Collaborative technology and motivations: Utilization, value and gamification

Adornes, Gustavo Scheffel; Muniz, Raquel Janissek Article Collaborative technology and motivations: Utilization, value and gamification Innovation & Management Review Provided in Cooperation with: University of São Paulo, School of Economics, Management, Accounting and Actuarial Sciences (FEA-USP) Suggested Citation: Adornes, Gustavo Scheffel; Muniz, Raquel Janissek (2019) : Collaborative technology and motivations: Utilization, value and gamification, Innovation & Management Review, ISSN 2515-8961, Emerald, Bingley, Vol. 16, Iss. 3, pp. 280-294, https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-04-2019-0056 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/231612 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Collaborative technology and motivations: utilization, value and gamification Gustavo Scheffel Adornes and Raquel Janissek Muniz PPGA, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, Brazil Abstract Purpose –Instigated by the trend of collaborative economics, taking into consideration the particularities pointed out by Simis (2015), such as a new social, economic and technological scenario, this paper aims to identify which factorsserveas motivators for collaboration among thetechnologies of this scenario. Design/methodology/approach –In this paper, the authors analyzed Waze, an application that works based on traffic information made available by the users of the platform. For the development of this qualitative work, aspects that served as the basis for the interview script applied were classified into three different categories: utilization, personal values and gamification; the latter being an important aspect for collaboration in the application in question. Two distinct groups were interviewed; one of regular users of Waze, and the other of advanced users, who also work voluntarily in the maintenance of the app. Findings –The results indicate that personal values are determinant factors for both groups; however, there are distinct incentives for the different users interviewed, like reciprocity, altruism and empathy. The first one is an important aspect to share information by the regular users, while the other ones are characteristics advanced users. Research limitations/implications –The study presents some limitations in terms of the restricted group and focus on only one of the many collaborative technological social, as well as lacking on-site analysis of the use of Waze. Practical implications –This is a valid research when taking into consideration studies that approach the app Waze, as the issues explored in this paper are new in the academic studies considering previous app’s analyses that are related to functionality. Social implications –The results presented in this study help to understand the current relationship between sharing economy and thetechnologyprovided to those who usetheseplatforms. Originality/value –This research opens the horizon for future studies applied on other collaborative technological user platforms, to see if the results would be similar and construct a user journey in relation to information sharing through experimental monitoring. Keywords Gamification, Collaboration in networks, Collaborative technology, Motivating factors for collaboration, Use of technology Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction We are currently living in a collaborative economy, product of a scenario developed through personal and commercial relationships among economic agents, in peer-to-peer © Gustavo Scheffel Adornes and Raquel Janissek Muniz. Published in Innovation & Management Review. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http:// creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode INMR 16,3 280 Received 1 June 2017 Revised 6 August 2018 Accepted 12 March 2019 Innovation & Management Review Vol. 16 No. 3, 2019 pp. 280-294 Emerald Publishing Limited 2515-8961 DOI 10.1108/INMR-04-2019-0056 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/2515-8961.htm arrangements, which consists of three components: social, economic and technologic aspects (Simis, 2015). According to the same author, the social factor is a result of elevated population indices in metropolitan areas, bringing about a greater need for a sense of community. In turn, the economic factor comes from consumer tendencies in terms of flexibility as opposed to ownership, making improperly used resources more useful (Ferenstein, 2014). The technological factor is characterized by the increase of social media, taking into consideration the availability and easy access of mobile platforms, as well as new payment systems (Belk, 2013). Rifkin (2015) confirms that the current economic model is intensifying income inequalities as well as constantly damaging the natural conditions of the planet; however, by contrast, major world powers are already organizing new productive arrangements, while considering the most recent technologies, and, as a result, giving new paradigms to social interactivity. Botsman (2016) adds that this breakdown in the traditional capitalist rationale, through specific collaborative economic platforms, creates a revolution in terms of trusting one another, minimizing the participation of traditional organizations in this process. The power diffusion of digital marketing, which focuses on traditional marketing, accelerates these tendencies based on recent radical alterations in society, improving personal relationships and creating new consumer profiles, such as subcultures of youth, women and people of the internet, according to Kotler, Kartajaya, and Setiawan (2017). Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) pointed out that, through collective action, companies and their associates can seize opportunities using adequate prices and providing new experiences, with the possibility of a win-win scenario. From this perspective, the collective economy gains prominence in the market, which is constantly expanding due to advances in technology. Globally, it is estimated that by 2025, US$335bn will be generated in terms of revenue (Mendonça, 2017). In respect to this expansion, Ferenstein (2014) highlights that, concerning the history of industrial technology, the companies inserted in this scenario reached levels never seen before. Based on that, while considering the present scenario and the relevance of the themes involved, this study aims at identifying suitable requests in terms of current market positions, as well as new social relationships resulting from a collaborative economy. For this purpose, we questioned which of the factors motivated the technological users to collaborate, with different levels of network involvement, and consequently to adopt a voluntary posture toward sharing. To facilitate the study, Waze, a traffic-monitoring app that combines information shared by the users, was used as the basis of our study. Regarding the motivational theme, specifically the central concepts, diverse materials related to these perspectives can be found about work places, aside from psychological applications in different scenarios (Bergamini, 1990;Franco, 2008;Maruping & Magni, 2015; Maslow, 2003;Spector, 2006). There is a large amount of material on technology use; most studies focus on managerial use in organizations (Albertin & Albertin, 2012;Domingues, Palmisano, Rosini, & Silva, 2015;Lunardi, Dolci, & Maçada, 2010;Oliveira, Maçada, & Oliveira, 2015), but none of them analyzes the consumer or his/her behavior when making use of collaborative technology. What is now being proposed is to gather more detailed information and research in terms of collaborative technology as well as the environment and existing platforms, as current research and reports generally address experiences, individual predisposition when using the organizational platforms and future growth perspectives for posterity in this market (Belk, 2013;David, Chalon, & Yin, 2016;Dias, 2000;Ferenstein, 2014;Thierer, Koopman, Hobson, & Kuiper, 2015). Collaborative technology and motivations 281 Section 2, which comes next, explains the central concepts of this paper. Later, Section 3 discusses the specific procedures adopted in the methodology of this research while providing a contextualization on the app Waze. Section 4 brings the analysis of the results of this research, and, finally, in Section 5, we present the final considerations of this paper. 2. Motivation for using collaborative technology 2.1 Motivation Motivation is a difficult word to define, being the subject of various studies (Spector, 2006). According to the author, it refers to an inner state resulting in desires, necessities and/or individual urges interfering in the direction, intensity and personal determination when envisioning the intentions of reaching a goal. In the organizational scope, motivation was first studied while looking at experiences that occurred during the emergence of the school of human relations period, in an attempt to maximize the productive gains of workers, emphasizing workplace necessities (Motta and Vasconcelos, 2006). From another perspective, Kotler and Keller (2006) considered the term, motivation, with an emphasis on marketing strategies, based on the belief that necessities, whether physiological or psychological, come from motives strong enough to bring about individual action. Regardless of the perspectives or interpretations on the theme of motivation, the adoption of technology use presumes the factors that evoke the individual or organization to do so. 2.2 The use of technology In the first decade of the twenty-first century, discontinuities in the traditional relationship between companies and their clients, and consequently in consumption and status quo, were noticed as the result of the spread of new technologies (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Along these lines, Vajjhala (2015) took into consideration that recent technological advances, especially regarding the internet, gave way to a new era of opportunities and collaborations through tools that enabled users to share information and work together. Currently, specific informative and technological platforms are necessary for some of the relationships among agents, and, in such scenarios, for organizations as well. In the recent social movements, emphasized through new behavioral profiles, the usage serves as a propulsion to create new relationships between organizations and their clients (Kotler et al.,2017). In