=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2388/short3
|storemode=property
|title=Gamification of Business Process Modeling: A Board Game Approach to Knowledge Acquisition and Business Process Modeling with BPMN
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2388/short3.pdf
|volume=Vol-2388
|authors=Bahar Kutun
}}
==Gamification of Business Process Modeling: A Board Game Approach to Knowledge Acquisition and Business Process Modeling with BPMN==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2388/short3.pdf
Gamification of Business Process Modeling: A Board Game
Approach to Knowledge Acquisition and Business Process
Modeling with BPMN
Bahar Kutun
Business School
Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt
Ingolstadt, Germany
Bahar.Kutun@thi.de
ABSTRACT 1 Introduction
Gamification of learning, the application of game Playing games fascinate people. If people are
design elements to learning activities, has observed during a game session, an ongoing
increased over the last years, due to its potential to motivation is remarkable. Huizinga defined
enhance learning. Following this assumption, we gaming as an activity, which is carried out
developed a board game in the style of a “wheel of completely free without constraint, and where the
fortune”, which is known to most people from human feels pleasure [1]. Hence, gamification,
television or trade fairs. The content of the wheel defined as “the use of game design elements in
refers to the modeling language Business Process non-game contexts” [2] has become a popular
Model and Notation (BPMN). The basic idea of method used to foster human motivation and
the BPMN wheel game is that players learn basics performance in regard to a given activity. Given
about BPMN and these can apply practically. The this potential, the idea of using the motivational
board game is suitable for a lecture in universities power of games for the learning context is
or enterprise trainings. The prototype was tested reasonable. The ultimate goal of teaching is to
and evaluated in the course ‘Business Process foster learning. Gamification is a relatively new
Management (BPM)’ of the bachelor’s program approach that has shown a potential benefit to
‘Digital Business’ at Technische Hochschule
learning [3]. Gamified approaches overcome
Ingolstadt. demotivating factors that could make learning
This contribution should be considered as work in more difficult or even impossible. Based on the
progress. concept of gamification, we developed a board
game as a kind of wheels of fortune to increase
KEYWORDS learners (learning) motivation to acquire (new)
Gamification, Business Process Management, knowledge in the field of business process
board game, BPMN, Game Based Learning, modeling. We also aim to improve the model
knowledge acquisition, knowledge transfer, quality of business processes. Using the board
process modeling game we intend to answer the following research
questions in this article:
WOODSTOCK’18, June, 2018, El Paso, Texas USA B. Kutun.
RQ1: Can the use of gamified solutions support
knowledge acquisition and knowledge transfer in
the field of BPMN?
RQ2: Can gamification improve the model quality
of business processes?
The developed board game is not intended to
replace a whole course, but to be embedded into
an interactive teaching part.
Figure 1: BPMN wheel
2 Concept and Implementation
2.1 Game design elements
2.1.1 BPMN wheel game content
The BPMN wheel game was developed with the
learning matter ‘BPMN’ [4, 5 and 6]. Players can
get an overview of the modeling language BPMN
and practice their knowledge by modeling a
business process.
2.1.2 BPMN wheel game design
The core of the board game is the BPMN wheel
and another wheel for the collection of notation
elements needed for process modeling. The
BPMN wheel contains 14 fields consisting of four Figure 2: Notation elements wheel
field types called learning cards, control question
2.1.3 Elements for knowledge acquisition and
cards, teamwork and notation elements wheel (see
process modeling
figure 1). The notation elements wheel (second
Learning cards and control question cards
wheel) includes also 14 fields for collecting the
We created 40 learning cards of the same color for
usual notation elements, e.g., activities and events
the theoretical learning content needed for process
(see figure 2). The number of fields per field type
modeling. We defined headings for the
was adjusted after a real test to influence positively
information printed on the learning card. This
the game flow. Thus, there is an uneven
should support players by structuring the learning
distribution of the total number of fields to the
matter.
field types.
