38:8
27.Korn O, Funk M, Schmidt A (2015) Design approaches for the gamification of production
environments: A study focusing on acceptance. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Interna-
tional Conference on pervasive technologies related to assistive environments. ACM, New
York, NY, USA, 6:1‐6:7
28.Park HJ, Bae JH (2014) Study and research of gamification design. International Journal
of Software Engineering and its Applications 8(8): 19–28
29.Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA (2015) Order Picking Formula 1: Gamification
30.Klumpp M, Bioly S, Neukirchen T (2019) Human Resource and Knowledge Management.
In: Zijm H, Klumpp M, Regattieri A et al. (eds) Operations, Logistics and Supply Chain
Management, vol 15. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 205–229
31.Landers RN, Bauer KN, Callan RC (2017) Gamification of task performance with leader-
boards: a goal setting experiment. Computers in Human Behavior 71: 508–515. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.008
32.Hanus MD, Fox J (2015) Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longi-
tudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic
performance. Computers & Education 80: 152–161. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019
33.Hamari J, Koivisto J, Sarsa H (2014) Does gamification work? A literature review of em-
pirical studies on gamification. In: 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-
ences. IEEE, pp 3025–3034
34.Hamari J (2017) Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the effects of
gamification. Computers in Human Behavior 1(71): 469–478. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.036
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 165
35.Brace I (2018) Questionnaire design: How to plan, structure and write survey material for
effective market research, Fourth edition. KoganPage Ltd, London, New York, NY, New
Delhi
36.Klevers M (2017) Integration von Gamification in Handhabungsprozesse am Beispiel der
Kommissionierung. Lehrstuhl für Fördertechnik Materialfluß Logistik (fml) TU München
37.Huotari K, Hamari J (2017) A definition for gamification: anchoring gamification in the
service marketing literature. Electronic Markets 27(1): 17–22. doi: 10.1007/s12525-015-
0212-z
38.Liu D, Santhanam R, Webster J (2017) Towards meaningful engagement: A framework
for design and research of gamified information systems. MIS Quarterly 41(4): 1011–1034.
doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.4.01
39.Mavletova A (2015) A gamification effect in longitudinal web surveys among children and
adolescents. International Journal of Market Research 57(3): 413–438. doi: 10.2501/IJMR-
2015-035
40.Mitchell R, Schuster L, Drennan J (2017) Understanding how gamification influences be-
haviour in social marketing. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 25(1): 12–19. doi:
10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.12.001
41.van Roy R, Zaman B (2018) Need-supporting gamification in education: An assessment
of motivational effects over time. Computers & Education 127: 283–297. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.018
42.Koivisto J, Hamari J (2014) Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamifi-
cation. Computers in Human Behavior 35: 179–188. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.007
43.Hompel M ten, Schmidt T (2007) Warehouse Management: Automation and Organisation
of Warehouse and Order Picking. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, New York
44.Sailer M, Hense JU, Mayr SK et al. (2017) How gamification motivates: An experimental
study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction.
Advanced Human-Computer Interaction 69: 371–380. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 166