Sunday, October 20, 2013
Questions about Gamification of Testing
I came across the phrase “gamification” and how in testing we can use this, in the writings of Jonathan Kohl. One day on twitter, jonathan and I had brief exchange and he encouraged to me explore the topic and write about it. Yesterday I read few articles about the topic and thought it is high time that I need jump and learn this stuff. Here is an initial and very crude attempt to understand the idea of gamification in general and how it is applied in testing.
When I think about the phrase gamify or gamification what comes my mind is - some sort of application or accommodation of elements of game into other systems and see what happens. That is probably what gamify means – take a thing or system that is game or related to a game and do stuff as though you’re playing a game. To simply put it gamifying testing is running testing as though it’s a game.
What does it mean to run/conduct testing for a project as a game?
At broad level, game is a competition between players and game leading to a player or a team winning or losing against the game or with other player or the team. This definition is provisional one – I might not be considering types of games that do not falling in this category. I wonder if there is any game where there is notion of victory or defeat.
Games can be single player multi player – individual or team, it seems to me that constants are there are rules of the game and there is definite outcome (mostly time bound). How do we apply these elements to testing as game?
In this initial exploration of gamification of testing – let me analyze elements of gams that I strongly feel about and how they apply to testing.
First of all – there are rules in a game. I cannot, at least this moment think of a game that does not have rules. What are the rules of testing – is the question that comes to my mind. Then I would ask who makes these rules? Is there one set of rules that apply to all kinds of testing that being done? When we gamify testing – are we considering testing as one single type of game or collection of different games each having its own set of rules?
Secondly there are players or groups of players in the game that play the game. There are two player games such as chess, tennis (there doubles too), wrestling, boxing, badminton, carom board etc. There are multi player individual games – athletics, gymnastics, swimming, shooting, archery, racing cars etc. Finally there are team games – football, cricket, various forms of hockey, baseball etc. Thus when players and teams play the game – they compete with one another. When we model testing as a game who are players and who complete with each other? I might be tempted to say testing is a game between dev team and testing team. With already so much animosity amongst two communities – this idea is no good to pursue. Whatever model of testing we might use – putting dev and test against each other is not a good idea. So we have problem here in gamification of testing wherein we need to identify the players or teams that compete. Is testing a “friendly” or a “practice” game where ultimate goal for each team is not win – just a warm up or practice?
How about goals or objectives of a player or team playing games in the first place? Winning of course! There are prizes for the winners and in some cases even losers get some prize (say as runner-up). Winning brings happiness and satisfaction in the players that can be a motivation or objective of playing. In order to pep-up the losers – there is something called “sportsmen/women spirit”. How many times you heard the statement “it is not important to win or lose, participation and competing with ones best ability is important”. So if you lose do not feel bad – there is always another chance. When we apply this to testing – how we might formulate the goals, objectives and motivations of playing the game of testing?
The rules of the game throw conflicts, contradictions and options for the players to play using skill and strategy. In simple terms, a strategy deals with options and risks to take the player to winning. We can apply the metaphor of strategy of games to strategy in testing. This is probably one matching element that I agree between games and testing. A good test strategy in testing is same as winning strategy in games. But then – what is the meaning of winning the game of testing? Against who?
Most characteristic aspect of playing or viewing a game is the climax and thrill of outcome. So when any game ends we have winners and losers. Winners take trophy, prize, applause, glory and loser some lessons on how to win the next game. How do we transport this idea of games to our world of testing? When testing ends (as a game) who is the winner? and who is the loser? You might say “customer” or “business” is the winner – then who is the loser? Are there any games where game ends with only winners or losers or no winner or loser? An interesting example comes to my mind is casino games. It is being said – at the end casino wins, even though each player in casino might win here and there – net casino is a winner always. What does this tell about testing gamification?
Having said all of above and asking these questions – I do agree with some aspects of games and gamification as apply to testing.
As Jonathan says games tickle our emotions, they captivate us, and they encourage us to work hard at solving problems and reaching goals – True. Thus running testing as game will lead to greater engagement of testers into work.
Why games work? Success and praise for success generates pleasure in brain releasing chemical messengers like dopamine, serotonin etc. In corporate settings gamification sets up employees in competition among peers with rewards/batches etc. I agree with this as well.
So, with this post I have attempted to come up with few questions about gamification of testing. In next few posts, I would explore the idea of gamification in general and testing as game in particular.