Application of a Gamification to Solve Problems of Software Process

Improvement in the Educational Context: A Case Study

Elziane Monteiro Soares

and Sandro Ronaldo Bezerra Oliveira

Graduate Program in Computer Science, Institute of Exact and Natural Sciences,

Federal University of Pará, Belém, Pará, Brazil

Keywords: Software Process Improvement, Gamification, Teaching and Learning, Problems and Difficulties.

Abstract: Specialized studies report that organizations face several problems and difficulties in conducting software

process improvement initiatives. Among the existing factors are issues related to the attitudes of individuals,

for example, resistance to change, lack of motivation, support and commitment of those involved in the initi-

atives. In this context, it is important that organizations adopt approaches and strategies to facilitate the im-

plementation of Software Process Improvement (SPI) initiatives. Thus, the use of gamification in the context

addressed can stimulate people's motivation and commitment to effectively join and participate in SPI initia-

tives. Gamification has been used to assist in the teaching-learning process, and can be applied in the educa-

tional area or in companies, to stimulate a learning and work climate through the motivation of the people

involved. Thus, the objective of this work is to analyze the results obtained in a Case Study from the applica-

tion of a dynamic with gamification elements in an SPI context.

1 INTRODUCTION

Although the adoption of standards and reference

models for process improvement has grown in recent

years, the number of organizations that adopt these

models is a small portion of the total population of

software organizations (Staples et al., 2007).

Software Process Improvement (SPI) is seen as the

fundamental approach to improving software

products in software development organizations

(Shih and Huang, 2010), being used to improve

software quality and reliability, employee and

customer satisfaction and return on investment,

among other factors (Gibson et al., 2006; Travassos

and Kalinowski, 2009).

Studies carried out in this context report problems

and difficulties that organizations face to implement

SPI based on process models and standards. (Baddoo

and Hall, 2002; Niazi et al., 2005).

In this sense, it is important that organizations

adopt approaches and strategies to facilitate the

implementation of SPI initiatives, since the lack of

adequate treatment and consequently the occurrence

of problems is something that leads to the failure

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3408-8640

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8929-5145

experienced in the improvement initiatives.

According to Cook (2012), many companies have

used game strategies to motivate and engage the

employee, not only in productivity and fun, which

inevitably improves the work environment, but also

to encourage innovation and development of their

tasks.

Thus, the use of gamification elements can

contribute to the definition of mechanisms to

stimulate people's motivation and commitment to join

and effectively participate in SPI initiatives.

Gamification corresponds to the use of game

mechanisms with the aim of solving practical

problems or awakening the engagement of a specific

audience and, above all, speeding up learning or

training processes, making tedious or repetitive tasks

more pleasant (Vianna et al., 2014). Thus, the

objective of this work is to analyze the results

obtained in a Case Study from the application of a

dynamic with gamification elements in an SPI

context.

For Chou (2016), the game elements are factors

capable of driving the participant's behavior

differently, where some strategies stimulate from

506

Soares, E. and Oliveira, S.

Application of a Gamiﬁcation to Solve Problems of Software Process Improvement in the Educational Context: A Case Study.

DOI: 10.5220/0011062300003182

In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2022) - Volume 2, pages 506-514

ISBN: 978-989-758-562-3; ISSN: 2184-5026

inspiration and training and others from obsession

and manipulation. These elements are organized into

the eight Core Drivers of the Octalysis Framework.

Core Drives represent basic and fundamental factors

in games that provide the motivation to perform a

variety of activities and discussions.

In (Soares and Oliveira, 2020b), a correlation of

the gamification elements proposed in the Octalysis

Framework (Chou, 2016) to the SPI problems was

performed, where for each problem one or more

elements were identified with the justifications for

applying the elements to minimize or treat SPI

problems.

The SPI problems were obtained in (Soares and

Oliveira, 2020a) from the research carried out from

two perspectives: analyzes carried out in the literature

and another from the analysis of results obtained with

the application of a survey. In total, twenty problems

were identified.

The literature review allowed us to identify

problems and difficulties existing in the literature that

occur during the implementation of SPI, in the result

of this review eight recurring problems were

evidenced, as follows: a) Change of culture in the

organization, b) Lack of knowledge of software

engineering, c) Lack of understanding of the

responsibilities of those involved, d) Lack of support

tools, e) Lack of / little commitment from top

management, f) Little support from employees, g)

Rotation of the personnel involved and h) Lack of /

little qualified human resources.

In the application of the survey, it was possible to

obtain information on the impact (occurrence) that the

problems detected in the review caused, in the

perception of the participants, according to their

experience in SPI, and also contributed to the

obtaining of new existing problems as reported by the

respondents.

In total, twelve new recurring problems were

identified, as follows: a) Lack of government

incentives, b) Focus on certification instead of

focusing on improvement, c) Reduction in consulting

hours as a way to reduce costs, d) Lack of knowledge

of the importance of models by the market, e)

Different interpretations in relation to the models, f)

Lack of / few projects to validate an improvement

program, g) Lack of consistent project portfolio

planning, h) Lack of consistent planning by the top

management of the organization, i) Bureaucracy in

improvement programs, j) Lack of flexibility in the

models, k) Lack of / little knowledge of the models

by employees, l) Continuity of team engagement in

the defined process.

From the relationship of the gamification

elements to the problems, isolated solutions were

elaborated using the elements to deal with each

specific problem (Soares and Oliveira, 2021a). The

defined solutions made it possible to define a

dynamic that integrates all the gamified elements,

with the necessary procedures, methods and

materials, in relation to the problems (Soares and

Oliveira, 2021b).

Therefore, in this work, the results obtained from

the application of the dynamics are analyzed, to the

problems or difficulties of SPI, in a case study, in

order to verify if the use of the dynamics promoted

the learning, engagement and organizational

development necessary to reach the results of the

improvement.

In addition to this introductory section, this paper

is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the

research methodology, Section 3 presents the case

study report, and Section 4 presents the conclusions

and future works.

2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The methodology chosen for this work consists of a

Case Study. Yin (2015) states that the case study is

the verification of a phenomenon based on

experience, comprising a method of data collection

and analysis, where the data used are obtained

through documents, surveys, interviews, which, when

analyzed, show evidence and results obtained.

The choice of the case study was based on the

studies and definition of Gressler (2003), which

reinforces that the case study is often used in

exploratory research in new areas or to describe a

process or effects of an intervention, or to explain a

complex phenomenon. The study consolidated the

analysis of the use of gamification elements to

address improvement problems in the context of the

SPIDER (Software Process Improvement:

DEvelopment and Research) Laboratory in Brazil.

As for the approach, this research is characterized

as qualitative, since the analyzed data are not

numerical and aim to produce information instead of

quantifying its results (Gerhardt and Silveira, 2009).

In this type of research, the concern is to obtain

information from the point of view of individuals and

the interpretation of the environment in which they

work, which is the research environment.

With regard to the objectives, this research is

configured as exploratory and descriptive, because,

according to Marconi and Lakatos (2003), the

combination of exploratory and descriptive studies

Application of a Gamiﬁcation to Solve Problems of Software Process Improvement in the Educational Context: A Case Study

507

aims to present, in its entirety, a certain event, so that

the information gathering is carried out with flexible

procedures and involves empirical and theoretical

analyses.

3 CASE STUDY REPORT

In this section, the results obtained from the

application of SPI dynamics in a case study in the

SPIDER Laboratory are presented.

3.1 Planning

To carry out the dynamics of SPI, the Laboratory

belonging to the SPIDER group, institutionalized

since 2009 at the Institute of Exact and Natural

Sciences of UFPA (Federal University of Pará) was

selected.

The group is made up of professors / researchers

from UFPA (Federal University of Pará), UFPE

(Federal University of Pernambuco), UFLA (Federal

University of Lavras) and UNIFAP (Federal

University of Amapá), master's and doctoral students

/ researchers from the PPGCC (Computer Science

Graduate Program) and FACOMP (Computer

Science College) graduation from UFPA, who work

in the Software Engineering (ES) and Education

research line, where 7 collaborators from this group

participated in the dynamic postgraduate training.

