Knowledge Management as a Prism to Better Distinguish Useful Forms Derived from or Inspired by Games or Play Activities

Abstract

Games, play and, by extension, gamification, or playification activities can be seen as sources of inspiration for the development of many and varied devices. The scientific literature on the subject and the tools, activities, or systems used are in full development and focus as much on the characteristics of the forms as on the characteristics of the components themselves. It therefore seemed appropriate and justified to link these uses to knowledge management. Indeed, each aspect of knowledge management can be associated with one or more categories of serious games, serious play, game with a purpose, game-derived, etc. Knowledge management can thus be used as a model for a meta-analysis of game-derived forms employed within organizations. It seems equally relevant to us to reflexively question the categories of jobs inspired by and derived from games, and to define their main characteristics, as contributions to the strands of knowledge management. A whole field of practice and study can thus be revealed at the intersection of those of knowledge management and forms of devices or professional tasks more or less inspired by games.

1. Introduction

The game has taken an important place in our societies. Its use can be purely recreational, but it can also be motivated by an additional utilitarian purpose, independent of leisure. It is within this context that we consider knowledge management in this chapter as a means of considering all these new types of jobs, more or less diverted or inspired by games. This perspective is not fundamentally original. We share it with other researchers [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. However, these works only present a particular vision, an aspect, of what exists as forms inspired by play or games in connection with knowledge management, or propose a very quick review of the main existing categories. This chapter provides a more comprehensive overview. Thus, like other authors [12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17], we approach knowledge management by expressing it through five main components or sub-processes, which we group as follows: (A) identification and mapping of knowledge, (B) acquisition and updating of knowledge (present in the organization), (C) sharing and use of knowledge, (D) formalization and capitalization of knowledge, (E) creation and transfer of knowledge for innovation. As we progress, we discuss a variety of forms derived from games contributing to each of these processes. We cannot be exhaustive, as these forms are numerous and varied [18], but we aim to give you a sufficiently broad and varied overview to allow you to have a fairly comprehensive idea of the existing major categories. However, before addressing these categories, it seems necessary for us to define what a game can be and, by extension, a serious form derived from games.

2. Play and games characteristics

Games and play give rise to multiple proposals that draw more or less inspiration to solve problems and provide support that goes well beyond the playful sphere. In fact, to have a correct understanding of this field of applications, it seems important to quickly discuss the main characteristics of purely playful forms and then focus on serious gaming forms.

For at least 70 years, gaming activities have been perceived as distinct from non-gaming activities. We have a set of criteria to characterize them, inherited from Johan Huizinga [19] at the international level and from Roger Caillois [20] in a more Francophone context. According to these two authors, an activity can be qualified as a game if it meets the following conditions:

• it must be practiced freely by its players;

• its boundaries must be recognizable in spatial and temporal dimensions;

• from the players’ point of view, it must be easily possible to distinguish a limited duration, that is, a playtime (at least, its beginning and end) and the boundaries of the space that accommodates it;

• the activity must be subject to accept and known rules by its players;

• it must be an escape from reality (be fictional).

These characteristics are common to all games/play and contribute to establishing the identity of each one. Roger Caillois added to Huizinga’s characteristics the conditions of unproductivity and uncertainty in the course of the game or play. The unproductive nature means that the game itself does not produce anything. As for the unproductivity aspect, it requires that players cannot predict the entirety of the game’s progression, including its duration. Moreover, Caillois also removed the requirement for the development of a feeling of tension and joy on the part of the players, which Huizinga had among his characteristics but did not find in games played seriously.

By proposing that the activity be unproductive rather than free (as initially proposed by Huizinga), Caillois incorporates the possibility of transferring goods from one player to another within the framework of a game [20]. The total amount of money involved in the game at the beginning must be the same at the end of the game. This allows for the inclusion of games such as Poker and other Casino games in this definition. However, in the case of Lotteries, there is a concern, as typically a portion of the money wagered is used to fund another activity (e.g., a charity). To still consider these activities as unproductive, it is possible to view the funding that motivates them as an entry fee that the player must pay to access a game, but this distorts Caillois’s criterion of unproductivity slightly.

With these last two examples of games, the issue of the association between seriousness and play arises. According to Caillois, games can already be considered as serious forms of play in terms of concentration and involvement of at least some players regarding the amounts that can be won (or lost). Similarly, the contextual situation and the stakes involved can make the game much more serious than it should be. Let us recall, for example, the chess matches between Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky or those of Garry Kasparov and Deep Blue.

For Huizinga, the perspective is slightly different; the playful nature is superior to seriousness and prevails over the latter. However, with these two authors, we remain within the framework of classical games, with the exception of certain cultural cases, such as religious ones (e.g., the case of the whirling dervishes).

But these two authors have avoided discussing other forms closely resembling games that have been regularly used for at least a few centuries, particularly by the military [21] or educators [22]. Thus, educational or simulation games (including wargames or kriegspiels) do not meet the majority of the criteria of Huizinga and Caillois to be qualified as games. Even if we set aside the criterion of unproductivity, considering that there will only be a transfer of information or knowledge, it seems challenging not to consider these games as unimposed (the teacher or military superior imposing to “play”). Similarly, it is difficult to argue that these games are fully distinct from real activities (even more so in the case of simulation games, including wargames).

We will delve into some of these forms of games designed for serious purposes in more detail. However, since we just talked about it, we need to already put into perspective what we mean by a serious objective. Indeed, this serious objective is relative to the person who has identified it and is trying to achieve it through play. It can be difficult to determine whether the situation falls under a form of serious play or not. For example, how would you qualify the situation of a parent who, to accomplish a task (serious objective) at home, encourages their somewhat unruly child to play on a console (playful context)?

