서비스 디자인을 위한 게미피케이션 구조에 관한 연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

From 2010, the defined ‘gamification’ concept has continually absorbed a lot of traditional field theories, expanding into a new field, and gradually pay attention by scholars. Nowadays with the development of technology and the popularity of game culture, market and human environment that is fit for gamification has appeared, which is truly satisfied the condition that ‘game can affect reality’. So a lot of gamification researches inherit theories of related fields, while trying to create theory structures that only belongs only gamification.
In this stage, we are delighted to see more and more scholars with his academic background to enter this field. But at the same time, we must also admit that today's gamification research did not reach consensus. Scholars put forward viewpoints with their personal position in accordance with different academic background, which is a certain degree leading to today's gamification theory being some confusion. Throughout the current research status, there are a lot of problems that need to be solved. How to replace the concept between old and new fields; how to distinguish between mechanism and tools; how to define driving force according to motivation; How to differentiate user type will be more realistic; all these problems point to one point: There is lack of correlation between theories.
No relevance, it will unable to locate all sorts of multifarious theories. If designers use a theory structure with confused hierarchy and ownership, without a clear concept and design process they can only 'use what they have’, which led to the current application domain just had one-sided and narrow cognition to gamification.
No relevance, it will unable to improve the pertinence of design. If designers don't know how to connect tools and user types, they will unable to clear design purpose, which will lead to gamification design cannot reach expected effect.
Based on the above problems, we will stand on different positions to filter and integrate all good viewpoints from each theory, redefine the hierarchy and ownership of theories, complete the lack and missing parts, ultimately derive a more perfect and reducible design framework. So as to achieve the aim of structural gamification theory, it can help designers clear design direction, and provide them with a clear design process.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제 1 장 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………..…1
• 1.1. The evolutionary history of the gamification …………………………………………..4
• 1.2. The definition of gamification …………………………………………………………………7
• 1.3. The relationship between gamification and service ………………………………..9
• 1.3.1. Mode of action …………………………………………………………………………….9
• 1.3.2. The relationship and differences between gamification and UX/SD design
• ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11
• 1.4. Problems and the necessity …………………………………………………………………….14
• 1.5. The research methods and purpose ………………………………………………………..15
• 제 2 장Research and study ……………………………………………………………………....18
• 2.1. General research ……………………………………………………………………………………..19
• 2.2. The research of gamification user types …………………………………………………..27
• 2.3. The research of driving force and tools ………………………………………………......32
• 제 3 장 Design framework …………………………………………………………………..…….37
• 3.1. Mechanisms …………………………………………………………………………………………....38
• 3.1.1. Quick feedback and Self quantitative …………………………………………….38
• 3.1.2. Teamwork and compete ………………………………………………………………..40
• 3.1.3. Motivation …………………………………………………………………………………….41
• 3.1.4. Difficulty ……………………………………………….......................................43
• 3.2. Taxonomy of user type ……………………………………………………………………………..53
• 3.2.1. The selection of classification methods ……………………………...………….54
• 3.2.2. The definition of main classification and sub-classification items …..54
• 3.2.3. Propose a whole new dimension ……………………………………………………55
• 3.2.4. The expansive rules of the sub-classification items ………………………..56
• 3.2.5. The results of user classification …………………………………………………….57
• 3.2.6. Model building ……………………………………………………………………………….64
• 3.2.7. Verify the generality of the model ………………………………………………….65
• 3.3. Driving force and tools ………………………………………………………………………………68
• 3.3.1. Meaningful …………………………………………………………………………………….70
• 3.3.2. Development elements ………………………………………………………………….72
• 3.3.3. Creativity ……………………………………………………………………………………….73
• 3.3.4. Possessive ………………………………………………………………………………………75
• 3.3.5. Relatedness needs ………………………………………………………………………….76
• 3.3.6. Scarcity ……………………………………………………………………………………………77
• 3.3.7. Curiosity …………………………………………………….……………………………………79
• 3.3.8. Immersive ………………………………………….……………………………………………80
• 3.3.9. Loss …………………………………………………………………………………………………80
• 3.3.10. Composite tools …………………………………………………………………………….82
• 3.4. Mapping of the user attribute ……………………………………………………………………84
• 제 4 장Case study …………………………………………………………………………………………..91
• 4.1. Zombie run …………………………………………………………………………………………………92
• 4.2. Uber …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..100
• 4.3. Foldit ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….108
• 제 5 장Design Case …………………………………………………..……………………………………115
• 제 6 장Conclusion …………………..……………………………………………………………………..137
• Reference ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….140