the corporate world, information technology meets the necessities and opportunities that may arise by facilitating the complexities of managing; information technology is, therefore, an important tool to accomplish tasks and to meet the purposes of the organizations (Domingues et al., 2015). Lunardi et al. (2010) took into consideration that information technology implementations can bring about high costs for the organizations, those of which can be misplaced investments when pressured by the competition, aside from the lack of adequate planning and measuring organizational impacts. For Albertin and Albertin (2012), the opportunities that information technology can offer the company depends on internal adaptations, resulting from the understanding of the relationship and the use of technology in business. In any case, aside from the necessary adaptations, the company can benefit from adopting such technologies, for example, improvements in production, procedure automation and even a competitive advantage by supplying decision-making information (Moura, Lima, Pinto, & Rocha, 2017). With this in mind, using technological tools in organizations is as useful as relationship channels with clients and, along these lines, promotes the emergence of collaborative technological platforms. INMR 16,3 282 2.3 Collaborative technology Collaborative technology creates conditions in which different stakeholders can execute their activities in an adequate manner, simultaneously or sequentially, in terms of distribution, subcontracting, co-contracting or third parties (David et al.,2016). At this point, interaction, communication and sharing among agents are essential, which become stronger through technological evolution, creating new forms of collaboration or facilitating the development of old habits, especially with the invention of the internet and the Web 2.0 (Belk, 2013). This scenario fosters a collective construction, normally referred to as crowdsourcing. Such a concept can be seen currently as “a history of cooperation, aggregation, teamwork, consensus and creativity”(Brabham, 2013, p. 26). The author describes this relationship as an online participation of different types of complexities, quality and the satisfaction and fulfillment of needs, on behalf of the enterprise. Concerning behavioral issues, there are different methods, which aim at the largest user engagement through technology. Especially with Waze, interaction could go toward a lucid appeal through gamification technologies. 2.4 Gamification The term gamification is defined as “using game-based mechanics, aesthetic and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning, and solve problems”(Kapp, 2012, p. 10). Regarding this definition, Fardo (2013) classifies the games as a system with interconnected elements that put real-life problems into imaginative environments that, according to Kapp (2012), follow the premise of abstract challenges, with defined rules and feedback, providing quantifiable results and emotional reactions. In this context, motivation is an important element when dealing with participant involvement in the games, and it is classified as being extrinsic or intrinsic, according to Cativelli, Monsani, and Juliani (2016). In their opinion, when motivation is related to games, it could be understood as extrinsic because it takes into account the reward offered to players; intrinsic motivation deals with the factors that develop player engagement and can be understood as personal values held by each player. Gamification is appealing, has diverse purposes and has been used in many different contexts, for example, in libraries (Cativelli et al., 2016), training and developing environments for organizations (Di Bartolomeo, Stahl, & Elias, 2015), learning tools (Fardo, 2013), tourism (Nunes & Mayer, 2014) and promoting entrepreneurship (Pinto, 2016). In relation to Waze, gamification is a strong tool for creating dynamic user experiences. Aside from gaming characteristics, other factors can possibly serve as collaborative motivation in the app, as discussed in the following section. 2.5 Possible collaboration motivators for Waze There are diverse potential factors that can serve as collaborative motivation for Waze users. Table I shows the main concepts identified. According to the specifications above, it was possible to create an interview script according to the following method. 3. Methodology With the intention of adding to the knowledge base, this research can be classified as pure according to the criteria by Zanella (2009), as it is created through contributions, understandings and explanations of a determined phenomenon. Collaborative technology and motivations 283 Therefore, the object of this study can be described as explicative, as the main concern is to identify the factors that determine or contribute to the occurrence of the phenomenon (Gil, 2002). Approaching the research from a qualitative standpoint, according to Zanella (2009), without using statistical elements, data were collected by surveying a specific group by convenience, through specific platform classifications used as a base herein according to the proposed goals. As a way of making the research easier to understand, the following section provides a description of the Waze platform. 