From the perspective of the encouraging parent, the game is intended to achieve a serious objective (having a moment of peace to work). From the child’s point of view, if the proposal is appealing to them, they at least feel they have the freedom to play.

It is therefore quite challenging to define what a game or play can be, and even more difficult to deduce what a serious game, a game-inspired structure, a serious playful activity, or a serious activity in the context of play is, etc. There have been attempts at synthesis, such as that of Wardaszko [23], from which we draw the fundamentals. In his doctoral thesis, Wardaszko identified 16 criteria to define a game based on about 10 definitions proposed by various experts in the field. However, in the table he produced, it is observed that only two criteria are in consensus or nearly so: (1) a game includes rules that guide and limit the players in what they can do, and (2) there is an objective or results to be achieved at the end of the game. However, these two criteria alone are not sufficient to qualify an activity or structure as a game, including serious games. Indeed, if we attempt a definition by reciprocal, there are far too many structures or activities that do not fall under the category of games (e.g., the development of a business project follows the rules, presents objectives, and results to achieve). Therefore, we adopt a third criterion to define a game, drawn from a French author and game specialist: Henriot [24]. Among his works, he had mentioned the problem of defining what a game or a game activity is, as the perception of what a game is also depends on culture, era, and thus the viewpoint. We adopt his criterion, which qualifies a (3) activity or a structure that resembles another recognized game as such.

Thus, the three Game criteria (G1, G2, and G3) used to qualify a game or a game activity are as follows: A game or activity must (G1) strongly resemble a form already recognized as a game or game activity, (G2) have rules guiding the players, and (G3) aim for an objective to be achieved that motivates or justifies, at least in part, the interest in playing it. In addition, we add four other Play criteria (P1, P2, P3, and P4) that reinforce the playful aspect more than they characterize it. We adopt as the first Play criterion the one from Huizinga, specifying that (P1) the activity is more game-like if it also creates a feeling of tension and joy among its players. We note, however, that this criterion is redundant since it reinforces the one of similarity to another game and is also quite difficult to assess (observation or questioning of players is required to determine it). Two Play criteria are borrowed from Caillois. Criterion (P2) concerns the uncertainty of the game’s progression. It can justify the game itself (trial and error, exploration of possibilities, challenges to overcome…). It is understood that criteria (P1) and (P2) are closely related, as the uncertainty of an outcome itself creates a form of tension during the activity and potential joy in case of success, even partial. The criterion (P3) is that of play freedom, which we propose in the form of a corollary. In a serious context, there is play freedom if at least one non-playful alternative is offered to individuals to perform the same tasks or activities. Depending on the cases, non-players may not wish to participate in a serious game or a gamified activity [25], while in other cases, it is the players who may reject a form of serious game that they do not recognize, while non-players may appreciate this change [26]. By leaving the choice of engagement or non-engagement in a gamified activity or structure, we can involve all individuals. It also allows for alternating roles and limiting issues of fatigue related to the repetition of the same activities.

We thus have minimum criteria to define a game, while the level of seriousness that may or may not be associated with it depends on the context of game use and the engagement of the people participating, considered as players. Therefore, there are forms of serious games that are closer to pure ludic games and others that are more distant. Of course, there is a somewhat difficult boundary to place, beyond which the practice or structure considered cannot be classified as a game. We will also see when we apply this in a serious setting that it is preferable to add an (P4) criterion to the criteria already set out, so that the game is not a tool for manipulating people. Indeed, this would run counter to the ply principle itself.

3. Serious games, serious play, gamification, and others playful or gameful inspirations

The list of various game or play-inspired structures and activities to achieve a serious purpose is quite extensive. In this section, the most well-known and complementary ones will be presented to you.

3.1 Serious games

The expression serious game was used in the sense it is now attributed in a book dedicated to the subject published in 1970 by Clark Abt [27], but it took a few years and the development of serious video games for the term to be widely employed. However, the utility games discussed in Abt’s book were not video games, which can be explained by the year of publication. Nevertheless, in the early 2000s, a sort of equivalence between serious games and serious video games was made. This is undoubtedly due to the success of video games since the 1970s and the relatively discreet development of other forms of serious games until the last 20 years. We will see that there are many forms of games related to knowledge management, and whether they are digital or not does not matter much. But before we establish a connection between forms of serious games and knowledge management sub-processes, let us first review some of the most well-known of these forms.

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the field of education has been the most fruitful with learning or educational games (edutainment, Edugames, learning games). However, from the very beginning, serious games do not necessarily serve as a support for acquiring knowledge or exercising skills specific to a single discipline. Depending on the learning strategies implemented through games, the approach can be multidisciplinary, blending communication, informational, linguistic, managerial, and pedagogical skills [28]. Then, other categories of serious games have appeared, dedicated to training or exercise through simulation (exergames), advertising (advergames), information (newsgames), art (artgames), data collection (datagames), etc.

What these serious games have in common, in addition to the three fundamental criteria mentioned above, is that they are structures expressly designed as game structures (if the outcome is successful) so that the people using them find them as enjoyable as games, but with the complementary objective of achieving a serious goal by employing them (learning, improving, being informed, raising awareness, creating a work of art, …). Most of these serious games have attempted to be appreciated and create a sense of joy among their players, without necessarily succeeding often. Of course, we must also include military serious games (wargames) and their practice (wargaming), dedicated to both training, exercise, and exploration of tactics or other possible choices. However, the designers of these latter forms have not attempted to make the gameplay fun; on the contrary, the military domain imposes seriousness in the very practice of a form of the game [29].

