Jeroen van Bree

29 October 2007

What We Can Learn from What We Can Learn from Virtual (Gaming) WorldsVirtual (Gaming) Worlds

Series on Communities of Practice in Series on Communities of Practice in Immersive EnvironmentsImmersive Environments

CP SquareCP Square

2

A few words about my background

• M.Sc. in Management Information (Tilburg University, The Netherlands) and Technology & Human Affairs (Washington University in Saint Louis)

• 12 years of experience as a management consultant• Currently work for YNNO, a small consultancy firm for new ways of

working in The Netherlands• Clients: insurance companies, Dutch government, healthcare industry• Areas of expertise: collaborative technologies, virtual teamwork,

knowledge management, digital working, office design• Since August 2006 also Ph.D. candidate at Nyenrode Business

Universiteit• Status: finishing initial theory development, doing exploratory fieldwork, in

preparation stage for empirical study

3

My research agenda

• Isolating mechanisms in virtual worlds that lead to effective (group) behavior

• Uncovering the (game) design patterns behind this• Applying these design patterns in an organizational setting

With the goal of improving certain aspects of organizations, such as organizational learning and knowledge transfer.

My approach differs from the Serious Games movement, in that:

• The end product does not have to be a game

• The end product is embedded in the work, not a separate activity

4

Premise

The (networking) skills are there, we just need to create an environment where these skills can be used

• “traditional” organizations do not offer this environment• virtual worlds do

5

Current fieldwork

• World of Warcraft• Immersive ethnographic fieldwork since June of this year

6

Plans for the coming months

• Working on a paper about the initial findings of the fieldwork• Collaborating with Marinka Copier to set up a research

program around this subject• Marinka Copier is Assistant Professor New Media and Digital Culture at

Utrecht University and Head of the Game Design program at the Utrecht School of the Arts

• Continuing the discussion with managers about this issue

Jeroen van Bree

29 October 2007

Bridging the gap:Bridging the gap:Virtual Worlds as a Platform Virtual Worlds as a Platform for Knowledge Transferfor Knowledge Transfer

Third International Conference on Third International Conference on Communities and TechnologiesCommunities and Technologies

Michigan State UniversityMichigan State University

8

Starting point: knowledge transfer

• Effective knowledge transfer leads to sustained competitive advantage (Prusak, 2001; Thomas & Allen, 2006)

− by making companies more agile − and by fostering creative problem solving (Soo, et al., 2002)

• The major challenges lie in the area of tacit knowledge• Larry Prusak: “…don’t capture, but connect…”• Knowledge is embedded in a community (Dixon, 2000;

Wenger & Snyder, 2000; McDermott, 1999)

9

Conditions for knowledge transfer

• Communication is key (Davenport & Prusak, 2000)• It requires the full spectrum of communication• It is best served by spontaneous meetings of the mind• Trust is necessary (Matson & Prusak, 2006)

• Traditional view: this requires face-to-face contact (Davenport & Prusak, 2000; Dixon, 2000)

• However: face-to-face contact is often expensive and time-consuming

10

Problems of computer supported cooperative work (CSCW)• Communicating ambiguous information takes more time (Daft

& Lengel, 1986; Walther, 1996)• Supporting informal interactions is difficult (Dourish & Bly,

1992; Kraut, et al., 1990)• In general: supporting the social aspects of work is difficult

– Ackerman (2000): “the social-technical gap”– showing promise: use of instant messaging in the workplace

• Thus: CSCW falls short in supporting knowledge transfer because it fails to support “the talk around the task” (Brown, et al., 2005)

11

A fundamental problem of approach?

“[T]elecommunications research seems to work under the implicit assumption that there is a natural and perfect state - being there - and that our state is in some sense broken when we are not physically proximate. The goal then is to attempt to restore us, as best as possible, to the state of being there. [This orients] us towards the construction of crutch-like telecommunication tools (…)”

Jim Hollan & Scott Stornetta (1992)

12

A new starting point

• There are practices taking place in virtual worlds that may foreshadow new ways of working in enterprises

• Apparently communicating and collaborating without “being there” is not an issue in virtual worlds

• The divide: CSCW is connected to work, while virtual worlds inhabit the realm of play

13

14

The key difference: motivation

• Virtual worlds are intrinsically motivating• Computer supported cooperative work is extrinsically

motivating: the outcome of the activity supplies the motivation (completing a work-related task)

15

Illustration of extrinsic motivation

“You have to be extremely focused on results [when you work in a virtual team]. People that are focused on the process will most likely have big problems. That’s because the satisfaction you get from the process is very low.”

“The first thing you notice about virtual meetings is that they are much more businesslike, more to the point than regular meetings. Whereas in regular meetings people exchange some small talk and talk about personal things, this is lost in virtual meetings.”

16

Hypothesis

A higher level of intrinsic motivation when using computer-mediated communication always equals a better support for the social aspects of work patterns (specifically: informal communication and trust)

17

Motivation in virtual worlds

These five elements cause intrinsic motivation in virtual worlds:• competence• autonomy• relatedness• fantasy• curiosity

18

Competence

• Creating a balance between skills and challenges (Lepper & Malone, 1987)

• Condition for a flow experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990): rules that require the learning of skills

• A feeling of effectiveness (Ryan, et al., 2006)

19

Autonomy

• Providing a sense of control to the user (Lepper & Malone, 1987)

• Condition for a flow experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990): the possibility to exercise control

• A sense of volition (Ryan, et al., 2006)

• The first person imperative: participating as an agent (Laurel, 1993)

• Immediate feedback (Steinkuehler, 2004)

20

Relatedness• The feeling of belonging and being connected

with others (Ryan, et al., 2006)• A new type of third places: places for neither

work nor home where informal social interactions can take place (Steinkuehler, 2005)

• Opportunity for social action: the ability to do things together with others (Brown & Bell, 2004; Ducheneaut, et al., 2007)

• A space that makes it possible to “bump into” people and strike up opportunistic conversations (Evard, et al., 2001)

21

Fantasy

• Creating fantasy situations (Lepper & Malone, 1987)

• “making the activity as distinct as possible from the so-called ‘paramount reality’ of everyday existence” is conducive to flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990)

22

Curiosity

• Stimulating the sensory and cognitive curiosity of users (Lepper & Malone, 1987)

• Curiosity is socially stimulated (Steinkuehler, 2004)

23

Also playing a role…

Extrinsic motivation that has been internalized:• External regulation: satisfy an external demand or reward

(Ryan & Deci, 2000); – conditioning mechanisms in place to make players accept

tedium (Yee, 2006)• Introjected regulation: avoid guilt or attain ego enhancements

(Ryan & Deci, 2000);– virtual worlds offer motivators such as competition,

collaboration and recognition (Bonk & Dennen, 2005)

24

virtual worlds

Virtual worlds and knowledge transfer

intrinsicmotivation

social aspects

knowledgetransfer

???

Jeroen van Bree

29 October 2007

Questions?