Gamification and Evaluation of the Knowledge Management

Application in a Software Quality Lab: An Experimental Study

Antonilson da Silva Alcantara and Sandro Ronaldo Bezerra Oliveira

Graduate Program in Computer Sciense, Institute of Exact and Natural Sciences, Federal University of Pará,

Belém, Pará, Brazil

Keywords: Gamification, Learning, Teaching, Education, Knowledge Management.

Abstract: This paper presents the application of Gamification, proposed by Alcantara and Oliveira (2018), for

Teaching and Learning of Knowledge Management in a Software Quality Lab. The proposal is briefly

presented, followed by the description of the application in the laboratory. Finally, we present the results

obtained by a quantitative evaluation, based on the data collected during the experiment, followed by a

qualitative evaluation based on the SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threats) analysis from the

perspective of the participants and, soon after, the final considerations are presented.

1 INTRODUCTION

Knowledge Management is of great importance

within the competitive landscape for organizations.

Knowledge is highlighted as a business asset raising

the competitive capacity of the company, which has

a set of balanced intellectual capital and, through the

well-known Knowledge Management process,

manages to generate and store this intangible asset

(Aires et al., 2017). Dalkir (2005) argues that given

the relevance of knowledge in all areas of life,

including business, two aspects of knowledge are

crucial to its viability and success at any level:

Knowledge assets, which must be applied, fed,

preserved and used as much as possible by

individuals and organizations; and Processes related

to knowledge to create, organize, transform, transfer,

group, apply and preserve knowledge that must be

intentionally managed in all areas of comprehension.

Even with knowledge having gained such

importance, many organizations neglect or do not

know how to manage this intellectual asset (Aires et

al., 2017). Falcão et al. (2014) state that in the

current generation it is necessary to use a teaching

methodology that is more playful and involves the

digital media, which are part of the student's daily

life, with the contents taught in the classroom,

providing an attractive environment, interactive and

that better promotes learning.

Gamification appears with the purpose of

stimulating the participants to a certain action,

assisting in the solution of problems and stimulating

the learning process (Gonçalves et al., 2016; Freitas

et al., 2016).

In addition to this introductory section, this

paper is organized in the following sections: Section

2 presents the background about the subject of this

paper, Section 3 presents some related works about

this reasearch, Section 4 presents briefly the

Software Quality Lab where the knowledge

management application was applied, Section 5

describes the gamification, Section 6 presents the

evaluation of the gamification and Section 7

discusses the results obtained with the research and

possible future work.

2 BACKGROUND

Oliveira (2018) classifies knowledge into two types:

tacit and explicit. Tacit knowledge is that acquired

with personal experiences and that is in the minds of

individuals. It is difficult to share because it is an

internalized knowledge in the individual. Explicit

knowledge is one that can be represented in the form

of data, stored in a knowledge base and

communicable, so that other people have access.

According to Tabares et al. (2016), Knowledge

Management is the way the human resources or

machine learning share and acquire experiences

from different sources. To have value within the

organization, this knowledge needs to be managed

202

Alcantara, A. and Oliveira, S.

Gamiﬁcation and Evaluation of the Knowledge Management Application in a Software Quality Lab: An Experimental Study.

DOI: 10.5220/0007832802020209

In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Technologies (ICSOFT 2019), pages 202-209

ISBN: 978-989-758-379-7

by a life cycle that encompasses the capture, storage,

transformation, transfer, and distribution phases.

Jurado et al. (2015) propose the use of Gamification

as an alternative to improve participation in

knowledge management processes.

Gamification consists of the use of game

elements in real contexts. There are four basic

characteristics that define a Game: Goals, which

represent the goal to be achieved within the game,

besides being the motivating factor for the player's

involvement, Rules, which correspond to the

restrictions, norms and limitations of the user within

the game, Feedback, which is the response to the

player when performing some task or action in the

game informing and directing the user about the goal

to be achieved, and Voluntary Participation, which

represents the freedom of the player to perform or

not a certain action or strategy within the game, as

well as represent their initiative to play (Freitas et al

2016).

Chou (2015) classifies motivation into two

types: Extrinsic, which is one that arises from an

objective, purpose or reward, where the task itself is

not necessarily interesting or attractive, however,

due to the objective of the task or the reward

attributed to who to comply with, people become

motivated to do it, and Intrinsic, which is the

motivation that people begin to have by performing

the task itself, regardless of whether or not there is a

reward for its accomplishment.