3.2 Games with a purpose

These forms of games have generated others, among which is the category of Games With A Purpose (GWAP), also known as Games For (A) Purpose. These games are a derivative of Luis von Ahn’s invention of CAPTCHAS (for: Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart) [30]. CAPTCHAS are designed to engage and employ a large number of people through a digital interface to assist in performing tasks that are not easily automated. Therefore, they represent a form of crowdsourcing. Shortly after, the same author, along with Laura Dabbish, proposed small games inspired by CAPTCHAS for annotating, particularly images [31]. This category was called ESP games for ExtraSensory Perception games [32]. Following this proposal and the enthusiasm generated by this type of serious games, new names were suggested, such as ‘game-based crowdsourcing’ or ‘crowdsourcing-based game,’ but it seems that the term GWAP is now the most widely used.

In this context, most GWAPs are based on soliciting and employing a large number of ‘players,’ who may be more or less voluntary contributors [33]. The early GWAPs were based on crowdsourcing, which led to the development of other games following the same principle. However, we found that the crowdsourcing aspect was not a necessary characteristic to distinguish GWAPs from other serious games, especially since it is possible to create games to solve problems (and thus qualify as GWAPs) by involving only a small group of participants. Such forms may be referred to as micro-crowdsourcing [34] or swarm gaming [35].

There is another criterion that differentiates a GWAP from other serious games more easily. In the case of a GWAP, the ‘players’ are workers whose work primarily contributes to another recipient. In a ‘classic’ serious game, the player is the recipient and, therefore, the beneficiary of the game’s contribution, which is not the case with a GWAP. However, GWAPs must still be distinguished from certain gamified structures developed to encourage people to perform tasks for others at a lower cost, which Ian Bogost [36] calls ‘exploitationware.’ Therefore, among serious games that include GWAPs, there is another criterion to meet to avoid classifying them as exploitationwares or games based on player deception. In a genuine GWAP, participants are clearly informed, before starting the game, about the use of data or other benefits derived from the activity of employing the GWAP and its direct beneficiaries. Given its importance, this criterion is added to the Play criteria mentioned above as (P4).

3.3 Empathic games and other related games

Another branch of serious games that is quite close to both purely recreational games and GWAPs is that of persuasive games, which were named as such by I. Bogost during the second half of the 2000s. These are games designed to convey a message and influence the people who play them in order to raise awareness or convince them to change their beliefs or behavior regarding a given situation presented in the ‘game’ [37]. In this sense, they can be considered serious games of the goal-oriented type, whose main objective is to achieve a change in belief among the ‘players,’ even if, strictly speaking, they function in the opposite direction of GWAPs (from the game to the crowd rather than from the crowd to the game). In this sense, they are social serious games, meaning that their dissemination primarily occurs via social networks [38]. This aspect made us realize that goal-oriented games, qualified as such by their creators, generally announce their serious intention before the game starts, which is not necessarily the case with persuasive games.

Persuasive games would be a kind of empathic games (empathy serious games/empathic serious games), and Martine Mauriras-Bousquet’s definition [39] regarding business role-playing games seems to correspond to them if we generalize the context: ‘designed to help executives put themselves in the shoes of their subordinates, understand their problems, and see things from their point of view.’ Forgotten for several decades, these games have been the subject of research again and reappeared under this name, shortly after the term expressive games. However, it seems that this expression is mainly used to evoke games that emotionally engage the player, as in the case of The Walking Dead (Telltale Games) presented as an empathic game by Caballero [40]. From this perspective, Heidi McDonald [41] also includes romance games in this category.

Expressive games would be serious empathic games. With empathic games, these games often share the common feature of encouraging players, through their mechanics, to reflect on sensitive subjects based on sentimental content [42]. They impose reflection on a problematic situation experienced by others, while non-expressive empathic games only offer an additional experience based on mechanisms involving emotional stimuli. In a very similar vein, we can also mention a specific expressive game, which are designed as recreational games but have the dual function of prompting players, through the experience offered through the game, to reflect on a real problematic situation [43]. From this perspective, expressive games are ludic empathic games, meaning that they are positioned in contrast to persuasive games, which are empathic serious games. The entire category of empathic games would fall between these two opposing concepts.

3.4 Serious play and serious gaming

We have just discussed various games designed to achieve a serious purpose in a more or less playful manner. However, it is not always necessary to create a game to blend playfulness and seriousness. It is possible to use an existing game or components of a game and associate them with a method of use to guide people in a purposeful use of originally playful components. Among these types of usage, the Lego Serious Play method is emblematic. Imagined in 1995, this method is initially based on the use of the famous Lego bricks combined with a metaphorical reasoning to allow people to share a vision of a problem, exchange viewpoints on a situation, etc. After difficult beginnings and multiple modifications, this method found success in the early 2000s [44]. Due to its success and the alternative it offers to the design of serious games, this method has given rise to many others (Playmobil Pro, Business origami, Minecraft serious play).

Although the expression may be ambiguous, some authors [45, 46, 47] prefer to use the term serious gaming rather than serious play to better distinguish it from the method using Lego bricks. In this sense, when we talk about serious gaming, it refers to utility activities that involve repurposing a game structure for serious purposes. However, we note that other authors prefer to use the term serious gaming to signify that it refers to practices of serious games [48, 49, 50, 51], or even to a set of utilitarian uses of serious games or non-serious games [52]. Bouko and Alvarez [47] prefer to use the term serious diverting to refer to forms of serious play, but this terminological usage is limited only to the publications of these authors. We prefer to use the term serious play, which is more widely used and seems less problematic in terms of interpretation, as it directly relates to the activity of play. However, to better distinguish serious play from serious gaming as the practice of a serious game, we add the specific criterion that serious play requires a person to accompany the players as a facilitator (or even a referee) of the activity. This can be a participant who takes on this particular role, but in this case, their practice will be different from that of other participants, as they will guide and encourage them without directly participating in the reflections and choices of the other players.