3.1 Characterization of the app Waze As previously mentioned, this study uses Waze as a basis. This platform uses GPS navigation provided by satellites, where the users share information involuntarily –such as the transmission of active user driving speeds –with the possibility of voluntary collaboration, through information shared on the app itself (Silveira, Marcolin, & Freitas, 2015). In conjunction with other social networks, the app permits users to follow the preferred routes of other users and interact with them. To instigate participation, the app uses gamification tools through a point and ranking system related to individual interactions, anticipating five different Wazers, as presented in Figure 1. Aside from the pointing system, Waze also has a system for advanced users, who are volunteers that provide the appropriate maintenance and enhancement for a better functionality through map editing and reports on how Waze’s operation is going on. This way, the platform is providing a deeper and more personal experience through new platform dynamics. Regarding some of the platform peculiarities, this study aims to question and analyze user collaborations through information sharing relationships created in Waze, specifically through collaborative technology. That being said, the following section presents the participating users. Table I. Main collaborative motivation factors Possible motivation factors Source Utility Dias (2000) User friendliness Enjoyment Ownership counterpoint Simis (2015) Altruism Empathy Unique and out-of-the-ordinary environment Almeida (2015) Compatibility Nunes and Mayer (2014) Perceived enjoyment User intent Work that does not feel like work Di Bartolomeo et al. (2015) Insertion into network gaming structures Alternative environment that provides security Lucid interaction Cativelli et al. (2016) Entertainment Socialization Stress relief Social engagement Kim, Glassman and Williams (2015) Source: Elaborated by the authors INMR 16,3 284 3.2 Respondent profiles This study encompasses 20 Waze users: 10 who only shared information on the platformand10editorswhobesidesusingtheapponadailybasishelpedtomaintain app functions. To obtain this information, an online form was made available to the users (convenience sampling) during a two-week period (available in the Appendix). With this information, it was possible to form groups of distinct user types, as shown in Table II. This sample enables certain considerations for specificWaze user classifications and user profiles. Regarding the differences in the levels of platform involvement, from the 11 Waze Royalty level users, 10 are also editors, which explains their advanced level. There is a larger variability in the regular users group, although there are no Waze Baby users, which leads one to believe that the level of volunteerism is related to the level of the user. Another differentiating factor is the age-groups; whereas the regular users are generally in their 20s and 30s, the more frequent users are older, aged 30 or over. The next section will discuss the specificities of the information provided herein, as well as researcher perceptions and their results. Figure 1. Waze user levels Collaborative technology and motivations 285 4. Analysis in relation to possible Waze collaboration motivators The following section considers pertinent aspects when analyzing the answers obtained through the extensive interviews. Due to similarities in some of the analyzed factors, three different categories were created to classify the information: utilization, personal values and gamification. 4.1 Aspects related to utilization The factors directly related to Waze usage –intention of use, utility and user friendliness –are all interconnected. According to this concept, the survey aims at finding the reasons why the interviewees choose to use Waze through personal examination. In addition, the app features stand out by providing the users with the best route for each scenario, as well as real-time warnings for possible traffic interruptions. Aside from these features, the interviewees also recognize the benefits provided by the app, as explained by an advanced user: With Waze I don¨t have to think about which route to take, it does that for me, all I have to do is follow. I see it as a great way to optimize my time, I can think about other things along the ride, such as the music playing on the radio, what the passenger is saying, and what I have to do when I arrive at work, etc. (A. G., personal statement, September 17, 2016). When comparing the two groups, both believe that Waze is the best traffic-oriented platform available; however, each group recognizes different determining factors behind this claim. The regular users focus more on personal benefits, such as the precision and time in which information becomes available on the app. The advanced users also mention the personal benefits; however, user interaction as well as a sense of community were also important factors. Regarding user opinions on possible benefits provided by Waze, the interviewees were encouraged to speak on the practicality and recurring benefits, which come from basic app Table II. User interviews Name Age (years) Editor category User category O. M. 40-50 Yes Waze Royalty G. T. 20- 30 Yes Waze Royalty L. G. 20-30 Yes Waze Royalty M. M. 30-40 Yes Waze Royalty A. S. 50 and over Yes Waze Royalty F. Fe. 30-40 Yes Waze Royalty L. L. 20-30 Yes Waze Royalty D. D. 30-40 Yes Waze Royalty A. G. 30-40 Yes Waze Royalty A. C. 30-40 Yes Waze Royalty G. S. 20-30 No Waze Knight M. P. 20-30 No Waze Warrior F. Fr. 20-30 No Waze Warrior B. B. 20-30 No Waze Warrior P. M. 20-30 No Waze Warrior S. N. 20-30 No Waze Knight R. J. 40-50 No Waze Grown-Up R. M. 20-30 No Waze Warrior E. R. 20-30 No Waze Royalty L. D. 20-30 No Waze Grown-up Source: Elaborated by the authors INMR 16,3 286 functions. Many of the features stood out as equally important in both of the groups, especially taking into consideration how the app saves time and money, as explained by one user: “[...] saving money by avoiding speed infractions, saving gas by optimizing routes, and saving on maintenance because I receive alerts when there are potholes ahead”(E. R., personal statement, September 13, 2016). There are different opinions when it comes to the user friendliness that could interfere in the analysis, especially when it comes to the opinions concerning the interface and app operations. Both groups agree that the app’s interface is enjoyable for all users; however, the regular users displayed reservations and discontent concerning the layout of the information. Regardless, there is an understanding among the group of regular users that the app’s interface is different from the competitor’s, and it is actually one of the reasons why the users choose Waze. Advanced users have an easier time using the app and most of the information gathered in the interviews shows that these users let the app “take them away”, which demonstrates trust. One user shows this by stating, “I agree that the app provides practicality, because I let it work, to let it show me the best routes for that moment”’ (O. M., personal statement, September 17, 2016). Both groups recognize the benefits provided by the app and that it is easy to use for anyone who decides to try it; however, this is more clearly evidenced in the frequent and editor group. This could be because they are more involved and create a sense of community inside Waze, which could be a reflection of their values and/or personal motives, aspects that will be discussed further in the following section. 4.2 Aspects related to personal values The script used in this study sought to understand the different user viewpoints, and if using Waze generated social engagement. The definition of engagement, in this case, is if there is as much user compatibility as the app appear. As a result, there is a tendency for social agents to develop altruistic and empathetic behaviors. These results revealed distinctions between the two user groups. The majority of the advanced users hold a cause for using Waze; however, the motives behind this vary from helping mankind to the counterpoint of ownership. In general, the regular users do not acknowledge any cause behind using Waze, and therefore no tendency toward personal engagements. Nonetheless, when observing compatibility, both user groups stated in the interviews that they recognize that the app helps with daily tasks but did not mention necessity, strong involvement or personal values. Altruism is a common theme between both of the user profiles, as, according to the interviewees, the collaborative actions carried out in the app are for the greater good. This is also evident when advanced and regular users justify using the app: “[...] improving the traffic and consequently the quality of life for everyone on the road.”(F. F., personal statement, September 12, 2016) and “Let other Waze users have more information about the road conditions of the places they are traveling to (G. S., personal statement, September 14, 2016). Empathy is the most common factor in the editor’s responses; it involves actions that are not only for the greater good but also equally focused on interpreting what other users see as being useful. On the other hand, the regular users demonstrate reciprocity, a value that had not been anticipated during the survey held before the study. Siqueira (2005) characterized reciprocity as a social trading system based on current good morals. The actors understand that they should help the ones who help them and not impair those who are benefitted, Collaborative technology and motivations 287 (4) What is your user category on Waze? Waze Baby Waze Adult Waze Warrior Waze Knight Waze King Questions (1) Why do you use Waze? (2) Does the app provide practical and reoccurring benefits? Does the app provide other benefits? If so, which ones? (3) What motivates you to share information on Waze? (4) Do you enjoy using Waze? Why? (5) Do you consider Waze to be a social network? If so, do you use the app for this reason? (6) Do you think that Waze represents a greater cause? If yes, which one? Is it engaging? (7) Is the Waze interface user-friendly? Do you think this contributes to its use? (8) Would you compare Waze to a game? Why? Corresponding author Raquel Janissek Muniz can be contacted at: [email protected] Associate Editor: Mendes Borini, Felipe For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] INMR 16,3 294