Costa and Marchiori (2016) affirm that the

elements of games are classified in three categories:

Dynamics, Mechanics and Components. These

categories are related to each other, so that each

Mechanics are related to one or more Dynamic(s),

which in turn are related to one or more

Component(s).

Dynamics constitute the highest level of

abstraction, representing interactions between

players and game mechanics (Werbach and Hunter,

2012).

Werbach and Hunter (2012) argue that

Mechanics, in turn, are the basic processes that drive

action and engages players. Each mechanic is a way

to achieve one or more dynamics (Costa and

Marchiori, 2016).

Components are applications that are used and

visualized in the interface of the game and, like a

Mechanics, connect to one or more Dynamics(s),

where many components can constitute a Mechanics

(Costa and Marchiori, 2016).

3 RELATED WORKS

Elm et al. (2016) present the software CLEVER,

which proposes a game of trivia (questions) and

RPG for dissemination of business knowledge. This

game uses games elements and each battle is won

with correct answers. One of the weaknesses is that

the game does not include knowledge generators, an

important person in knowledge management who

produces new knowledge (assets) for the

organization, and also does not define the experts to

validate knowledge, since all knowledge generated

must be analyzed by a expert in order to determine

the efficiency and usefulness of a given knowledge.

One point of improvement proposed as future work

is an evaluation with a large number of participants

to validate this game, design a repository of

knowledge to store and maintain the management of

all knowledge generated and useful to the

organization, and integrate the game with that

repository of knowledge.

Yin et al. (2016) present Light Quest, which

proposes a game to increase motivation in the

generation, dissemination and evaluation of

knowledge. It is a game that stimulates the ability to

produce, disseminate and absorb knowledge in the

organizational environment, using Cards where

knowledge is recorded and then evaluated and scored

by another team. This score is used to increase the

character level of the user who registered the

knowledge. One of the weaknesses is that the

evaluation of the Cards is made by people who may

not be experts in that knowledge to be evaluated.

In this context, Alcantara and Oliveira (2018)

present a Gamified proposal for Support to Teaching

and Learning of Knowledge Management.

Stimulating the process of generation, dissemination,

capture, absorption and socialization of knowledge

along different stages of a Gamification flow,

contemplating the main characters of the Knowledge

Management process, such as: the knowledge

generators responsible for producing new assets for

the organization, and the Expert, responsible for

validating the knowledge produced.

4 THE GAME OF KNOWLEDGE

MANAGEMENT

The Software Quality Lab, called SPIDER

(http://www.spider.ufpa.br), has been established

since 2008 at the Federal University of Pará from

Brazil, and develops activities for research and

Gamiﬁcation and Evaluation of the Knowledge Management Application in a Software Quality Lab: An Experimental Study

203

development of innovation for software

development companies. The Lab has already

trained more than 30 master’s students, 6 doctoral

students and 50 scientific initiation students. The

Lab has more than 150 scientific papers published in

conferences and journals around the world. The Lab

has already won many awards, among which stands

out in 2012 the award for best research project

evaluated by the brazilian federal government.

The Software Quality Lab was the context of the

case study that will be presented and had the

following Research Question (QR): Does the use of

gamification aid in the teaching and learning process

of knowledge management?

In order to respond to this QR, a gamified

scenario was created for this case study, which has

the following elements: physical space (laboratory),

the players (members of the laboratory), the judge

(doctoral researcher), expert (professor), master

student (researcher responsible for this work), and

other used game elements, detailed in the following

subsections.

4.1 Description of the Game

Alcantara and Oliveira (2018) propose a

Gamification to Support the Teaching and Learning

of the Knowledge Management assets and process,

as can be seen in Figure 1.

It consists of eight steps (Start, Create

Knowledge and / or Comments, Evaluate Cards,

Identify Target Audience, Duel, Pack Card and

Communicate Target Audience, Knowledge

Repository and Ranking), being the last of feedback

for users, stimulates the process of generating,

disseminating, capturing, absorbing and socializing

of the knowledge along different stages of the flow,

contemplating the main characters of the Knowledge

Management process: knowledge generators and the

expert.

Figure 1: Gamification Flow.

The dynamics present in the Gamification

proposal are: Restrictions, which represents

constraints or forced compensation, Emotions,

which are dynamic that arouse feelings of curiosity,

competitiveness, frustration, happiness, among

others, Narrative, which consists of a consistent and

continuous plot, Progression, which represents the

growth and development of the player,

Relationships, which represents the social

interactions that generate feelings of camaraderie,

status, altruism, among others.