3.5 Approaches combining serious game design and serious play

There is at least one form of practice that combines the design of serious games and serious play. We have already mentioned this one, which is quite ancient: wargaming. This activity, primarily conducted by military and diplomatic personnel, takes various forms. In one way or another, it involves having a game based on a map and reasoning, argumentation, movement, confrontation mechanisms, etc., presenting a specific situation and at least one objective for which the participants/players must reflect and provide at least one response. Depending on the problems and related needs, the activity varies. It may involve designing a dedicated game or simply adapting an existing game, which will lead to one or more game sessions. These sessions can take place in various formats, such as seminar wargames [53], course of action wargames [54], red teaming wargames [54], matrix games [55], depending on the intended purpose. In these cases, unless the objective is personnel training (where using a pre-existing game is possible), the design or adaptation of a game is the first part of a process aimed at addressing a specific problem, and the practical implementation (game activity) is the second part, thereby increasing the possibilities offered.

In terms of characteristic criteria for these forms, they are simulation games requiring a facilitator and a referee (it can be the same person), as well as the design of at least one scenario and a map representing a past, current, or potential situation as a starting point for the game, along with rules and mechanisms based on real data. Additionally, concerning the played sessions, they require a preparatory briefing phase for the players to respond effectively to the posed problem, and once the play activity is completed, it concludes with a debriefing phase to capitalize on knowledge and data generated from the play.

3.6 Partial or complete design of serious games or serious play

The design of serious games and other serious activities inspired by games can take various forms and achieve different objectives. The design of a serious game or play can itself be a method of learning (learning by serious game or play design) [56] and address other issues that we will discuss a little further. However, it is not always necessary to create a game from scratch or design a complete game structure or activity to achieve the desired goal.

If we consider the game activity, at least two expressions have emerged to describe this type of transformation: gamification [57, 58] and playful design [59]. Gamification aims to change people’s attitude directly or indirectly by modifying the context in which they operate, through the integration of game design elements or elements reminiscent of the gaming universe, to make the work context more stimulating. When the context is changed to bring a more playful touch, some refer to it as structural gamification [60], but we find it simpler to call it contextual playful design since the structure of the work context is still modified. In these cases, the work itself is not changed, but it is associated with a gamified system that may be based, for example, on gaining or losing badges and/or experience points, progressing through virtual statuses, adding an esthetic veneer evoking the game, etc. These additions of contextual elements are supposed to create new interactions with reference to a game, a form of play, or partially imitating a gaming space. This transformation of the space can be more or less extensive. It can be limited to elements constituting the decor of a place, such as at the Google Campus, where the game is present through various esthetic reminders in the work environment, but without these elements directly affecting the work itself [61].

According to another inverted approach that could be considered a particular form of goal-oriented game, we can talk about gamification when the game is integrated into work, and playing contributes to better performance, better support for repetitive tasks, or maintaining a high level of attention [62]. In these cases, the integration of a game into a given situation changes its configuration and contributes to its improvement.

In an approach focused on the proper design of a structure by transforming it more or less using game elements, there is the gamification approach [59]. This also applies when designing a game structure or one that strongly evokes gaming and associating it with a work context to improve conditions or performance. This works equally well with digital and non-digital inputs. For instance, to raise awareness or support people in the practice of agile methods (such as project design and management methods like Scrum, Kanban, DevOps…), numerous agile games, whose names are associated with their context of use, have been proposed. Some are genuine serious games, while others are adaptations of serious play or pure games, and still others are more gamified structures. To achieve the same goal, there is a reverse approach to the design process called disengamement (this neologism was created by melding the terms disengagement and game). This involves using a game as a base and modifying it to adapt it to the goals [63]. If it is a simple contextualization without changing the nature of the game, as we mentioned earlier with the case of situational gamification and previously with serious play if the way of practicing the game structure is changed. If the game is slightly modified or adapted without major changes (the original game is still easily recognizable in terms of mechanics and esthetics), we can speak of serious modding [47]. If the disengamement process is carried out thoroughly, fundamental elements of the game are removed, non-playful components are added to adapt it to the desired objective, and the game mechanics may even completely disappear… If we follow this logic of design by transforming a game away from its nature, at the end of the process, we get a structure that is no longer playful, just as a gamification process taken to its limits results in the design of a game. Of course, in practice, these processes and their variants are often alternated to achieve the desired structure and test prototypes designed gradually.

4. Knowledge management and serious game or play

We have just reviewed various forms, more or less inspired by games or play, to achieve serious objectives. Now, we will approach them through the prism of knowledge management, more specifically, the five sub-processes presented in the introduction.

4.1 Knowledge spotting and mapping

Play or Games can greatly inspire organizations to identify and map the knowledge present within them. Firstly, although this applies to each process, the already employed Knowledge spotting and mapping tools and methods can be gamified or playfied. Indeed, gameful design and gamification work very well in offering alternative approaches to what already exists. We prefer to talk about alternative or complementary approaches because, as mentioned earlier (criterion s3), it is preferable for the game to be the participants free choice. Even when it involves partial transformation, it is better to consider two paths that are equivalent in terms of the personnel’s choices. The first is the use of conventional tools and methods (i.e., without any link to games). The second path involves an approach evoking games while leading to the same purpose. If the goal is to populate a database, an ontology, or a map, there is no reason why both aspects (with or without ludic inspiration) should not be proposed.

If digital tools are used for this purpose, gamification can take the form of limited badges or points awarded to participants based on their number of contributions. These badges can also be used to recognize certain expertise within the organization [64]. With different approaches based on crowdsourcing or micro-crowdsourcing that question the available skills and expertise using CAPTCHAS or digital games with a purpose, the obtained responses regarding expertise-related questions can be cross-referenced to highlight the most consensual ones (perhaps less interesting, as they are known by a larger number of people) and the least frequently mentioned ones that deserve verification. This type of device can also be applied to the development of a knowledge ontology [65] or to maps constructed over time and regularly updated, similar to what is used by Waze, the road traffic tool, through voluntary participants [66]. Another possibility is to map user experience using a game of questions or a role-playing game based on different personas (one per card) [67]. It will then be possible, based on the produced map(s), to explore available or even missing skills and knowledge and to report on them. On the same principle, it is possible to create a map in the form of a wargame on a board, showing the strengths and weaknesses of a system or a product (based on an adaptation of a User Experience map and a list of fundamental parameters) [68].

