AN EXPERT GAMIFICATION SYSTEM FOR VIRTUAL AND CROSS-CULTURAL SOFTWARE TEAMS

David C. Wyld et al. (Eds) : CSITA, ISPR, ARIN, DMAP, CCSIT, AISC, SIPP, PDCTA, SOEN - 2017
pp. 147– 157, 2017. © CS & IT-CSCP 2017 DOI : 10.5121/csit.2017.70115
AN EXPERT GAMIFICATION SYSTEM FOR
VIRTUAL AND CROSS-CULTURAL
SOFTWARE TEAMS
Isaac Chow1,2
and LiGuo Huang2
1
XO Communications, USA
2
Department of Computer Science, Southern Methodist University,
Dallas, TX 75275-0122, USA
isaac.chow@xo.com; lghuang@lyle.smu.edu
ABSTRACT
Gamification is the concept of applying game elements in non-game context platforms to
motivate people to participate in planned activities to achieve goals.
Gamification has been applied to academic fields including software engineering (SE) in recent
years. Many gamification implementations in SE have been ad hoc and lacked standardized
guidelines. This paper introduces a new concept of building an expert gamification system
(EGS) to provide guidelines for the implementation of gamification for virtual and cross
cultural software teams (VCCST). The system will extend the core of a regular expert system to
include gamification tools, a supplementary database, and an expert knowledge source. The
cross-cultural data for the EGS contains the Hofstede's cultural dimensions (HCD).
As more and more VCCST are formed in recent years, many issues have been raised in those
teams stemming from miscommunication and cultural conflicts. This paper uses the EGS to
help resolve the issues in VCCST.
KEYWORDS
Gamification, Software Engineering, Expert System, Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions, & Theory
of Flow
1. INTRODUCTION
Gamification is the use of elements of game design in non-game contexts [1]. It is the application
of game elements used to encourage engagement with a product or service. The concept of
gamification has been around for more than a decade. There has been a great deal of commercial
and academic interest on the use of gamification in recent years.
Some studies show that gamification can motivate engineers in SE if applied appropriately.
However, many gamification implementations for SE are lacking a well-defined framework or
guidelines. This paper develops an EGS that will provide guidelines for implementing
gamification for VCCST.
An expert system is a computer system that emulates the decision-making ability of a human
expert. Expert systems are designed to solve complex problems by reasoning about knowledge

148 Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT)
[2]. This paper extends the core of an expert system to include gamification tools, a
supplementary database with the cross-cultural data, and the expert knowledge source from
theory of flow to build the EGS. The core of an expert system consists of the inference engine
and the knowledge base. Figure 1 is a high-level view of the EGS.
Figure 1. High Level View of the EGS
The EGS consists of the following modules:
1. Gamification Tools
2. User Interface
3. Inference Engine
4. Knowledge Base
5. Supplementary Database
6. Expert Knowledge Source
2. RELATED WORK
Gamification has been extensively researched by different types of researchers in recent years.
However, there are very few studies in building an EGS as a tool for implementing gamification.
Some gamification studies are intended for learning and discussed in the context of education.
Other work tried to verify whether or not gamification works [3]. Some analysis has been done to
investigate the gamification mechanisms and see how gamification influences behaviours [4].
Some research has indicated that gamification provides positive effects in motivation. Some
studies are descriptive in nature and they have no actual listed experiment results of gamification
reported [5], [6], [7], [8]. Several studies explore conceptual frameworks for classroom learning
only [9].
For VCCST, some studies describe their conflicts and issues in detail but offer little help or
guidance for them [10], [11]. Other research identifies the specific attributes relevant to cross-
cultural concerns but does not show how to resolve the issues [12]. Some studies describe how to
do cross-cultural surveys [13]. There are very few studies offering solutions for using an EGS.

Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT) 149
3. VIRTUAL AND CROSS CULTRUAL SOFTWARE TEAM
Globalization of markets has been a major theme in recent years and more software teams are
working in cross cultural environments from outsourcing or insourcing work strategies [10]. It is
common for a large software project to have teams in more than one location and in different
countries. Many VCCST are formed across the globe with engineers from different parts of the
world [14]
It has been reported that the software projects with VCCST have quite a few issues and
challenges.Most of the problems are about conflicts in culture and its adverse impact to the
dynamics of the team [10], [15]. In a few instances, the software engineers view their co-workers
from different cultures as rivals rather than teammates. This paper designs an EGS to promote
team work and collaboration for VCCST to smoothen their conflicts and problems.
4. EXPERT GAMIFCATION SYSTEM
The EGS extends the core of an expert system and consists of six components as shown in Figure
1. The core elements of an expert system are the inference engine and the knowledge base. The
inference engine is an automated reasoning system that evaluates the current state of the
knowledge base, applies relevant rules, and then asserts new knowledge into the knowledge base.
The knowledge base represents facts and rules. Knowledge in an expert system may originate
from many sources such as reports, databases, case studies, empirical data, and domain experts
[2].
Other components in the EGS are the gamification tools, a user interface, a supplementary
database, and an expert knowledge source. The gamification tools include the game mechanics
and the platform. For example, Microsoft SharePoint can be used as a gamification tool. These
tools will contain the software team profile and personal profiles. The profiles will store and show
the team scores and individual scores respectively. The user interface facilitates the
communications between the project admins, users, and the EGS.
The supplementary database contains the cultural data and project data. The expert knowledge
source contains the theory of flow information. The following two sections describe the cultural
data and the theory of flow for this EGS.
4.1. Hofstede's cultural dimensions
Hofstede's cultural dimensions (HCD) theory is a framework for cross-cultural communication. It
describes the effects of a society's culture on the values of its members, and how these values
relate to behaviour using a structure derived from factor analysis [16]. According to Hofstede the
most important differences between cultures can be captured by finding to what extent members
of these cultures differ with regard to six values [17]:
1. Power distance index (PDI) - The power distance index is defined as the extent to which
less powerful people in an organization will accept and expect power to be distributed.
2. Individualism/Collectivism (IDV) – Differences between the degrees within the
Individualism vs. Collectivism index.
3. Masculinity/Femininity (MAS) - Differences between the degrees within the Masculinity
vs. Femininity index.

4. Uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) - Differences between the degrees within the
Uncertainty Avoidance Index.
5. Long-term/Short-term Orientation (LTO) - Differences between the degrees within the
Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation index.
6. Indulgence vs. Restraint (IND) - Differences between the degrees within the Indulgent vs.
Restraint index.
Table 1 shows the Hofstede’s values for these cultural dimensions for Australia, China, India,
Japan, Netherlands, UK, and USA [17]. The EGS further categorizes the countries into regions
such as Australia (AUS), Asia, Europe (EU), and North America (NAM) for further region
processing as shown in the second columns of Table 1.
Table 1. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
Country Region PDI INV MAS UAI LTO IND
Australia AUS 36 90 61 51 31 71
China Asia 80 20 66 30 87 24
India Asia 77 48 56 40 51 26
Japan Asia 50 42 90 88 75 42
Netherlands EU 38 80 14 53 67 68
UK EU 30 89 62 30 20 69
USA NAM 40 91 62 46 26 68
Among the HCD, three dimensions have more effect on gamification. They are Individualism,
Masculinity, and Uncertainty:
1. Individualism (INV)
This is the index to indicate how people think with the mentality of “I” or “We.” Some countries
are very “individual” focused. They focus more on themselves and careers versus their group.
The game design should take this into consideration. If the culture is more individual focused,
game mechanics such as leaderboards should be used.
2. Masculinity (MAS)
Masculinity is defined as “a preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness and
material rewards for success.” Its counterpart represents “a preference for cooperation, modesty,
caring for the weak and quality of life.” [17] This dimension gives important information in
setting up the right game mechanics for certain cultures. For instance, many Scandinavian
countries have a very low score in MAS. In those cultures, there is an important concept known
as Janteloven [8]. Janteloven is essentially a set of rules for encouraging social equality, social
stability, and uniformity in which one should never try to stick out from the crowd. The
Netherlands is an example with a score of 14 in MAS. The EGS should take this into
consideration by not focusing the games on competitiveness and leaderboards. Rather, it should
promote notions of equality and creativity for them [18], [19].
3. Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI)
The uncertainty avoidance index is defined as “a society's tolerance for ambiguity” in which
people embrace something unexpected, or go away from the status quo. Societies that score a
high degree in this index tend to prefer strict codes of behaviour, guidelines, laws, and absolute