Control question cards
20 same-colored control question cards should
query the theoretical learning content and support
the learning process. Questions of various types,
i.e., open and closed questions, are placed on the
Gamification of Business Process Modeling WOODSTOCK’18, June, 2018, El Paso, Texas USA
front of the control question cards. Students can
see the answer of each question on the backside of Epic Meaning Each player contributes to
the control question card. Players get coins as a the team success.
reward for correct answers. The color of the coin,
which can be collected by answering a question Quests Control questions of
correctly, is printed on the front of the control different question types as
question card. Collected coins can be redeemed for well as modeling of the
(missing) notation elements afterwards. business process.
Transparency of
Notation elements results Players know the color of
We prepared moderation cards for the different the coin they can collect.
notation element types to enable business process
modeling. For that reason, a game set includes … …
cards for activities, events, gateways, data objects … …
and lanes. These can be collected throughout the
time of playing. Collected cards can attached on
2.2 Prototype and Playing
presentation paper during the time of teamwork.
We implemented the prototype according to the
2.1.4 Game mechanics concept discussed above. Figure 3 illustrates the
In order to motivate players and catch the elements of a BPMN wheel game box.
attention of the different player types Bartle
identified [7, 8 and 9], we implemented a set of 14
game mechanics, i.e., badges and clear goals. The
following table lists some selected game
mechanics and their implementation in the BPMN
wheel game.
Table 1: Game mechanics and their implementation
Game … and how it is
mechanic… implemented in the game
Badges The winning team is
crowned as an expert team Figure 3: Content of a BPMN wheel game box
in the modeling with
BPMN. In the game are two phases: the learning phase and
the modeling phase. In the learning phase,
Clear goals Correct modeling of the theoretical basics are learned and questions are
business process. answered related to BPMN. In the modeling
Customization Players can select and phase, the theoretical contents learned are
arrange notation elements implemented by attaching the collected notation
as desired. elements to the moderation paper.
WOODSTOCK’18, June, 2018, El Paso, Texas USA B. Kutun.
The gameplay looks like this: Students organize minutes. Collected coins
themselves in teams of 3-4 people. The teams get can be redeemed for
a modeling task in form of a verbal description. missing notation
The board game is played clockwise. The players elements now.
follow the instructions related to the ‘rotated’
fields (see table 2 and table 3). The winner team is
the team who has modeled the business process Table 3: Description of the fields on the notation elements
with fewest errors within the given time slot. wheel
Field Instruction
The following table lists the fields and the actions
to be taken on the field.
Activity Draw an activity card
and label it according the
Table 2: Description of the fields on the BPMN wheel
textual process
Field Instruction description.
Learning card Draw a learning card and Event Pick a suitable event.
read the information You have the choice
aloud. between a start event, an
intermediate event and an
Control question Draw a question card and end event. Again, within
card read the question aloud. these you have to choose
Try to answer the the types, i.e., message
question. Your team event or timer.
members can support
you, if you are not able to Gateways Choose from different
answer. Check the gateways, i.e., event
answer printed on the based gateway or
backside. The color of the exclusive gateway.
coin, which can be
collected by answering Artifacts Collect artifacts, i.e. data
correctly, is printed on objects.
the front of the control
question card. Lane Draw a lane card and
Notation elements Turn the notation label it.
wheel elements wheel and
follow the instruction
(see table 3).
3 Research Methodology and Results
We tested and evaluated the BPMN wheel game
Teamwork You should model the in the course ‘BPM’ of the bachelor’s program
process with the collected ‘Digital Business’ at the Technische Hochschule
notation elements in 3 Ingolstadt with 52 students. The course takes place
Gamification of Business Process Modeling WOODSTOCK’18, June, 2018, El Paso, Texas USA
in the 3rd semester. The 52 attending students were
divided in an experimental and a control group
randomly. In the experimental group were 28
students, while 24 students participated in the
control group. Smaller teams of 3-4 students were
formed in each group. The teams of the
experimental group played the BPMN wheel Figure 4: Results of knowledge tests (pre and
game, while teams of the control group got some post) of experimental group
selected literary extracts. The teams got for
modeling the given business process a timeframe
of 70 minutes. The control group had to return the
literature at the beginning of the modeling part
after about half the time.