4.2 Knowledge acquisition and update

Acquiring and updating knowledge can take various forms. Among these, there is the recruitment of new personnel. Thus, an approach that appeals to games, but which has also been one of the early successes of serious games, is recruitment assistance. Some games allow the identification of skills among numerous candidates. For example, America’s Army was developed by the U.S. military from the core of a first-person shooter game, Unreal Tournament (developed by Epic Games and Digital Extremes), in the early 2000s. It significantly improved recruiting new recruits for many years [69]. Similarly, games in different forms can be used in human resources for attractiveness and candidate selection purposes, and it is now a commonly considered solution [70] both in physical and virtual settings.

Among the inspired forms that can contribute to recruitment, those based on crowdsourcing (gwap) are quite effective and adaptable to different contexts. For example, by involving numerous people, some more or less expert, and by cross-referencing their responses, it is possible to complement the existing data, estimating a date, a location [71], relevant keywords (we will return to this in the case of knowledge capitalization). Similarly, problem-solving by exploring multiple possibilities, drawing on the intuition and understanding of a crowd of people, can also be envisaged. One of the first successful games with a purpose, successfully implemented, this proposition is Foldit [72]. This game was developed from protein folding simulation software to identify efficient positions to combat viruses (including HIV and more recently, Covid-19). It found a solution within a few weeks that other forms of computer simulations had not been able to recognize. This game with a purpose has since inspired others, including Eterna, also dedicated to medical research, but there are numerous other application domains [73].

It is also possible to use a physical game, such as a card game like Rummy of attributes, where participants play in small groups (e.g., 3–6 people) to find common points between elements of the same nature represented on cards (projects, departments, products, locations, etc.). By recognizing common points or making connections with different elements that players recognize or are aware of, implicit elements can be easily collected [74]. By playing this game over time, new data may appear and complement those already in memory.

4.3 Knowledge sharing and utilization

A wide range of game-inspired approaches can facilitate knowledge sharing, so much so that we might consider there to be a specific category of play and games with a sharing purpose. But among these games and activities two sets are particularly prominent. Thus, the first set is strongly linked to the context of educational learning. Indeed, there is an enormous number of serious games dedicated to this purpose, to the extent that one might believe that the sole function of serious games is education. The literature about serious game for education topic is extensive, so we will not dwell on this aspect of knowledge sharing.

The second set is complementary to the first, i.e. to all other forms of knowledge sharing. It brings together various approaches, of which serious play seems to be the most prevalent. Indeed, the integration of gaming elements and tools with a method to guide participants toward a serious objective has been extensively developed in the last two decades, following the early success of the Lego Serious Play method. This method paved the way for knowledge sharing by facilitating group interactions around a table [4, 43]. The generic idea is to gather participants in groups of 4 to 8 around a table and follow the instructions of a facilitator. Participants then build structures based on metaphors to introduce themselves and often engage in ice-breaker activities to build trust within the group. They are then prompted to solve a problem and propose a representation or a solution, starting with an individual construction, which is later explained to the other members at the table. Finally, the participants collectively create a construction that represents the problem and/or a potential solution. We will revisit the contribution of this method to innovation later. By allowing individuals to express themselves differently and represent knowledge using toys or symbolic elements, this approach provides alternative ways to share knowledge. Similar methods based on origami [75], Playmobil figures and toys [76], or adaptations of digital games, such as Minecraft [77], have also been proposed and successfully used.

Of course, this is not entirely new. Mannequins were developed as early as the 1960s to train people in emergency procedures [78], and dolls have been used since the eighteenth century [79]. As we have seen, wargaming is also an ancient practice that facilitates knowledge sharing and utilization. Regarding knowledge sharing, we particularly emphasize the interest in the Pros vs. Cons matrix game method, which can easily be applied outside the military domain. In its basic form, this system is relatively simple. The facilitator asks participants or players gathered around a table to present logical arguments in the form of sequences of actions to be taken to solve a problem or face a situation [55]. Players can oppose each other (which is preferable for argument development). One player or team presents valid arguments in favor of a specific action (justifying its potential success), while others argue against that action (highlighting its potential failure or at least its limited chances of success). After a few exchanges around the table and possible arbitration by the referee, the player who argued in favor of the success of a sequence rolls 2 six-sided dice or 3 six-sided dice (the latter option seems preferable). To succeed in the sequence, the player must obtain a score higher than the average of the dice rolls, with a bonus or penalty depending on the number and value of arguments proposed and validated by the referee in favor (pros) and against (cons) during the preceding discussion (with 3 six-sided dice, the average score is 11, and if, for example, there are 3 arguments for and 2 arguments against, the player must roll a score of 12 or higher to succeed because of a + 1 bonus = 3 pros – 2 cons). This system is inspired by tabletop role-playing games, with the referee acting as the game master. Knowledge sharing occurs gradually throughout the process. It is desirable that action sequences be represented using figurines, drawings, or a chart to better track the evolution of events.

A lighter form that is suitable for planning is the agile game called Planning poker (or agile poker, scrum poker, etc.). Using a deck of cards, each with a different number from the Fibonacci sequence and color-coded into families, the players evaluate, for example, the time or complexity of a task by choosing one card from their deck and placing it face down in front of them. Then, all players simultaneously reveal their cards. Participants with the most extreme numbers justify their choices. Afterward, each player takes back their card and reevaluates the task. Depending on the approach, the average scores are calculated or attempts are made to reach a consensus [80].

As for knowledge utilization, the proposals are more limited but still exist. There are various forms of simulations, more or less game-like, that train individuals in tasks for which they already possess some theoretical knowledge but lack sufficient practical experience. Driving, flight, shooting, handling, sales, medical, and other simulators fall into this category [4, 81, 82]. These game-inspired forms are not limited to digital applications, as professional role-playing exercises, although requiring a facilitator, also represent another form of serious play. The origins of this approach date back to at least the works of Jean-Louis Moreno in 1946 and are still relevant today [83].

4.4 Knowledge formalization and capitalization

In principle, using games to formalize and capitalize knowledge may not seem easy. However, some game-inspired forms have been developed for this purpose, one of which is the design of serious games. Whether digital or physical, all serious games are forms of formalizing and capitalizing knowledge. The games designed in this way serve as models and choices of hypotheses and formalization, and it is advisable to keep track of them. Serious game/play design is also a very interesting activity when seeking to capitalize knowledge. This mode of design can also be applied to the development of analog games such as fresk workshops (the climate fresk, the digital fresk, the circular economy fresk…)¹. Such a workshop is based on animation relying on the participants’ reflection to reconstruct a sort of puzzle, which in its design requires a specific organization based on data organized in the form of a cause-and-effect diagram. These are persuasive games or persuasive play that, in their design framework, involve direct links with the knowledge they mobilize [84]. Similarly, the development of an empathic game (mentioned earlier) is a form of knowledge capitalization in itself, as the resulting game offers a simulation and sharing of a point of view on a situation by placing the player in the position of another person at a specific moment.

Another approach is to adapt/modify a serious game dedicated to learning, for example, to exploit it at a meta-knowledge level. The game then serves as a support for questions and annotations to better express certain learnings from the game [85]. It is no longer beginners who go through the game’s stages, but experts capable of providing information on various elements. This is a two-level serious game format. In a somewhat similar approach, a tool or platform designed for knowledge capitalization (by acquiring practices subsequently transformed into virtual reality modeling, for example) can be adapted and gamified to complement the information thus acquired [86].

In terms of games specifically dedicated in their practice to knowledge capitalization, we complement this list with two agile games and a type of wargame. Agile games are primarily intended to raise awareness, encourage, or support the implementation of agile methods. They include numerous games or game activities designed, adapted, or adapted for this purpose. Among all these games, those designed for the stage of an agile design process aimed at feedback (retrospective) are very interesting for knowledge capitalization. For example, games like Speed boat (or Seal boat) allow a team, via a graphic model (template) where the game consists of completing the parts, to provide a general update on the activities carried out, and the team members can together assess strengths, weaknesses, improvement opportunities, and problems that still need to be addressed [18]. Other agile games (Retrospective bingo, Game of throne retrospective, Lego retrospective, Starfish…) are dedicated to this team feedback and make a progress review more interesting and dynamic while addressing a number of questions that will bring out numerous knowledge that can be capitalized.

If one wishes to develop a complete sequence of knowledge acquisition, course of action wargames can be a good model for carrying out such a formula for a civil case. The principle of this type of wargame is quite simple in itself. An animator and referee leads participants to think together, either opposing or cooperating while being in competition, to solve a problem related to a situation. The game relies on a map on which elements are symbolized by locations, and results of actions are visualized. The participants develop a list of different possible courses of action (hence the name of this type of wargame), estimate them according to their risk of realization (success or failure and consequences in either case), and rank them based on a list of criteria (e.g., alignment with the set framework, feasibility of the intervention, its originality and distinction from other proposed actions). Then, the selected courses of action are played multiple times (in the form of matrix games, for example, as explained earlier) to complete the evaluation of each plan and gather all relevant information for the decisions to be made [87]. This type of game can also be used to analyze a past situation, the options available in relation to what was done and could have been done, to capitalize all this knowledge once argued, annotated, and proposed in an appropriate format for storage and future mobilization.

4.5 Knowledge creation and transfer to innovation

There are several serious forms inspired by play or games with the aim of contributing to knowledge creation or knowledge transfer directly contributing to an innovation process. Some of these forms are related to gamification or playification, respectively, involving the transformation of structures or non-playful activities by adding playful elements or even turning them into games.

Firstly, there are different creativity techniques and methods that have been transformed into game-like formats. One example is the Ball toss brainstorming, which is a simple brainstorming activity combined with a ball that players toss within a limited time to avoid elimination (each player must propose a new original idea when in possession of the ball). This technique can be supported by dedicated tools, such as the Qball [18], which is a foam ball containing a microphone that each participant uses to express their idea more clearly to others. Similarly, the Gamitrization gathers a set of tools from the TRIZ creativity method that have been transformed into a game [88]. Some of these tools are designed to introduce beginners to TRIZ but can also be used in creativity sessions. In a different way, the Cubification method proposes combining several selected characteristics to define a product and its market by forming different facets of a Rubik’s Cube that each participant constructs themselves [89].

On the opposite end, some games like Concept or Big Idea can be adapted for use in brainstorming sessions [90, 91]. The board game Concept can be diverted to help express ideas only using elements to gain perspective on the problem posed. In the case of the card game Big Idea, players are required to combine different words and adjectives on the cards they are dealt to respond to the creativity problem.

