Gamification, an emerging idea for using game design elements and principles to make everyday tasks more engaging, is permeating many different types of information systems. Excitement surrounding gamification results from its many potential organizational benefits. However, few research and design guidelines exist regarding gamified information systems. We therefore write this commentary to call upon information systems scholars to investigate the design and use of gamified information systems from a variety of disciplinary perspectives and theories, including behavioral economics, psychology, social psychology, information systems, etc. We first explicate the idea of gamified information systems, provide real-world examples of successful and unsuccessful systems, and, based on a synthesis of the available literature, present a taxonomy of gamification design elements. We then develop a framework for research and design: its main theme is to create meaningful engagement for users; that is, gamified information systems should be designed to address the dual goals of instrumental and experiential outcomes. Using this framework, we develop a set of design principles and research questions, using a running case to illustrate some of our ideas. We conclude with a summary of opportunities for IS researchers to extend our knowledge of gamified information systems, and, at the same time, advance existing theories.

Gamification, an application of game design elements to non-gaming contexts, is proposed as a way to add engagement in technology-mediated training programs. But there is hardly any information on how to adapt game design elements to improve learning outcomes and promote learner engagement. To address the issue, we focus on a popular game design element, competition, and specifically examine the effects of different competitive structureswhether a person faces a higher-skilled, lower-skilled, or equally-skilled competitoron learning and engagement. We study a gamified training design for databases, where trainees play a trivia-based mini-game with a competitor after each e-training module. Trainees who faced a lower-skilled competitor reported higher self-efficacy beliefs and better learning outcomes, supporting the effect of peer appraisal, a less examined aspect of social cognitive theory. But trainees who faced equallyskilled competitors reported higher levels of engagement, supporting the balance principle of flow theory. Our study findings indicate that no one competitive structure can address learning and engagement outcomes simultaneously. The choice of competitive structures depends on the priority of the outcomes in training. Our findings provide one explanation for the mixed findings on the effect of competitive gamification designs in technology mediated training.

We thank the reviewers and the associate editor for their constructive comments and helping us improve the quality of the paper. We thank the senior editor for her tremendous help in steering this study toward a publishable contribution.

No abstract