Value Propositions for Serious Games in Health and Well-Being

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7528)


There are many different potential applications for Serious Games (SGs) in the field of Health and Well-being. While a significant number of SGs have already been produced, there is often a lack of consideration of the business aspects of the development including the market realities for a particular SG application. The development of a value dimensions framework and the analysis of a representative sample of SGs across a range of different Health and Well-being functional (market) sectors revealed significant diversity between functional sectors. Furthermore, an additional level of complexity may be added when the end-users of a SG are separate and distinct entities from the stakeholder(s) commissioning (and paying) for the development of a SG and as a result may differ in their perceptions of value. It is recommended that value propositions need to be carefully considered when planning the development of SGs in the field of Health and Well-being.


Serious Games Value Dimension Value Proposition Health Well-being 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization.: Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19 June-22 July 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Goldstein, D., Loughran, J., Donner, A.: Health eGames Market Report (2008),
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Kato, P.M.: Video games in health care: Closing the gap. Rev. Gen. Psych. 14, 113–121 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gershenfeld, A.: Response to Merrilea Mayo’s paper Bringing Game Based Learning To Scale: The Business Challenges of Serious Games,
  7. 7.
    World Health Organization.: Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. First International Conference on Health Promotion Ottawa (November 21, 1986),
  8. 8.
    Lehoux, P., Hivon, M., Williams-Jones, B., Miller, F., Urbach, D.: How do medical device manufacturers’ websites frame the value of health innovation? An empirical ethics analysis of five Canadian innovations. Med. Health Care & Phil. 15, 61 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence,
  10. 10.
    Glasgow, R.E., Vogt, T.M., Boles, S.M.: Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am. J. Pub. Health 89, 1322–1327 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laing, A., Keeling, D., Newholm, T.: Virtual communities come of age: Parallel service, value, and propositions offered in communal online space. J. Mark. Man. 27, 291–315 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    foldit Solve Puzzles for Science,
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Kawrykow, A., Roumanis, G., Kam, A., Kwak, D., Leung, C., Wu, C., Zarour, E., Sarmenta, L., Blanchette, M., Waldispühl, J.: A Citizen Science Approach for Improving Multiple Sequence Alignment. PLoS ONE 7, e31362 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindič, J., Marques da Silva, C.: Value proposition as a catalyst for a customer focused innovation. Man. Dec. 49, 1694–1708 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Glanz, K., Rimer, B., Viswanath, K.: Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bremer Institut fuer Produktion und Logistik GmbH-BIBABremenGermany
  2. 2.Heriot-Watt UniversityEdinburghUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.ORT FranceParisFrance
  4. 4.ATOSSpain
  5. 5.CEDEPFrance
  6. 6.PlayGenLondonUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations