Goal-Based Manufacturing Gamification: Bolt Tightening Work ...

Goal-Based Manufacturing Gamification: Bolt Tightening Work Redesign in the Automotive Assembly Line Seunghwan Roh, Kyoungwon Seo, Jiyoung Lee, Jihyo Kim, Hokyoung Blake Ryu, ChangHo Jung, HyunWoo Lee and JongHo Shin Abstract Recent productivity-oriented technologies (e.g., industrial robots, assistive wearable tools) have more focused on production capacity rather than workers roles and experiences in the manufacturing process, and as a consequence, task have become simple and repetitive which is detrimental for work motivation. Researches have been conducted to improve worker’s motivation and experience during this monotonous work (e.g., bolt tightening), and gamification has got attention as a useful way to improve worker’s intrinsic motivation by augmenting playful goal and feedback to previous demotivating context. The present study aims at examining the effect of gamification for improving the worker’s flow and S. Roh H.B. Ryu (&) Imagine Lab., Graduate School of Technology and Innovation Management, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seoul, Republic of Korea e-mail: [email protected] S. Roh e-mail: [email protected] K. Seo J. Kim Imagine Lab., Industrial Engineering, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seoul, Republic of Korea e-mail: [email protected] J. Kim e-mail: [email protected] J. Lee Isol Lab., Industrial Engineering, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seoul Republic of Korea e-mail: [email protected] C. Jung H. Lee J. Shin 37, Cheoldobanmulgwan-ro, Uiwang-si, Gyeonggi 437-815, Republic of Korea e-mail: [email protected] H. Lee e-mail: [email protected] J. Shin e-mail: [email protected] © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 C. Schlick and S. Trzcieliński (eds.), Advances in Ergonomics of Manufacturing: Managing the Enterprise of the Future, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 490, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41697-7_26

293

294

S. Roh et al.

emotional experience which are related with intrinsic motivation in the workplace. An empirical study was carried out by five participants. They were instructed to tighten bolts in three different interface conditions (e.g., default condition; reactive condition; and gamification condition). During the task, their flow level and emotional state were assessed by experience sampling method (ESM). The benefits of the manufacturing gamification in the worker’s flow experience and positive emotion are also discussed. Keywords Manufacturing gamification Emotional experience

Intrinsic motivation Flow experience

1 Introduction Simple and repetitive task in the modern factory, which is beneficial for increasing production capacity, actually have some side effects on the worker’s mental and physical well-being [1]. For instance, long labor time for monotonous task induce great perceived fatigue and boredom [2]. Also, working with the same position repetitively can cause musculoskeletal disorders like carpal tunnel syndrome and tendonitis [3, 4]. These mental and physical shortcomings gradually decrease worker’s motivation [5], and negatively impact on the atmosphere of overall workplace environment [6]. To solve the above-mentioned problems, some approaches have been proposed. For example, Toyota proposed and applied TPS (Toyota Production System) based on three principles (elimination of waste movements by workers, consideration for workers’ safety, and self-display of workers’ capabilities by entrusting then with greater responsibility and authority) [7]. Beginning with the practice from Toyota, various researches have been conducted, such as worker education based on the analysis of the different steps and operation characteristics [8], tool development/improvement to reduce the worker’s physical burden [9], and the intelligent robot system for automated factory environment [10, 11]. From the efforts to reduce physical pain and fatigue, more recent studies consider the way to improve worker’s innate motivation and mental well-being. Incentive, an extrinsic reward for workers, is one the most prevalent example [12]. When workers got an extrinsic reward (e.g., an end-of-the-year bonus, performance-related pay) their efficiency for work significantly increase [13]. However, this extrinsic reward has a pitfall. When workers framed by the extrinsic reward system, their innate value for work is decreased. They perceive their work less important and start to depend on extrinsic reward; that is, when extrinsic reward declines, workers’ motivation and satisfaction for work more severely decrease [14]. Advanced from the extrinsic reward, ‘flow theory’ propose a concept of intrinsic motivation—an interest or enjoyment in the task itself rather than relying on external reward—as a solution to increase worker’s motivation [15]. This intrinsic motivation can be designed through balancing the level of task and worker’s skill.

Goal-Based Manufacturing Gamification …

295

While working, when both challenge and skill are well-balanced, workers flow into what they are doing, and this experience induce more innate forms of motivation (e.g., flow experience and positive emotion) [15]. Gamification, the use of game design elements in non-game contexts, might be a proper approach to generate intrinsic motivation. Recent studies support this idea, such as when user have a flow experience through a gamified content this can produce intrinsic motivation [16]. Also, gamification scenario impact user’s positive emotion which also can be related with intrinsic motivation [17, 18]. We believe that gamification in manufacturing context can successfully increase worker’s flow experience and positive emotion. Gamification design gradually provide various level of goals and these can change previous simple and repetitive task into a more challenging one (i.e., higher challenge level). In this study, to verify the effectiveness of industrial gamification by the perspective of flow experience and positive emotion, a bolt tightening work in the automotive assembly line was gamified, and compared with other interfaces (e.g., default condition; reactive condition).

2 Related Work 2.1

Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivation is the “motivation that comes from inside an individual rather than from any external or outside rewards… the motivation comes from… the task itself or from the sense of satisfaction in completing or even working on a task.” [19] Various studies have been conducted to understand how intrinsic motivation can be increased. For example, Davis et al. [20] studied how to increase intrinsic motivation and satisfaction in workplace environment, and proposed an enjoyment as a critical design factor. Elliot and Harackiewicz [21] analyzed about the relationship between goal setting, achievement orientation, and intrinsic motivation, and found that intrinsic motivation is highly related with focusing on goal setting. Feedback, outputs of a system as part of a chain of cause-and-effect, is also important to increase intrinsic motivation. De Treville and Antonakis [6] emphasize the role of feedback as a pursuit for current goals and use it to assess intrinsic motivation level. In sum, researches show that intrinsic motivation is influenced by enjoyment, goal setting, and feedback from the context.

2.2

Gamification for Intrinsic Motivation

Gamification, use of game design elements in non-game contexts [22], can provide gradual goals and matching feedback for users which can lead to intrinsic

296

S. Roh et al.

motivation, flow experience, and positive emotion [23–25]. In this context, various studies in [26, 27] used gamification approach with motivating purposes. For instance, Dickey used game avatars to set a goal and to give a feedback for users. Hanus also used badges and leaderboard to improve user’s intrinsic motivation. The effects of gamification can even applied for the elderly or impaired people who work in the manufacturing environment [28]. Thanks to the proliferation of gamification examples, now people start to be curious about how can we actually conduct a gamification design approach. Recent rigorous research show that careless use of specific gamification elements (e.g., game avatars, leaderboard, and badge) cannot be successful to increase intrinsic motivation because of a lack of continuity and task-irrelevant goal design [29]. In this regard, context-based gradual goal setting and feedback design is necessary to conduct a successful gamification design approach. In this study, we redesigned a bolt tightening work in the automotive assembly line by considering this gradual goal setting and feedback design approach.

3 Gamification Interface Design In the automotive assembly line, one day work is consisted of total four processes, and each process is consisted of 120 cycles. During this cycle, workers have to tighten averagely four bolts (i.e., from three to five) within 1 min (see Fig. 1). While tightening a bolt, workers should follow a prescribed torque level for safety issue. When workers tighten a bolt well (i.e., follow a prescribed torque) “OK” sign will be delivered through machine. “NG” sign will be delivered in the opposite case (i.e., violate a prescribed torque). Through the gamification interface design, we tried to link this simple and repetitive bolt tightening work with gameful elements (i.e., enjoyment, flow experience, and positive emotion). Especially, our primary focus was to redesign previous demotivating work context into more challenging and interesting environment, by considering gradual goal setting and feedback design. Oprescu et al.’s recent study show us a way to consider gradual goal setting and feedback design by considering short term, medium term, and long term goal differently [30]. In the short term, the goal of a gamified workplace may be to train workers in new work processes with reactive feedback. Medium term goals may be

Fig. 1 A process, cycle, and each bolt tightening task


297

Table 1 Short term, medium term, and long term goal design Goal design

Description

Example

Short term

Reactive feedback

Medium term

Progress visualization

Provide audio-visual feedback depending on compliance to prescribed torque (OK/NG) Progress bar for total task number and current task

Long term

Meaning

Direct reactive feedback for user’s action Visualization of work process and user’s current position Epic purpose for overall work experience

Epic, gameful world tour concept; task is no more simple/repetitive work, it is a tour

to enhance productivity through progress visualization, and long term goal may be to foster work and organizational wellbeing through meaning. By considering these three perspective (i.e., short term, medium term, and long term), a gamified interface for bolt tightening task was developed. While conducting a redesigned bolt tightening work, workers can experience gradual goals (see Table 1, Fig. 2). For a short term, by providing a reactive audio-visual feedback depending on each bolt tightening task performance, workers can more focus on their direct task. For a medium term, through a tour progress bar feedback, workers can focus on their continuous performance and anticipate remaining working hours (which is crucial to perceive the locus of control about work). Last, for a long term, overall score during a process will be presented through badges (e.g., trophy, medal, or stars) which give an epic meaning for workers. These gradual goal setting and feedback can improve worker’s flow experience and positive emotions [31]. To verify the effectiveness of goal-based industrial gamification, we compared a gamification interface with other interfaces like default condition (e.g., no goal or feedback for bolt tightening task) and reactive condition (e.g., short term reactive feedback only for bolt tightening task). Our hypothesis are like below: • H1: Gamification interface will improve worker’s flow experience compared to other interfaces (e.g., default condition, reactive condition).

Fig. 2 A redesigned process, cycle, and each bolt tightening task with gamification

298

S. Roh et al.

• H2: Gamification interface will improve worker’s positive emotion compared to other interfaces (e.g., default condition, reactive condition).

4 Method 4.1

Participants

Total five participants (all male) aged 25–27 years (mean = 26.2, s.d. = 0.75) were participated in this study. They were recruited from a pool of students from University and receive a voucher for participation.

4.2

Procedure

To mimic the actual assembly line condition, experiment was conducted for total 8 h and 30 min (see Fig. 3). Each participants conduct a bolt tightening work for 2 h in each three conditions (within-subject design; three condition—default, reactive, and gamification), and break time (from 20 min to 1 h) was given between each conditions. When participants arrived, they were explained about the experimental procedure and get the consent form. After that, through the training session, participants are get used to a bolt tightening work. Default interface was set as a first condition, because it is as same as a current work procedure so good to make participants get used to a bolt tightening work. The second and third condition are either reactive condition or gamification condition (counterbalanced order). During each condition, experience sampling method (ESM) was used to assess participants’ flow level and emotional state.

Fig. 3 Experimental procedure


4.3

299

Material

Experimental setting is consisted of two monitors, a work-board, and a tool for bolt tightening. In Fig. 4, right side monitor (see ①) presents a task-relevant information with three different conditions (e.g., default condition; reactive condition; gamification condition). The monitor on the left side (see ②) is a metaphor for the cycle time of a conveyer belt. During one minute, a car animation is moving from left to right in this monitor, and participants have to conduct their bolt-tightening work within this time limit (as same as a cycle time). Last, in the middle of Fig. 4, there are a work-board and a tool for bolt tightening (see ③). Participants conduct their task (tightening the 15 mm bolt) on this work-board with a tool named Nutrunner from AtlasCopcoTM. During the experiment, three different interface conditions (i.e., default, reactive, and gamification interface) are presented through right side monitor (see ①). First, a default condition shows only the number of bolts to tighten within each cycle time. Whether workers tighten bolts good or bad, they don’t represent any goals or feedback. Second, in a reactive interface condition, the number of tightening tasks in each cycle is represented by the number of boxes (see middle in Fig. 5). When participants tighten a bolt, a reactive feedback is represented depending a tightening

Fig. 4 The experimental setting (blinded-screen due to security policy)

Fig. 5 A participant performs bolt tightening work within three different conditions. From the left to right: default interface condition, reactive interface condition, and gamification interface condition (blinded-screen)

300

S. Roh et al.

performance. When participants follow a prescribed torque (which means “OK”), one of the box’s color change to green with a positive sound feedback. On the contrary to this, when participant violate a prescribed torque (which means “NG”), the box’s color change to red with a negative ‘beep’ sound. This red box changes to green again when participants re-tighten the bolt. After tightening overall bolts in a cycle, a monitor shows the number of boxes (i.e., the number of tightening tasks) for a next cycle. Last, in the case of gamification interface condition, participants will tighten bolts within the gamified context (see Table 1). The number of tightening tasks in each cycle also represented by the number of boxes and depending on participants compliance on the prescribed torque, audio-visual feedback will be presented (similar with reactive interface condition). The difference between a gamification interface and reactive interface is the existence of medium term and long term goal and feedback. For instance, in the gamification interface, participants’ current cycle among the total cycle number is represented through progress bar visualization. Also, after finishing the overall cycle, badges (e.g., trophy, medal, or stars) which give an epic meaning for participants, are given based on the working performance like the number of “OK” signs.

4.4

Measure

The experience sampling method (ESM) was used to assess participants’ flow level and emotional state while conducting a bolt tightening work. ESM is a method to collect a process of experience from simple questions, and can obtain empirical data about continuous psychological states (e.g., flow experience, emotional state) [32]. In this study, we used modified version of the ESM method like Table 2. Participants have to reply for ESM seven times per condition (see Fig. 3).

Table 2 ESM questions for flow level and emotional state Measure

Question

Flow level (5 point Likert scale)

Does the degree of difficulty of the task stimulate your challenge? (extremely low–extremely high; higher is better) How do you rate your performance in this task? (extremely low– extremely high; higher is better) Describe your mood as you were beeped. (bored–excited; higher is better) Describe your mood as you were beeped. (worthless–worth; higher is better) Describe your mood as you were beeped. (passive–active; higher is better) Describe your mood as you were beeped. (uncontrollable– controllable; higher is better)

Emotional state (7 point Likert scale)


301

5 Results and Discussion ESM results for flow experience show changes of participant’s perceived challenge and perceived skill level for a bolt tightening task (see Fig. 6). Perceived skill level (right in Fig. 6) shows no difference between each three interface conditions, which means participants perceive their skill constantly high in every conditions. On the contrary, perceived challenge level (left in Fig. 6) shows differences between each interface conditions. More specifically, there are no difference for perceived challenge level between default interface and reactive interface; participants perceive higher challenge level while conducting a task within the gamification interface. For a flow experience, both perceived challenge and skill have to be balanced, and in this context, gamified interface show improved flow experience compared to other interfaces thanks to the improved challenge level (“H1: Gamified interface will improve worker’s flow experience compared to other interfaces” verified). ESM results for emotional state show changes in participant’s four emotions (e.g., Bored/Excited; Passive/Active, Worthless/Worth, and Uncontrollable/ Controllable). In Fig. 7, participant’s emotional state is higher when they conduct their work within the gamified interface. Especially, “exited” graph show that participants experience more exciting emotion when they conduct their job with gamified interface. Not only excitement but also worthful meaning for job (“worth” graph in Fig. 7) increased thanks to gamification interface. Based on these results, it might be said gamification interface can successfully stimulate worker’s positive emotion (“H2: Gamified interface will improve worker’s positive emotion compared to other interfaces” verified).

Fig. 6 ESM results for flow level (left Challenge; right: Skill)

302

S. Roh et al.

Fig. 7 ESM results for emotional state (from left top to clock wise Excited; active; controllable; and worth)

6 Conclusion and Future Work To improve worker’s intrinsic motivation while conducting a simple and repetitive work in manufacturing environment, recent work environments started to pay attention to gamification design method. Especially, we are interested in how to design successful gamification in manufacturing environment, so we redesign a monotonous bolt tightening work into a gradual goal and feedback based gamified interface. Thanks to goal-based gamification design, previous demotivating work is changed into multiple goal-based work (with short term, medium term, and long term perspective). Results show that our gamification interface was successful to improve worker’s flow experience by improving perceived challenge level compared to other interfaces. Worker’s positive emotion, such as excitement level and worthful emotion, were also increased. Our study has a few limitations. First, the number of participants is not enough, so we couldn’t conduct any statistical analysis to verify our hypothesis. A rigorous study with more participants is need in near future. Also, we proposed only one example for designing short term, medium term, and long term goals and feedback. Various examples and concrete framework to design goal-based manufacturing gamification will be helpful for future researchers who try to conduct gamification design in the manufacturing context. Despite all these limitations, we believe that


303

our study has a meaning as a first study to try to change previous demotivating factory work context into a playful and gamified environment.

References 1. Lundberg, U., Granqvist, M., Hansson, T., Magnusson, M., Wallin, L.: Psychological and physiological stress responses during repetitive work at an assembly line. Work Stress 3(2), 143–153 (1989) 2. Wyatt, S., Langdon, J.N.: Fatigue and boredom in repetitive work. Ind. Health Res. Board Rep. Med. Res. Council (77) (1937) 3. Armstrong, T.J., Radwin, R.G., Hansen, D.J., Kennedy, K.W.: Repetitive trauma disorders: job evaluation and design. Human Factors: J. Human Factors Ergon. Soc. 28(3), 325–336 (1986) 4. Cole, D.C., Ibrahim, S., Shannon, H.S.: Predictors of work-related repetitive strain injuries in a population cohort. Am. J. Public Health 95(7), 1233–1237 (2005) 5. Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M.A.R.I.S.A.: Burnout, boredom and engagement at the workplace. People Work Introduction Contemp. Work Psychol. 293–320 (2014) 6. De Treville, S., Antonakis, J.: Could lean production job design be intrinsically motivating? Contextual, configurational, and levels-of-analysis issues. J. Oper. Manag. 24(2), 99–123 (2006) 7. Sugimori, Y., Kusunoki, K., Cho, F., Uchikawa, S.: Toyota production system and Kanban system materialization of just-in-time and respect-for-human system. Int. J. Prod. Res. 15(6), 553–564 (1977) 8. Michalos, G., Makris, S., Papakostas, N., Mourtzis, D., Chryssolouris, G.: Automotive assem-bly technologies review: challenges and outlook for a flexible and adaptive approach. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2(2), 81–91 (2010) 9. Martimo, K.P., Verbeek, J., Karppinen, J., Furlan, A.D., Kuijer, P.P.F.M., Viikari-Juntura, E., … Karppinen, J.: Manual material handling advice and assistive devices for preventing and treating back pain in workers. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 3(3) (2007) 10. Dashchenko, A.I. (ed.): Manufacturing technologies for machines of the future: 21st century technologies. Springer Science & Business Media (2012) 11. Chen, C.Y., Shih, B.Y., Ma, J.M.: RETRACTED: development for low-cost and cross-platform robot control environment. J. Vib. Control 19(2), 228–233 (2013) 12. Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K.: Beyond incentive pay: insiders’ estimates of the value of complementary human resource management practices. J. Econ. Perspect. 17(1), 155–180 (2003) 13. Libby, T., Thorne, L.: The influence of incentive structure on group performance in assembly lines and teams. Behav. Res. Account. 21(2), 57–72 (2009) 14. Gardner, H.C., Csikszentmihalyi, M.M., Damon, W.: Good work; when excellence and ethics meet (2001) 15. Seligman, M.E., Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Positive Psychology: An Introduction, pp. 279–298. Springer, The Netherlands (2014) 16. Lee, E.: The relationship of motivation and flow experience to academic procrastination in university students. J. Genet. Psychol. 166(1), 5–15 (2005) 17. Meyer, D.K., Turner, J.C.: Re-conceptualizing emotion and motivation to learn in classroom contexts. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 18(4), 377–390 (2006) 18. Grant, A.M.: Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. J. Appl. Psychol. 93(1), 48 (2008) 19. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M.: Intrinsic Motivation. Wiley, New York (1975)

304

S. Roh et al.

20. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22(14), 1111–1132 (1992) 21. Elliot, A.J., Harackiewicz, J.M.: Goal setting, achievement orientation, and intrinsic motiva-tion: a mediational analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66(5), 968 (1994) 22. Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O’Hara, K., Dixon, D.: Gamification using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In: CHI’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2425–2428. ACM, May 2011 23. Moise, D., Cruceru, A.F.: The use of gamification in events marketing. Int. J. Econ. Practices Theories 4(2), 185–190 (2014) 24. Cornelissen, F., Neerincx, M.A., Smets, N.J.J.M., Breebaart, L., Dujardin, P., Wolff, M.: Gamification for Astronaut Training. SpaceOps, Stockholm (2012) 25. Hernandez, M.D.: A model of flow experience as determinant of positive attitudes toward online advergames. J. Promot. Manag. 17(3), 315–326 (2011) 26. Dickey, M.D.: Game design and learning: a conjectural analysis of how massively multiple online role-playing games (MMORPGs) foster intrinsic motivation. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 55 (3), 253–273 (2007) 27. Hanus, M.D., Fox, J.: Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: a longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Comput. Educ. 80, 152–161 (2015) 28. Korn, O.: Industrial playgrounds: how gamification helps to enrich work for elderly or impaired persons in production. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, pp. 313–316. ACM, June 2012 29. Mekler, E.D., Brühlmann, F., Opwis, K., Tuch, A.N.: Do points, levels and leader-boards harm intrinsic motivation?: an empirical analysis of common gamification elements. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications, pp. 66–73. ACM, Oct 2013 30. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R.: Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. In: Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology, pp. 35–54. Springer, Netherlands (2014) 31. Oprescu, F., Jones, C., Katsikitis, M.: I PLAY AT WORK—ten principles for transforming work processes through gamification. Front. Psychol. 5 (2014) 32. Schell, J.: The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2014)