A Case Study in an Automotive Assembly Line: Exploring the Design Framework for Manufacturing Gamification

  • Jiyoung Lee
  • Jihyo Kim
  • Kyoungwon Seo
  • Seunghwan Roh
  • Changho Jung
  • Hyunwoo Lee
  • Jongho Shin
  • Gyunghyun Choi
  • Hokyoung RyuEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 490)


Industrial revolution which is represented by specialization, standardization, and simplification significantly improves productivity, however it makes tasks in production line more simple and repetitive. This monotonous work environment affects most factory workers to be suffered from lack of motivation and boredom, so consequently makes workers to perceive their job unsatisfied and meaningless. We believe that gamification approach can make this tedious workplace more playful and motivating. In this context, a case study was conducted for a bolt-tightening task in the automotive assembly line. Especially, we explored our five-step design framework which can be useful as a basic procedure for the manufacturing gamification: (1) target system analysis; (2) goal and constraints identification; (3) concept generation; (4) concept evaluation; and (5) scenario development. Based on this design framework, a gamified interface for a bolt-tightening task was developed. The effectiveness of gamified interface was evaluated by lab-based experiment with semi-structured interview, and lessons learnt and related design suggestions are also dealt with.


Manufacturing gamification Design framework Automotive assembly line Bolt-tightening task Worker motivation 


  1. 1.
    Wyatt, S., Langdon, J.N.: Fatigue and boredom in repetitive work. Ind. Health Res. Board Rep. Med. Res. Council (77) (1937)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pinder, C.C.: Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior. Psychology Press (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Das, B., Sengupta, A.K.: Industrial workstation design: a systematic ergonomics approach. Appl. Ergon. 27(3), 157–163 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Azizi, N., Zolfaghari, S., Liang, M.: Modeling job rotation in manufacturing systems: the study of employee’s boredom and skill variations. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 123(1), 69–85 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Snyderman, B.B.: The Motivation to Work, Vol. 1. Transaction Publishers (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cameron, J., Pierce, W.D.: Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 64(3), 363–423 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Skinner, B.F.: The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis (1938)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., Nacke, L.: From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification”. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, pp. 9–15. ACM, Tampere, Finland (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L.E., Dixon, D.: Gamification: toward a definition. In: CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings, pp. 12–15 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feltham, F., Vetere, F., Wensveen, S.: Designing tangible artefacts for playful interactions and dialogues. In Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, pp. 61–75. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Korn, O., Funk, M., Schmidt, A.: Towards a gamification of industrial production: a comparative study in sheltered work environments. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, pp. 84–93. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Korn, O.: Industrial playgrounds: how gamification helps to enrich work for elderly or impaired persons in production. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, pp. 313–316. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aparicio, A.F., Vela, F.L.G., Sánchez, J.L.G., Montes, J.L.I.: Analysis and application of gamification. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Interacción Persona-Ordenador. p. 17. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seaborn, K., Fels, D.I.: Gamification in theory and action: a survey. Int. J. Human-Comput. Stud. 74, 14–31 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hanus, M.D., Fox, J.: Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: a longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Comput. Educ. 80, 152–161 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nicholson, S.: A recipe for meaningful gamification. In: Gamification in Education and Business, pp. 1–20. Springer, Berlin (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deterding, S.: The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: a method for gameful design. Human-Comput. Interact. 30, 294–335 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim, S.: Fundamental strategic approach for gamification: how to start a gamification in your organization. Int. J. Digital Content Technol. Appl. 7(12), 48 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fullerton, T.: Game design workshop: a playcentric approach to creating innovative games. CRC press, Boca Raton (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jung, C.G.: Psychological types: the collected works (1971)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lucero, A., Arrasvuori, J.: The PLEX cards and its techniques as sources of inspiration when designing for playfulness. Int. J. Arts Technol. 6(1), 22–43 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hackos, J.T., Redish, J.: User and task analysis for interface design (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seffah, A., Taleb, M.: Tracing the evolution of HCI patterns as an interaction design tool. Innovations Syst. Softw. Eng. 8(2), 93–109 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Costello, B., Edmonds, E.: A study in play, pleasure and interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, pp. 76–91. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Korhonen, H., Montola, M., Arrasvuori, J.: Understanding playful user experience through digital games. In: International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, DPPI09, pp. 274–285. Compiegne University of Technology, Compiegne, France (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Arrasvuori, J., Boberg, M., Holopainen, J., Korhonen, H., Lucero, A., Montola, M.: Applying the PLEX framework in designing for playfulness. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, p. 24. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Knaving, K., Björk, S.: Designing for fun and play: exploring possibilities in design for gamification. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications, pp. 131–134. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Venkatesh, V.: Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 11(4), 342–365 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. Jossey-Bass (2000)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    NASA.: Nasa Task Load Index (TLX) (1986)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rosson, M.B., Kellogg, W., Maass, S.: The designer as user: building requirements for design tools from design practice. Commun. ACM 31(11), 1288–1298 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Virzi, R.A., Sokolov, J.L., Karis, D.: Usability problem identification using both low-and high-fidelity prototypes. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 236–243. ACM (1996)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Simsarian, K.T.: Take it to the next stage: the roles of role playing in the design process. In CHI’03 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1012–1013. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Aquino, P.T., Vilela, L., Filgueiras, L.: User modeling with personas. In: Proceedings of the 2005 Latin American Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Cuernavaca, Mexico, pp. 277–281 (2005)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pruitt, J., Adlin, T.: The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People in Mind Throughout Product Design. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lazzaro, N. (2004). Why we play games: Four keys to more emotion without storyGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Perkins, K.N.: Paper dreams: The art and artists of Disney storyboards (1999)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    McGonigal, J.: Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. Penguin (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiyoung Lee
    • 1
  • Jihyo Kim
    • 2
  • Kyoungwon Seo
    • 2
  • Seunghwan Roh
    • 3
  • Changho Jung
    • 4
  • Hyunwoo Lee
    • 4
  • Jongho Shin
    • 4
  • Gyunghyun Choi
    • 5
  • Hokyoung Ryu
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.iSol Lab., Department of Industrial EngineeringHanyang UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Imagine Lab., Department of Industrial EngineeringHanyang UniversitySeoulKorea
  3. 3.Imagine Lab., Graduate School of Technology and Innovation ManagementHanyang UniversitySeoulKorea
  4. 4.Uiwang-siKorea
  5. 5.iSol Lab., Graduate School of Technology and Innovation ManagementHanyang UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations