Sebastian Deterding is a user experience designer and researcher from Hamburg who recently gave a very comprehensive and insightful overview of the ways game elements have been entering the work sphere. He warns us about the just-add-points paradigm: the notion that if you just add points (and perhaps a leaderboard and rewards) to a mundane task, it becomes a game. The warning is a timely one, because this misconception is becoming more and more widespread.

Adding points will in most cases create a sense of competition but that is just a superficial characteristic of games and one that will not stay interesting in the long term. An example of a fairly simple implementation of the just-add-points paradigm is Foursquare, mostly based on what psychologists call introjected regulation: I compete with my friends and get recognized for my achievements. A very sympathetic initiative such as The Fun Theory also focuses mostly on the principle of providing rewards for actions that people normally wouldn’t do: I am entered into a lottery if I stick to the speed limit, I can make music by taking the stairs or wiping my feet. Don’t get me wrong, I love the site and these are some very creative rewards. But I keep hearing it mentioned in the context of games, which causes confusion.

Fundamentally, games are about something completely different than points and rewards. Among other things, they are about players that develop strategies based on clear goals and meaningful choices. When looking at the matter from an organizational perspective (as I do), there is a use for the just-add-points paradigm in limited contexts such as workshops. It can be useful to create emotion and energy in these settings. When I try to apply gaming principles more broadly to the design of organizations, I need to work with the fundamental ingredients of what constitutes a game. More about this later.