Other tools and methods inspired by game structures and game activities can also be utilized. We have already mentioned the Lego Serious Play method, which also offers an application framework to support an innovation process [44]. Following the same principles (small groups of people gathered around a table with Lego bricks and other objects), this method involves first elaborating on one’s vision of the problem or a potential solution, then sharing it with others (from one’s table and then other tables), and finally co-constructing a relevant and original solution with the most advantages. Similarly, the wargames we previously discussed offer solutions for innovation and complement the innovation process [92]. For example, there is the technique of red teaming, which has two variants. The first, red teaming wargame, aims to encourage reconsideration of a system or situation by proposing radically different solutions and actions based on a standard situation. This method stimulates creative thinking by encouraging participants to think differently. The second method is the “red team method” used in information security, somewhat different and unfortunately, it can be confused with the former. The red team method is a devil’s advocate method. It mobilizes a team that is assigned the objective of considering solutions to attack the existing system to identify its robustness and weaknesses [92]. Each weakness then requires reflection to be corrected and thus contribute to system improvement. Wargames also allow the simulation of the use of new technology, method, or doctrine to estimate its potential contribution. This can take the form of a matrix game (as explained earlier). This method, in addition to the standard wargame tools, only requires the production of descriptions of the envisaged technology, method, or doctrine. After several games are played, insights are drawn from the possibilities offered or not, their advantages and disadvantages, problematic or interesting situations, etc. This method can complement the prototyping process, with proposals from one method feeding the next implementation cycle of the other [93]. Finally, in a disengamement mode inspired by wargames, product confrontation cards [68], mentioned earlier, allow both visual mapping of strengths and weaknesses of competing products or technologies and, through matrix game-like reasoning or brainstorming, to consider the next generation to be developed by choosing to reinforce certain strengths or weaknesses.

5. Conclusions

It is quite challenging to review the major categories of play and game-inspired forms that can be applied to knowledge management. This chapter is an attempt to provide you with an overview and the keys to search for or develop solutions that will be most suitable for your needs. That is why we started this chapter by specifying how games and game activities can be defined by describing some of their distinct characteristics. Three main characteristics stand out regarding the proposed structure as a game, which must:

• (G1) strongly resemble a form already recognized as a game,

• (G2) have rules guiding the players,

• (G3) tend toward an objective to be achieved that motivates or justifies, at least in part, the interest in playing.

However, even though these characteristics are necessary, considering them alone can lead to a form of serious game that will not truly interest its audience and will ultimately be rejected. Thus, four other characteristics can help you achieve your serious objective through a form of Play. They require developing a proposition that should, as much as possible:

• (P1) evoke a feeling of tension and/or joy among its players,

• (P2) be partially uncertain in its unfolding,

• (P3) be voluntary, meaning it offers an alternative to those who do not want to play so that they can still achieve the same objective,

• (P4) before taking part in this kind of activity, clearly inform participants about how what is generated by the play will be used and who will benefit from it.

With these known characteristics, different forms inspired by games and used for serious purposes have been presented to help you better understand the differences between serious games, games with a purpose, empathic games, agile games, serious play, gamification, and disengagement. Indeed, those dedicated to knowledge management are no exception.

After describing these forms, we have discussed some of the possibilities they offer in the context of five knowledge management sub-processes. Thus, all stages of knowledge management can be associated with a form of play. The possibilities are endless and will continue to develop. If the categories presented are already numerous, it is likely that they will multiply, as this type of approach is experiencing a renaissance. Fifteen years ago, gamification was barely being proposed, and now it is part of the common vocabulary of many organizations.

Of course, this perspective can be reversed, and all serious or purely playful game forms can be analyzed from the point of view of knowledge management. We mentioned the case of games with a sharing purpose, which represent a substantial set of game-inspired solutions. In this way, both the implementation and operation of these devices can be studied from a knowledge management perspective. The same applies to the other sets of edutainment devices that we can build up and then analyze on the same model: games with an acquisition purpose, games with a capitalization purpose, game with mapping purpose, and games with a creation purpose. On the same principle, edutainment devices integrating several knowledge management sub-processes, such as wargaming practices, can be analyzed under the prism of a complete knowledge management process.