Truth. A lower degree in this index shows more acceptance of differing thoughts. Society tends to
impose fewer regulations, ambiguity is more accustomed to [17]. The game design should take
this into consideration.
4.2. Psychological factors and flow detection
Gamification uses the psychology of engagement to motivate people. Psychology can be applied
to the non-technical aspects of SE like personality, teamwork, leadership, decision-making,
culture, motivation and human tendencies [15].
Abraham H. Maslow was a renowned psychologist in the field of motivation. He published the
famous Hierarchy of Needs in 1943 [18]. It is a pyramid depicting the five levels of needs,
namely
1. Biological and Physiological: air, food, shelter, water, sex, & rest
2. Safety: health, protection, stability, freedom from fear & security
3. Love and Belonging: love, intimacy, friendship, family, & affiliating
4. Esteem: self-esteem, independence, status, confidence, achievement & respect
5. Self-actualization: realizing personal potential, self-fulfilment & peak experiences
Self-actualization is the peak level in which a person's full potential is realized. Maslow describes
this level as the desire to accomplish everything that one can: to become the most that one can be
[18].
4.2.1. Theory of flow and group flow
Self-actualized people are those who come to find meanings to life that are important to them and
that fulfil them. Many of them experience a common phenomenon called flow, proposed by
Csikszentmihalyi [20].When people are in a state of flow, they will feel focused and concentrated.
They may feel a sense of ecstasy, great inner clarity, a sense of serenity, timelessness, and
intrinsic motivation. The flow is the balance between the skill level and the challenge of a task.
When a task is too difficult, it causes people to worry. When a task is too simple, people will be
bored. When a task is balanced between skill and difficulty, the individual will reach a state of
heightened focus and immersion [20]. Some research further extends the flow theory for groups.
Keith Sawyer developed specific triggers needed for creating group flow [21]. Figure 2 shows the
theory of flow. The EGS should try to keep the team in the flow and should be able to detect the
flow zone.
Figure 2. Flow Theory

4.2.2. Flow Zone Detection
The EGS should find ways to measure and detect the flow zone. There are some methods in
measuring flow with questionnaires: Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi enlist the various ways of
measuring flow for Concept of Flow; Intrinsic Motivation Inventory with 10 Questionnaires; John
Marshall Reeve: Agentic Engagement Scale Questionnaires; Davin Pavlas Play Experience
Questionnaire [21]. Other than using the questionnaires, the EGS can use the game statistics to
detect the flow zone. Figure 3 shows a simple game flow in which the ‘flow’ loop is indicated
with bigger arrows.
Figure 3. A Simple Game Flow
The EGS should monitor the game and collect the game statistics. The EGS should set up rules to
determine if a team is in a flow state. Table 5 shows a sample of the game statistics. The average
percentage of hits in that table can be a strong indicator for detecting a flow state. For example, if
that percentage is at least at a certain value, then the EGS should assume that the team is in a flow
state or zone. It may be a trial and error process to finalize the right value for that percentage. The
percentage can be cross checked with the questionnaire method to find the optimal value.
4.3 Determining Game Mechanics and Activities
The EGS should extract the cultural information and use that information to configure the game
mechanics in the system. Table 2 contains the game mechanics, the associated emotions, and
their values for INV, MAS and UAI. The values represent the recommendations from the EGS for
the game mechanics. For example, the value of ‘all’ in INV means that game mechanic is good
for all values of INV. The value of ‘high’ in INV means the game mechanic is good if INV is
high. The same rule applies to the value of ‘low’. If all three HCDs have the same ‘high’ value
for the same game mechanics, it reinforces the recommendations. If the HCDs have different
recommendations, INV will have the highest preference and MAS will have the second highest
preference.
Table 2. Game mechanics and cultural factors
Game mechanics Emotions INV MAS UAI
Points Reward all all all
Badges Achievement all high all
Leaderboards Competition high high high
Levels Status high high high
Progress bars Achievement all all high
Storyline Engagement all all all
Feedback Engagement all all high

Challenge/between
users
Competition all high all
Virtual gifts Altruism / Self-expression all low low
System for
sharing/exchanging
Collaboration/
Community
low low all
Table 3 shows a list of activities with their corresponding values for INV, MAS, or UAI. The
rules for recommendation are similar to the ones in Table 2. For example, the value of ‘low’ in
INV for ‘helping others’ means that activity is recommended when it has a low INV value. The
same rule applies to other activities and HCDs. Also, the HCD values in the table can be changed
when more knowledge or experience is gathered.
Table 3. Activity table with cultural factors
Activities INV MAS UAI
Inviting peers to design review all all all
Participating in a design review all all high
Inviting peers to a code review all all all
Participating in a code review all all all
Inviting peers to a test plan review all all all
Participating in a test plan review all all all
Helping others low low all
Giving people credits low low all
Being a team player low low all
Resolving issues all low high
Collaboration activities low low all
Innovative idea all all all
Voting for an idea low low all
Beating the deadline high all high
Documenting code all all high
Best practice all all high
Writing unit tests all all high
4.4. Sample Data
A simple prototype is developing at this time. The preliminary findings are encouraging. Table 4
contains some sample inputs to the EGS for demo purpose. These inputs drive the EPS based
rules mentioned in 4.3 and the 4.2.2 example.
Table 4. Inputs to the system
Attributes Examples
Project Name VCCST Enhancement
Project Description A demo to show how the EGS works
Domain of interest Software engineering
Team Info Cross-Cultural
Team Location Virtual
Countries USA, India, China
# of team members 20, 12, 18
# of analyst, developers, testers 4,12,4
SE Methodology Agile