This number of employees underpins the group as a

small profile, which, according to Rouiller (2017), is

commonly represented when they have 2 to 25

employees and represent enterprises that are

normally, but not restricted to, in the early stages of

the business, demanding urgency for its own survival.

The team acts as a source of creation and

development of projects focused on software,

presenting viable alternatives in relation to software

tools to help the implementation of models (MPS.BR

– Brazilian Software Process Improvement, CMMI –

Capability Maturity Model Integration, MOSE –

Model Guiding for Business Success, among others)

in organizations.

Although the group has existed for more than 10

years, it is possible to identify several problems that

occur on a daily basis, among them we can highlight

the following: a) Wear with customers due to the

absence of clear agreements in relation to the goods

and services that are provided, b) Loss of customers,

c) Difficulties in understanding the market (or

segment) in which it operates, d) Lack of clarity

regarding the goods and services that are provided by

the business unit (both internally and in relation to the

market and/or demander), e) Customers dissatisfied

due to lack of compliance (or lack of clarity) of

agreements, f) Lack of awareness of which goods and

/ or products should no longer be in the business unit's

portfolio, g) Lack of communication with the target

audience, h) Inefficient marketing, i) Lack of

knowledge of the availability of service at the

business unit, j) Lack of preparedness to handle

incidents that occur, including failure to handle

recurring incidents. The resolution of these problems

is supported by the implementation of the Customer

and Market dimension belonging to the MOSE®

(Model Guiding for Business Success) Competence.

The MOSE is composed of five competence

dimensions, Society and Sustainability, Human

Talent, Quality, Customer and Market and

Innovation, however the problems experienced in the

SPIDER Laboratory have support for resolution in the

Customer and Market competence dimension (CM),

since the dimension addresses issues related to the

structuring of the enterprise to be able to satisfactorily

serve its internal or external customers, the constant

analysis of the market (and / or environment) and the

impact of the goods and services generated in it

(Rouiller, 2017).

In this context, the initial need to deal with the

problems described above is highlighted, since they

are recurrent in the routine of the team in the

Laboratory, and the treatment of these problems is

something that MOSE itself points out as substantial

for a company that is starting or already has a few

years of experience in the market.

Given the above, this work aims to implement the

CM competence dimension in the SPIDER

Laboratory, considering the expected results in the 4

competence objectives of a small business unit. The

implementation of the CM dimension aims to provide

SPIDER with a range of improvements in its process,

in relation to the quality of the goods and / or services

provided, with the treatment or reduction of the

problems that occur.

As for the period of application of the dynamics,

it occurred in the interval between 06/24/2021 to

07/29/2021, on Thursdays, from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. The

meetings took place remotely by the Google Meet

tool and with the necessary adaptations to the remote

context, due to the restrictions imposed by the

COVID-19 pandemic, with the application of social

isolation measures.

The dynamics was conducted with the voluntary

participation of students / researchers who work in the

SPIDER Laboratory, considered as a small business

unit. Table 1 contains descriptions of the participants'

profile, as well as the code that will be used to

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

508

designate each one of them during the presentation of

the results. There was also one participant, in addition

to the seven who accepted to participate, with the

attribution of a Judge, who observed dynamics,

checking if the others involved were carrying out the

activities, the Judge also filled in the score table

according to the evaluative items of the missions.

Table 1: Description of the participants’ profile.

Code Training Professional

Activity

Time of

Experience

in ES

H1 Maste

Technician 2 years

H2 Doctorate Technician 4 years

H3 Master Researcher 1 year e 6

months

H4 Doctorate Professor 10 years

H5 Doctorate Researche

4 years

H6 Doctorate Systems

Analyst

4 years

H7 Maste

Researche

5 years

3.2 Execution

First, there was an analysis in the context of the

SPIDER Laboratory in order to verify and delimit the

scope and problems experienced in the environment.

In this one, problems were observed that are

addressed in the Customer and Market dimension of

the MOSE improvement model for small

organizations, according to the justifications exposed

in Section 4.1.

Subsequently, the invitation was sent to the

participants, containing the information and the

purpose of the work. Upon acceptance, there was an

initial collection of the participant's profile, with

information on training, current professional activity

and time of experience in software engineering,

presented in Section 4.1.

Therefore, meetings were scheduled with the

group, using Google Calendar (a tool used to manage

the dates and times of the meetings necessary to carry

out the missions during the Gamification journey),

every Thursday, at 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., from 06/24/2021

to 07/29/2021, totaling six meetings, which were held

via Google Meet (tool selected to carry out the

necessary meetings to carry out the proposed

missions in the gamification scenario). It is important

to highlight that the number of meetings were

directed towards the implementation of a MOSE

competence dimension, related to Customer and

Market.

As for the materials needed to perform the

procedures of each mission, they were made available

as materials or as activities to participants in Google

Classroom (a tool used to centralize and manage

materials, deliverable during the dynamics). It is

noteworthy that the dynamics were initially built for

the context of face-to-face application, so they needed

to be adapted for remote use with the use of tools that

met the new reality for this first application, due to

the restrictions imposed on organizations in the face

of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Then, on 06/24/2021, the execution 1 of the

dynamic took place, in which the procedures

belonging to Mission 1 were applied. In it, the

procedures regarding internal exposure were adapted

for synchronous presentations on Google Meet, and

in materials available on Google Classroom

regarding: (i) the benefits and advantages of having a

SPI model adopted in the organization, (ii)

information related to institutional knowledge, (iii)

the organization's strategic objectives in relation to

the improvement model, and (iv) about the rules and

guidelines of the game to those involved.

The information exposed to those involved was

intended to raise awareness of the importance of

adopting the model, generate commitment in the

procedures necessary to achieve the expected results

for the improvement, as well as obtain suggestions for

digital marketing strategies to reach the external

public, and also opinions on what will be developed.

These suggestions were collected as an activity in

Google Classroom, using the Contribution Card.

In the execution of Mission 1, the participants had

to develop the activities created in Google Classroom

to assign a hero profile to another employee

(Personalization Card) and provide information

regarding their degree of previous experience (Hero

Experience Web Form). All these activities were

assigned a score and a stipulated time for delivery

before the execution of the next mission.

At the end, the room created to manage the

dynamics of SPI (Google Classroom) was consulted

to verify the deliveries made in Mission 1 by the

participants, there was also the collection of

information related to the presence and suggestion

noted by the Judge, which contributed to the

completion of the scores in the performance

worksheet (Google Worksheet, a tool used to make

available to those involved the scores obtained in the

actions carried out in the missions), the results

obtained in Mission 1 are presented to those involved

in Mission 5.

According to the map of secret processes, at the

end of each mission it is necessary to carry out

Mission 5, so on 07/01/2021 Mission 5 initially took

place with the presentation of the performance

information obtained by the heroes in Mission 1,

Application of a Gamiﬁcation to Solve Problems of Software Process Improvement in the Educational Context: A Case Study

509

collected in the Performance Worksheet, and then

feedback was obtained from those involved regarding

the dynamics of actions established in Mission 1,

considering the ARCS Model (Attention, Relevance,

Confidence, Satisfaction) by Keller (2000) since the

four categories present in the model represent the

necessary conditions for a person to be motivated,

that is, each one represents an aspect of motivation.

Subsequently, the execution of Mission 2 took

place, initially passing on the instructions of the

procedures that would occur in this mission, and later

they were presented synchronously in Google Meet,

and in materials available in Google Classroom: (i)

the summarized experience data of those involved

obtained in the Web Form, (ii) the learning path they

will follow on the training mission, (iii) the Hero

Profile of each participant resulting from the

Personalization Card. Still in this first moment, the

suggestions proposed by those involved in the

Contribution Card were read, and these suggestions

were analyzed and selected together with those

involved in a brainstorm.

Later, still in Mission 2, the presentation of the

expected results of the implementation of the MOSE

improvement model took place, and there was also a

time dedicated to providing guidance to remove

doubts. After the presentation of the MOSE, those

involved were asked to previously define activities in

the Trello tool, in the form of a ticket, of possible

activities that, according to the knowledge obtained

from the presentation, would make it possible to

achieve the objectives expected by the model for the

Customer and Market dimension, as well as how to

point a possible priority to the ticket (High, Medium

or Low). It is noteworthy that this mission was not

fully developed on this second day of execution, as

the full definition of activities took place only with

the completion of the training provided to those

involved in Mission 3.

On the third day of execution (07/082021),

Mission 3 began, initially passing on the instructions

for the procedures that would occur in this mission.

Then there was the presentation of the Learning Path

with the guidelines of the context that would be dealt

with in the training. The training was then conducted

by the SPIDER Laboratory Coordinator, who has

extensive experience in the topics covered in the

training related to the practices of the CM dimension,

processes and tools.

Laboratory employees who participated in the

training were assigned a score on the Performance

Worksheet. Another way established for those

involved to score in this mission was the feedback at

the end of the training actions in the Beacon. It is

important to mention that the flag was adapted in the

remote structure to be performed in the Padlet tool (a

tool used to obtain feedback from those involved

from actions developed in the SPI dynamics).

With the completion of the training mission, it

was possible to complete the remaining steps to

complete Mission 2, so the participants finished

defining the activities in Trello, identifying in each

ticket created the CM objective that was being met,

that is, if it belonged to the 4 competence objectives,

and later, together they defined the priorities for each

activity. In the end, each employee had to include

himself in some ticket(s) to develop it in the next

mission, thus assuming responsibility for that

activity. In this mission, both the creation stage and

the definition of the priorities of the activities were

ways of providing points to those involved in the

performance spreadsheet.

The knowledge acquired in the training can be

monitored at the time of creating the activities in the

tool, as it was possible to verify the application of

what was passed in the training, in this case in theory

for practical application. This training progress was

evaluated on the Power Level Meter (a work product

that has the ability to measure the power level of each

hero according to actions taken in the mission).

With the completion of the Mission, it was

possible to prepare the material to develop Mission 5.

Thus, on 07/15/2021, Mission 5 was initially carried

out with the provision of the performance obtained by

the heroes in Mission 2 and in Mission 3 with the

presentation of information collected in the

Performance Worksheet (Google Worksheet).

Next, Mission 4 began, and the instructions for

the procedures that would take place in the mission

were initially presented. In this mission, those

involved developed tickets with the activities that

were agreed in Mission 2, and during the

development of the tickets they had access to the

special operations that were part of this mission,

described in (Soares and Oliveira, 2021b). This

mission required more time to develop because there

was a change in the time that was planned from just

one to two days, 07/15/2021 and 07/22/2021.

In Mission 4, participants used the Infinity

Gauntlet (glove-shaped work product) to collect the

Infinity Gems, according to the rules and deliveries of

the activities present in Trello, in the remote context

the gloves were made available to those involved in a

web page created in the Google Sites tool without any

jewelry, and when deliveries were made, the jewelry

was inserted into the gloves on the site. Employees

who experienced difficulties in any activity were able

to request help during meetings held on Google Meet

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

510

via text chat (Chat), voice or video, or in the

Classroom under “Announce something to the class”.

To the participants who helped, there was the delivery

of jewelry to compose the Glove, but the delivery was

conditioned to the feedback of the help carried out in

the Flag (work product used by the heroes to evaluate

the actions that are carried out in their training and

help, that is, it allows for a feedback of actions taken)

in the Padlet tool, as only with positive feedback

would the jewel be granted to the employee who

provided the help. The employees who validated the

completed tickets were also provided with jewelry.

Regarding the recognition of the activities

performed, an activity was created in Google

Classroom for those involved to assign another

employee the Recognition Card for their performance

in the activities. The activities developed in this

mission were stipulated a time for delivery before the

execution of the next mission.

The last day of execution (07/29/2021) was

initially dedicated to the stages of recognition and

performance rewards to those involved in the

dynamics belonging to Mission 4. The recognition

cards were made available to those involved on a web

page in the Google sites tool and the rewards arranged

on App-Sorteos.com (it is a free online application to

make random draws in an easy and fun way). The

rewards occurred according to the performance

obtained by the heroes in Mission 4 with the

presentation of the information collected in the

Performance Worksheet (Google Worksheet)

exposed in Mission 5.

Finally, Mission 6 was carried SWOT analysis

out to obtain a clear and objective view of what are

the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and

Threats, in relation to the strategies established in the

SPI dynamics to those involved in the organizational

context.

3.3 Evaluation

In the applied dynamics, there were two moments

directed to the evaluation, which happened when

Missions 5 and 6 were executed. It is noteworthy that

mission 5 occurs in the dynamics in a transversal way,

being applicable throughout the Journey at the end of

missions 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mission 6 occurs when the

others have already been carried out, as it aims to

evaluate the dynamics as one all.

Therefore, in Mission 5 the 'Satisfaction Report -

ARCS Model' was used, with questions aimed at

evaluating the dynamics by those involved,

considering the motivational strategies proposed in

the ARCS model (Attention, Relevance, Confidence,

Satisfaction) by Keller (2000) since these four

categories represent the conditions necessary for a

person to be motivated, that is, each one represents an

aspect of motivation. A brief description of the

categories evaluated in the context of the study is

presented below:

• Attention: aims to verify the interest,

stimulation and curiosity in the dynamics,

• Relevance: aims to investigate whether the

dynamic used is relevant / important for the

Hero,

• Confidence: this category aims to investigate

whether the methodology applied stimulated the

participants' self-confidence in relation to the

positive result of its application,

• Satisfaction: used in order to verify the

participant's subjective feeling associated with

the sense of accomplishment of something, for

example, completing tasks, developing and

testing skills, achieving goals, among others.

It is noteworthy that the collection of opinions

from those involved regarding the dynamics of

established actions was carried out in a

Brainstorming, where the researcher used the report

as a script to guide the questions to the team.

In Mission 6 a qualitative analysis was carried in

a Brainstorming on Gamification in general in a

SWOT analysis (Strengths-Weakness-Opportunities-

Threats). For Silva et al. (2011), this analysis is

extremely important in the organization, because

through this tool employees have a clear and

objective view of their strengths and weaknesses in

the internal and external environment of the

company. In this study, the SWOT matrix was used

to understand the main factors that affect the results

regarding the application of dynamics.

It is noteworthy that the questions asked to those

involved did not occur in a mandatory way, that is,

the participants could or could not report the

experiences lived in the dynamics. This release

occurred during the moments dedicated to evaluation,

and was perceived as a negative point, as some did

not provide feedback. It is important to note that a

nomenclature was assigned to those involved (H1,

H2…, according to Table 2) in the dynamics, in order

to guarantee the anonymity of the responses.

Thus, in the existing evaluation in Mission 5,

considering the Attention category of ARCS, the

participants reported that the strategies adopted

aroused attention to remain motivated in learning and

performing the necessary activities. In this sense,

participant H4 highlighted that: “I found the theme

used in the scenario of heroes very interesting,

because it is something that many know and follow,

Application of a Gamiﬁcation to Solve Problems of Software Process Improvement in the Educational Context: A Case Study

511

being something that helps to hold attention and

motivation in those involved.”

As for the Relevance category of the ARCS

model, the participants reported that the strategies

adopted in relation to guidelines and information

passed on are relevant / important for those involved

and carried out the implementation of the

improvements expected by the model. In this sense,

participant H7 highlighted that: “Everything that has

been presented so far proved to be relevant regarding

the strategies that are being adopted in the

construction of the process, to achieve the expected

results with the improvement of the process.”

Regarding the Confidence category of the ARCS

model, the participants reported that the strategies

adopted stimulated self-confidence, because with the

participation and performance of the activities, they

could feel confident that they were learning and

applying the acquired knowledge necessary to achieve

improvement. In this sense, participant H5 highlighted

that: “I believe that the organization of the dynamics

was essential to help with motivation, as it made it

possible for the participants to believe that they are

capable of developing the proposed activities,

advancing and controlling their own success in the

demands.”

As for the Satisfaction category of the ARCS

model, the participants reported that the strategies

adopted in relation to the activities developed and

feedback from these activities generated a satisfaction

of accomplishment when completing the necessary

demands, where the context of development and

deliveries ends up being a driving factor of

satisfaction, to influence participants to achieve their

pre-defined goals when carrying out an activity. In

this sense, participant H3 highlighted that: “The

strategies present in the dynamics help maintain

concentration and encourage the development and

deliveries necessary to implement the improvement.

Therefore, I am pleased to carry out the dynamics

that are being proposed, and especially to obtain

feedback on the activities performed.”

As for the results obtained in Mission 6, in the

SWOT analysis based on the feedback from the

participants, some aspects were highlighted:

• Strengths:

- The applied dynamics allowed those involved to

choose the activities they wanted to develop,

appropriate to their profile or knowledge, it was a

very good strategy, and should be maintained,

- The moments of training and orientation were

very advantageous, as it contributed to the knowledge

needed to implement the model improvements and

understanding of the tools that would be used,

- The narrative in which the implementation in the

context of heroes was developed instilled motivation

and engagement in the participants,

- The dynamics aroused a lot of interaction and

teamwork, there were moments of contributions to

what was developed, everyone participated a lot and

this was provided due to the way in which the

dynamics was structured and applied.

• Opportunities:

- Take advantage of the strategy initially applied

in the dynamics in which there is a hero role

attribution among the participants, and perform a new

hero role attribution at the end of the application in

order to compare if there were changes in their acting

and performance in the dynamics considering the

perspective of the team,

- Use evolutionary avatars in the dynamics,

because as the employee develops activities and

performs well, he manages to increase his avatar,

which can generate more motivation and engagement

in his performance in the approach,

- The presentations made initially in the dynamic

had a lot of information, which prolonged the transfer

of information, thinking of a strategy to minimize the

presentation time and the initial transfer of

information.

• Weaknesses:

- Extensive content can make learning tiring and

end up affecting the motivation of those involved,

- The rules of the activities must be clearer so that

the practical part can be carried out, therefore, it is

important to establish the rules in the initial

presentations of the missions that will be developed.

• Threats:

- The organizational context where the dynamics

are applied can be a threat, as there may be

organizational scenarios in which there is not the

same commitment to implement the improvement,

that is, there may be resistance from people,

- Freedom to choose and develop tasks can be a

threat, as not all employees have the same motivation

and commitment to participate and develop activities.

3.4 Discussion

In the results obtained in the evaluation, it was

possible to verify that the strategies of use of the

gamified elements present in the dynamics of SPI

instigated the interest of those involved in effectively

participating in the implementation of improvement.

This was noticeable in the feedback from the

participants who highlighted the motivation and

engagement provided by the established strategies,

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

512

resulting in the acquired knowledge, which enabled

greater productivity and interaction between them.

In general, it was found that gamification

transformed the work environment, generating

greater engagement, quality and efficiency. In

addition, it brought a lighter environment, making

learning and activities more dynamic and attractive.

However, it was also pointed out the need for

adjustments and improvements in some strategies to

improve the participants' perception and

performance, which contribute to achieving the

expected results in the context of SPI.

Therefore, it is concluded that gamification is an

effective instrument to promote the engagement

necessary to achieve the intended results of the

improvement, since those involved were able to

perform the activities to obtain the desired result,

motivated and aware of the importance and benefits

that the implementation of SPI promotes to the

organization.

However, the context of the application must be

analyzed, so that it is in line with the environment in

which it will be implemented and with the profile of

people who will be the target audience. Such

consonance is important for the successful

application of dynamics.

4 CONCLUSION

This study presented a report on the use of dynamics

with gamification elements in an SPI context related

to the treatment of problems or difficulties

experienced in improvement initiatives, in order to

verify if the use of dynamics promotes the

organizational learning, engagement and

development needs to achieve the expected results.

From the analysis of the results obtained from the

application, it was possible to list suggestions for

improvements and positive points of those involved

in the case study. The collected recommendations can

help in later applications of the dynamics.

A limitation of this work is related to the forms

of acceptance and participation of those involved in

the dynamics, since the motivation and engagement

expected by the strategies can generate different

feelings in each participant, some may feel more

stimulated to work in the context of SPI with elements

of gamification, while others may have a lower

stimulus to act in their activities or even not.

As future work, we intend to replicate the case

study in a small organization in order to compare the

results obtained in the applications. And then apply

and analyze the results in medium or large

organizations to validate the effectiveness of the

dynamics in a scenario with more participants.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the Coordination for

the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel

(CAPES) in Brazil for the financial support for

granting an institutional PhD scholarship.

REFERENCES

Baddoo, N., Hall, T. (2002). Motivators of Software Pro-

cess Improvement: an analysis of practitioners’ views.

The Journal of Systems and Software, 62, 2.

Chou, Y. (2016). Actionable Gamification - Beyond Points,

Badges, and Leaderboards. Octalysis Media.

Cook, W. (2012). Five Reasons Why You Can’t Ignore

GAMIFICATION. MWorld, v. 11, n.3, p. 42-44,

Fall2012. ISSN 15402991.

Gerhardt, T., Silveira, D. (2009). Research Methods -

handout. Rio Grande Do Sul: Universidade Federal do

Rio Grande do Sul. p. 120.

Gibson, D. L., Goldenson, D. R., Kost, K. (2006). Perfor-

mance Results of CMMI-Based Process Improvement.

CMU/SEI-2006-TR-004, Software Engineering Insti-

tute, Carnegie Mellon.

Gressler, L. A. (2003). Introduction to research. São Paulo,

Edições Loyola, p. 295.

Keller, J. M. (2000). How to integrate learner motivation

planning into lesson planning: The ARCS model ap-

proach. VII Semanario, Santiago, Cuba, February.

Marconi, M. A., Lakatos, E. M. (2003). Fundamentals of

Scientific Methodology. São Paulo: Atlas, p. 310.

Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D. (2005). A maturity

model for the implementation of software process im-

provement: An empirical study. Journal of Systems and

Software, v. 74, n. 2 SPEC ISS, pp. 155-172.

Rouiller, A. C. (2017). MOSE®: Competency Base. Recife:

Pé Livre, Brazil.

Shih, C. C., Huang, S. J. (2010). Exploring the relationship

between organizational culture and software process

improvement deployment. Information &

Management, vol. 47, pp. 271-281.

Silva, A. A., Silva, N. S., Barbosa, V. A., Henrique, M. R.,

Baptista, J. A. (2011). The Use of the SWOT Matrix as

a Strategic Tool - a Case Study in a Language School in

São Paulo. In: Simpósio de excelência em janeiro, Rio

de Janeiro, Brazil.

Soares, E. M., Oliveira, S. R. B. (2020a). An Analysis of

Problems in the Implementation of Software Process

Improvement: a Literature Review and Survey. In: 17th

CONTECSI, Brazil.

Soares, E. M., Oliveira, S. R. B. (2020b). A Solution Pro-

posal for Software Process Improvement Problems

Application of a Gamiﬁcation to Solve Problems of Software Process Improvement in the Educational Context: A Case Study

513

from the Use of Gamification. In: 17th CONTECSI,

Brazil.

Soares, E. M., Oliveira, S. R. B. (2021a). Problem in SPI:

An Analysis of Gamification Elements for a Proposed

Resolution. In: 16th ICSOFT, Brazil.

Soares, E. M., Oliveira, S. R. B. (2021b). Application of

Gamification Elements to Solve Problems of Software

Process Improvement in the Context of Teaching and

Learning. In: XX SBGames, Brazil.

Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P.,

Murphy, R. (2007). An exploratory study of why organ-

izations do not adopt CMMI. Journal of Systems and

Software, v. 80, n. 6, pp. 883-895.

Travassos, G. H., Kalinowski, M. (2009). iMPS 2009: char-

acterization and performance variation of organiza-

tions that adopted the MPS model. SOFTEX,

Campinas, SP.

Vianna, Y., Vianna, M., Medina, B., Tanaka, S. (2014).

Gamification, Inc.: How to reinvent companies from

games? MJV Press: Rio de Janeiro.

Yin. R. K. (2005). Case study: planning and methods. 3 ed.

Porto Alegre: Bookman.

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

514