Glossary

Advergames	serious game dedicated to advertising, the most of time is a video game which by the game promotes a brand or a product.
Agile game	a game intended to introduce an agile method or to facilitate its implementation.
Agile method	method intended for small development teams (5–20 people) aimed at quickly proposing effective, functional solutions adapted to needs from successive iterations of the design process. Since the beginning of the 2000s, its methods have been based on the Manifesto for Agile Software Development.
Art game	an artistic production heavily inspired by video games or an artistic work that utilizes certain interactive mechanics and esthetic characteristics of games to better engage the audience.
Business origami	method proposed by the Hitachi Design Centre that uses numerous pieces of paper with illustrations and space to write for mapping an environment or problematic situation by pasting, folding and linking different pieces of paper.
CAPTCHA	means Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart. They are program developed to engage and employ a large number of people through a digital interface to assist in performing tasks that are not easily automated.
Concept	a boardgame, designed by Alain Rivollet and Gaëtan Beaujannot, published by Repos Production, based on the guess of words or expressions through the selection of icons by a placement of a few pawns on a board.
Course of action wargame (CoA wargame)	a kind of wargame or wargame using to consider a particular situation in order to determine most of the possibilities, including the best and the most risky.
Cubification	activity and methodology designed by Hélène Michel using the construction of an object evoking a Rubik’s Cube, accompanying a generation of ideas and the creation of an argument aimed at imagining a new product or service as well as its strategic positioning from the combination of different aspects represented by small square vignettes of different colors organized on the model of the original Rubik’s Cube.
Datagame	a kind of serious game dedicated to resolve a data collection problem.
Empathic game (empathy serious game or empathic serious game)	a kind of serious game designed to help people to understand the problems of other people by a particular point of view adoption proposed by the game.
ESP game (ExtraSensory Perception game)	a kind of serious game specially dedicated to document annotation. The player must find the same annotations for a document as a majority of people or/and an expert group.
Exergame	contraction of the terms exercise and game, it is a kind of (digital) device dedicated to training by a simulation exercise prosed as a game.
Exploitationware	term proposed by Ian Bogost to qualified a king of software which presents itself in the form of a game or by exploiting numerous attributes in order to motivate, or even manipulate, people to carry out work-like tasks.
Expressive game	a recreational game with a specific game play which as a goal to question the player about a problematic realistic situation presented in the game.
First-person shooter (fps)	a shooting video game in which the player directs and controls the movements of a single armed character, usually seen from behind, in order to use the latter’s field of vision to shoot various enemies.
Game	a kind of structure allowing a play activity, which must at least strongly resemble a form already recognized as a game, have rules guiding the players, tend towards an objective to be achieved that motivates or justifies, at least in part, the interest in playing, and, as much as possible evoke a feeling of tension and/or joy among its players.
Game of throne retrospective	game whose purpose is to make the retrospective step, mandated by many agile methodologies, more enjoyable and methodical.
Game With A Purpose (GWAP)	a kind of serious game in which the recipient of the utilitarian results obtained via the game are not those who play it. These games are most often digital and based on a crowdsourcing approach, i.e. mobilizing a large number of contributors/players to solve a problem via the game.
Gamification	process of developing or partially transforming non-game devices by integrating numerous elements of game design to make them more attractive and engaging.
Gamified system	a system that has been designed or modified through a gamification process, i.e. even though it is not a game, elements of game design can be identified in its mechanics or aesthetics.
Gamitrization	a set of games to train or support the use of numerous TRIZ tools and methods.
Ice-breaker	an exercise or game designed to build cohesion and trust among a group of people who do not know each other. They are team-building and teamwork facilitation tools.
Kriegspiel	Historically, this is the best-known early form of map-based military wargaming devised in Prussia at the turn of the seventeenth entury. Nowadays, this name is used for a wargame on map, offered as a ready-to-use package, with a dedicated scenario and a rigid set of rules to simulate one or more groups of military action(s).
Lego Serious Play	a methodology for supporting reflection and group work based on Lego bricks and other Lego objects. It is available in a range of applications (team motivation, problem solving, innovation).
Matrix games	a game system imagined by Chris Engle in 1992 and inspired by tabletop role-playing games, which brings to wargaming a freedom of action and adaptation based above all on the players’ relevant argumentation.
Minecraft serious play	a specific version of video game Minecraft dedicated to education and other serious problem solving, based on the game’s universe and, most importantly, the possibilities offered by its mechanics of building using small cubes.
Newsgame	a serious video game designed to inform in the same spirit as a newspaper or newsflash.
Persona (user persona)	fictional character whose essential characteristics are displayed on a dedicated worksheet, the purpose of which is to represent an individual corresponding to a particular group of people associated with a design or innovation problem to be solved.
Play	often fun activity based on a set of rules called a game.
Playification	A process aimed at making an activity more enjoyable by incorporating game elements into it without altering its structure.
Playfied	the result of integrating playful considerations into the way you use or approach a non-playful structure without modifying it. For example, holding a work meeting using Lego bricks (Lego serious play method) does not change the nature of the meeting itself, nor its objective, nor necessarily the place where it takes place.
Playmobil Pro	a serious play methodology based on Playmobil toys.
Pros vs. Cons matrix game	a category of matrix game system that requires players on different sides of the argument to put forward arguments for and against the possibility or difficulty of carrying out an action. The estimated difference between the arguments Pros and Cons is then translated into a score that a dice roll must reach for the action to be carried out in the game round.
Qball	object shaped like a foam ball the size of a handball, containing a microphone and a speaker, which allows different people to safely pass it to one another and use it to speak and be heard clearly in a room.
Red teaming wargame	wargame aimed at developing a critical analysis, through the exploration of a system’s flaws and/or the search for radically original but plausible approaches in the context of a real but simulated situation, all aimed at challenging a doctrine, a pre-established situation or strategic issue.
Role-playing game	a game in which each player embodies a single character (persona), with the exception of the player taking on the role of game master (narrator, animator and game referee) in an often imaginary world. The archetypal tabletop role-playing game is Dungeons & Dragons, while the archetypal online role-playing game is World of Warcraft.
Romance game	a king of video game with for main goal to establish a romantic relationship between the character pilot by the player and one or more of the non-player characters proposed in the game.
Retrospective bingo	game whose purpose is to make the retrospective step, mandated by many agile methodologies, more enjoyable and methodical.
Scrum	agile method dedicated do software development.
Seminar wargames	a game mode in which the game is played in the form of a seminar, bringing together a large number of people who give their opinions directly during the game or at the end of the game, via a specific questionnaire provided to them.
Serious game	a game that is played for a non-game purpose (work, learning, awareness-raising, information, etc.). It is a utilitarian game that can be digital as well as physical. The game serves as a medium for carrying out a task, the playful framework of which is supposed to make it easier or more motivating.
Serious gaming	the practice of serious games, or the hijacking for serious purposes of a game designed purely for leisure.
Serious play	professional practice following a precise methodology involving the use of games or game elements to carry out a serious task. The best-known such methodology is currently Lego serious play.
Speed boat (Seal boat)	A game whose purpose is to make the retrospective step, mandated by many agile methodologies, more enjoyable and methodical.
TRIZ	the theory of inventive problem solving is a set of creative tools and a Russian-based approach to solving technological innovation problems, using a formal methodology initially based on the analysis of a very large number of patents.
fresk workshops	the climate fresk, the digital fresk, the circular economy fresk.
Wargame	Simulation of a situation characterized by tension, crisis, or confrontation (usually military, but not necessarily) using a utilitarian game based on a scenario featuring complex interactions between several protagonists whose roles can be taken on by players.
Wargaming	professional use of wargame, i.e., the playing of a wargame(s) with the aim of answering a serious questions.