The ESG will recommend a list of game mechanics and activities for the software project. Each
individual group is customized. The EGS collects statistics from the project for analysis. One of
the important tasks is to detect the flow zone for the software project team.
Table 5 shows a sample of the game statistics. The EGS uses the values from INV, MAS, UAI,
and the team cultural data to determine the initial ‘target %’ for the flow zone. As more project
data are stored and accumulated, the EGS can use the past data as reference and knowledge for
further ‘target %’ refinement and fine tuning. If the HCD recommend the activities, the ‘target
%’ for those activities will be higher than others.
Table 5. Sample game statistics
In Table 5, the ‘Hit %’ is calculated by ‘# of hits’ / ‘# of players’. In this sample data, there are 4
analysts, 12 developers, and 4 testers – a total of 20 players. The system assigns players to the
activities according to their roles. The system collects the games statistics including the number
of hits from each activity. The system compares the average ‘Hit %’ and the average ‘Target hit
%’ to determine the status of the flow zone. In Table 5, 47.94% is the average ‘Hit %’ and
75.59% for the average ‘Target hit %’. Since the average ‘Hit %’ is lower than the average
‘Target hit %’, the EGS will infer that the project team is not in a flow zone. The EGS will send
alerts to the system admins and project managers. They can choose to adjust the game
mechanics/activities and or make comments about the project. The project data will be stored and
served as reference and knowledge data for future projects. A SharePoint community site will be
used as a platform for collaboration, community, and data collection.

5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper introduces a new concept for building an EGS for the implementation of gamification
for VCCST. The goal of this paper is to open up another way of thinking in designing
gamification for SE using cross cultural data, the flow theory, and the past project data for the
VCCST. Designing and building the EGS will help to create a user-friendly system tool for
gamification implementation. The concept can be further extended to other domains for resolving
different problems using gamification.
For future work in this EGS, one area to investigate is how to better detect the state of flow and
group flow using the project data or other means. A more formal algorithm should be developed
for that. Also, incorporating more cultural data to develop a robust knowledge extraction
methodology for the system could be beneficial. As for the VCCST, more case studies should be
done using gamification with qualitative and quantitative approaches. Supporting and fostering
the gamification research to improve the software development process in the cross-cultural
environment could yield impactful results for VCCST’s.
REFERENCES
[1] Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O'Hara, K. & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Using game
design elements in non-gaming contexts. In Proceedings of CHI 2011. New York: ACM Press, 2425-
2428.
[2] Wikipedia, “Expert system”, (2016), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system
[3] J Hamari, J Koivisto, H Sarsa, “Does gamification work? -a literature review of empirical studies on
gamification” System Sciences (HICSS), 2014, pp. 3024-3034.
[4] Bunchball (2010), “Gamification 101: An introduction to the Use of Game Dynamics to Influence
Behavior”
[5] Philipp Herzig, Michael Ameling, Alexander Schill, "A Generic Platform for Enterprise
Gamification", 2012 Joint Working Conference on Software Architecture & 6th European Conference
on Software Architecture, 978-0-7695-4827-2/12 © 2012 IEEE, pp. 217-223.
[6] Foong Li Law, Zarinah Mohd Kasirun, Chun Kiat Gan, "Gamification towards Sustainable Mobile
Application", 2011 5th Malaysian Conference in Software Engineering (MySEC), pp. 348-353.
[7] Bogdan Vasilescu, "Human Aspects, Gamification, and Social Media in Collaborative Software
Engineering", ICSE ’14, May 31 – June 7, 2014, Hyderabad, India, Copyright 14 ACM 978-1-4503-
2768-8/14/05
[8] Marius Kalinauskas, "GAMIFICATION IN FOSTERING CREATIVITY", ISSN 2029-7564
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES 2014, 4(1), pp. 62–75.
[9] Jorge Simões a, Rebeca Díaz Redondo b, Ana Fernández Vilas, "Computers in Human Behavior",
www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh, 2012 Elsevier Ltd
[10] Michael Barrett, "Knowledge Sharing in Cross-Cultural Software Teams" Working Paper Series,
18/2007, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge
[11] Hannu Jaakkola, Anneli Heimbürger, "Cross-Cultural Software Engineering", Informatologia 42,
2009., pp. 256–264.

[12] A Sutharshan. S P Maj "Enhancing Agile Methods for Multi-cultural Software Project Teams"
Modern Applied Science Vol. 5, No. 1; February 2011, ISSN 1913-1844 E-ISSN
[13] "Guidelines for Best Practice in Cross-Cultural Surveys" THIRD EDITION, Copyright © 2011 by the
Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, ISBN 978-0-9828418-
1-5, Library of Congress Control Number: 2010937486 2011, pp.163-194.
[14] Christof Ebert, "Collaboration Tools for Global Software Engineering", IEEE SOFTWARE by the
IEEE Computer Society, March/April 2010
[15] Marczak, Treude, Filho, Steffens, Singer, Redmiles, "Studying Gamification as a Collaboration
Motivator for Virtual Software Teams: Social Issues, Cultural Issues, and Research Methods" CSCW
’15 Companion, Mar. 14–18, 2015, Vancouver, BC, Canada. ACM
[16] Wikipedia, "Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory", (2016)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstede%27s_cultural_dimensions_theory
[17] Geert Hofstede, "Cultural Dimensions", (2010), https://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html
[18] Erica Sahlgren, Kendra Knorst, "Culture’s impact on gamification", 2016 ,Linköping University |
Department of Management and Engineering, ISRN-number: LIU-IEI-FIL-G--16/01497—SE
[19] Rilla Khaled, "Itʼs Not Just Whether You Win or Lose: Thoughts on Gamification and Culture", CHI
2011, May 7–12, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada. ACM 978-1-4503-0268-5/11/05.
[20] Csikszentmihalyi, M, “Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention”. Harper, Perennial,
New York (1997)
[21] Enterprise Gamification Wiki, "Flow theory", (2015),
http://www.enterprise-gamification.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Flow-theory
AUTHORS
Isaac Chow
https://www.linkedin.com/in/isaac-chow-1aa398b
Isaac got his B.S. and M.S. in CS at the University of North Texas in mid 1980’s.
Isaac went to teach in Southwestern Oklahoma State University as a computer science
instructor from 1985 to 1989. Isaac worked for Texas Instruments as a programmer analyst for three years
working on mainframe MVS system and received quality recognition and excellence award. He worked for
AT&T for 10 years as a Senior Technical Staff Member and Computer Sciences Corporation for 3 years as
a Computer Scientist. He worked on Internet based multi-platform systems using MVS, Unix, C/C++,
Java, Sybase, and received the Circle of Excellence award.
Isaac currently works for XO Communications on developing intranet applications using SharePoint, ASP
.net, and c#. Isaac has worked on the Microsoft SharePoint and used it as a collaboration tool for many
years. Isaac is a doctoral student in software engineering at SMU. He plans to contribute to the academic
community through research and with his intensive software experience.

Dr. LiGuo Huang
http://lyle.smu.edu/~lghuang/
Dr. LiGuo Huang Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science and
Engineering at the Southern Methodist University (SMU), Dallas, TX, USA. She
received both her Ph.D. and M.S. from the Computer Science Department and Center
for Systems and Software Engineering (CSSE) at the University of Southern California (USC). Her current
research focuses on mining and learning from systems and software engineering repositories, software
quality assurance and information dependability, process modelling, simulation and improvement,
stakeholder/value-based software engineering, and software metrics. Her research has been supported by
NSF, US Department of Defense (DoD) and NSA. She had been intensively involved in initiating the
research on stakeholder/value-based integration of systems and software engineering and published related
papers in IEEE Computer and IEEE Software.

AN EXPERT GAMIFICATION SYSTEM FOR VIRTUAL AND CROSS-CULTURAL SOFTWARE TEAMS

More Related Content

What's hot (16)

Similar to AN EXPERT GAMIFICATION SYSTEM FOR VIRTUAL AND CROSS-CULTURAL SOFTWARE TEAMS (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

AN EXPERT GAMIFICATION SYSTEM FOR VIRTUAL AND CROSS-CULTURAL SOFTWARE TEAMS