In order to measure the learning success of both Figure 5: Results of knowledge tests (pre and
groups, we conducted identical pre and post post) of control group
knowledge tests. The test consists of a theoretical
part and a modeling part. In the modeling part, the From the results of the knowledge tests, the
students had to model two small processes. following findings can be achieved: Both groups
Students could achieve 3 points for each question have improved about equally well in the
in the theoretical part. A student could achieve a theoretical part of the knowledge test. It is
maximum of 30 points (3 points x 10 questions) in noticeable, that the control group was significantly
the theoretical part. A student could score a better than the experimental group in the modeling
maximum of 10 points in the modeling part. For part of the knowledge test (pre). The control group
the entire test, a student could thus get a maximum was also better than the experimental group in the
of 40 points (30 points + 10 points). The modeling part of the post knowledge test. This
experimental group could score a maximum of may be because the experimental group did not
840 points (28 students x 30 points) for the draw enough learning and control question cards
theoretical part and 280 points (28 students x 10 for the practical modeling part. Instead, the control
points) for the modeling part. Accordingly, the group had all the theoretical as well as the
experimental group could score a maximum of modeling information in more compact and
1,120 points (840 points + 280 points) for the structured form because of the literary extracts. In
entire test. The control group could score a the modeling part of the knowledge tests, two
maximum of 720 points (24 students x 30 points) smaller processes were depicted, dealing with
for the theoretical part and 240 points (24 students specific gateways. Most likely, the teams in the
x 10 points) for the modeling part. Hence, the experimental group did not draw the cards with
control group could achieve a maximum of 960 this specific gateways used in the modeling part of
points (720 points + 240 points) for the entire test. the knowledge tests. Since both groups knew that
Figure 4 and 5 demonstrates aggregated scores for process modeling was following, it may be that the
both groups and the change of absolute numbers control group has focused more on modeling. In
and relative shares. addition, th groups knew that the identical
WOODSTOCK’18, June, 2018, El Paso, Texas USA B. Kutun.
knowledge test would be carried out after the
[2] Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., and Nacke, l.
learning activity. Probably the teams of the control (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness:
group have dealt with similar modeling examples defining gamification. Proceedings of the 15 th
or gateways more intensively. It is also possible international academic MindTrek conference:
Envisioning future media environments. 9-15.
that the control group has delegated tasks to the
team members, so that each team member has [3] Kapp, K.M. (2012). The gamification of learning and
dealt with a specific topic. The team members instruction: game-based methods and strategies for
could have exchanged intensively. This would training and education. John Wiley & Sons, San
Francisco.
make it possible to gain deeper insights.
[4] Allweyer, T. (2015). BPMN 2.0 - Business Process
Model and Notation:
Einführung in den Standard für die
4 Conclusion and Directions for Geschäftsprozessmodellierung. BOD, Norderstedt.
Further Research
[5] Freund, J. and Rücker, B. (2016). Praxishandbuch
We developed and evaluated a board game in
BPMN 2.0. Hanser, München.
form of wheels of fortune for the modeling
language BPMN. The first experiences we gained [6] Fleischmann, A., Oppl, S., Schmidt, W. and Stary, C.
were positive. The experimental group was able to (2018). Ganzheitliche Digitalisierung von Prozessen:
acquire theoretical knowledge about BPMN and to Perspektivenwechsel – Design Thinking – wertegeleitete
Interaktion. Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden.
reduce the errors in process modeling. Thus, the
game has supported the knowledge acquisition and [7] Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades:
knowledge transfer in the field of the modeling Players who suit MUDs. Journal of MUD research,
language BPMN (RQ1). The practical http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm.
implementation of the theoretical knowledge had [8] Deißler, N. (2013). Welche Spielertypen gibt es?,
a positive influence on the model quality (RQ2). http://digitalfit.de/spielertypen.
Nevertheless, it is noticeable that the control group
[9] Zichermann, G. and Cunningham, C. (2011).
was able to acquire knowledge as well as improve Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics
model quality. This may be due to the reasons in web and mobile apps. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol.
given in Chapter 3.
In order to measure the learning success more
accurately, the same knowledge test was carried
out after about 3 weeks again. This is to test the
retention effect. It will certainly be interesting to
compare these test results as well.
In order to consolidate our findings, we will
conduct further evaluations with other student
groups.
REFERENCES
[1] Huizinga, J., and Flitner, A. (2009). Homo ludens. Vom
Ursprung der Kultur im Spiel. Rowohlt, Reinbek.