The mechanics used are: Feedback, represented

by the activity, participation and final medals,

described in (Alcantara and Oliveira, 2019), in

addition to the Ranking stage, Challenges, which

are composed of activities that must be performed at

each stage of the flow, Reward, consisting of the

Points and Bonus components, Competition,

represented by the stages of the Duel and Ranking

flow, in addition to the medal component, as a way

to stimulate competition among the Players,

Cooperation, present in the activity Consult Card in

the Knowledge Repository stage, where the

participants are motivated, through the activity, to

consult the Cards of the other participants generating

score for both the player that consulted, and the

owner of the Card, and Acquisition of Resources,

represented by the activities of Create Knowledge

Card and Comment Card, in the Generate

Knowledge Cards step (Alcantara and Oliveira,

2019).

Finally, we used some elements of games such

as: Superior Meaning, where the user understands

that he / she is performing an important activity for

the organization, in addition to receiving a score for

his / her growth in the Ranking, Boss, which is

represented by a task that needs to be performed to

advance to the next step of the flow, Group activity,

which is represented by the sharing of knowledge

through the Cards (socialization), in the Knowledge

Repository, and by the possibility of creating teams

to play, where each group represents an area of

knowledge that are associated with each other

(Alcantara and Oliveira , 2018).

The main details about Gamification and their

characteristics and particularities, such as dynamics,

mechanics, game components and motivations -

Core Drives described in the framework Octalyzis

by Chou (2015) - are presented in (Alcantara and

Oliveira, 2018; Alcantara et al., 2018; Alcantara et

al., 2019).

ICSOFT 2019 - 14th International Conference on Software Technologies

204

4.2 The Game Application

The players involved in the Gamification proposed

by Alcantara and Oliveira (2018) are: the Judge,

responsible collaborator for the development of the

Class scores and feed the Gamification

accompaniment worksheet; in the application of the

gamification proposal in the lab only one participant

acted with this profile, the Player, who is

participating in Gamification generating, evaluating,

disseminating and absorbing new knowledge; in the

experiment performed in the lab five participants

acted in this profile, the Master, researcher who

coordinates the Gamification, responsible for

defining the times in each activity and when to move

to the next step of the flow; in the lab experiment

one participant acted in this profile, and the Expert,

expert member in the field of knowledge that is

being studied; its function is to help in the resolution

of doubts, to assign a score to the Cards created by

the Players and to indicate the knowledge that will

be stored in the knowledge repository and

disseminated in the group; in the application of

Gamification proposal in lab only one participant

acted with this profile.

At the start of the Gamification flow, its

functioning was explained, the scores defined for

each stage, the rules that compose it and presented

the Task List that would be performed in the current

iteration, in order to encourage the generation and

use of knowledge, besides being performed a

simulated round for understanding. The Individual

Tracking Form was also distributed to the Players

and the Expert, where each Player should record the

Cards Identifier created by him / her, the Card

Identifier that were validated along with the note

assigned to them, and the Target Audience

suggestion (Alcantara and Oliveira, 2018).

After completing this stage, the gamified

worksheet was completed according to the

performance of each participant, as can be seen in

Figure 2, obtaining the individual feedback

regarding participation, performance of the activities

and final medal, whose rules are described in

(Alcantara et al., 2019).

Following the Gamification flow, the Create

Knowledge and / or Comment Cards task starts. At

this step the Player has the option to create a Card or

comment one already made available in the

Knowledge Repository (Alcantara e Oliveira, 2018).

In the Gamification application, participants

completed the Cards made available with knowledge

that they thought was important in the context of the

project selected by the lab coordinator to be a topic

for knowledge generation. For this, it was necessary

to fill in some identification data of the Card, as cam

be seen in Figure 3, such as: Author, filled in with

the name of the participant, Date, filled in with the

day, month and year of creation of the Card,

Identifier, consisting of numeric digits where the

first 2 digits represent the author's registration, and

the remaining digits represent the sequential number

of breeding Cards created by him / her, New, where

the author signs with an "X" if the knowledge to be

described is something new, or Comment, where

the author signs with an "X" if the knowledge to be

described is related to a Card of the "Knowledge

Repository". In this case, it is also necessary to fill in

the Identifier with the number (registration of the

author who created the Card + sequential number of

creation) of the Card to be commented, From MY

area of activity, the author must indicate an "X" if

the subject to be reported is related to his / her area

of expertise or performance, if it is not in his / her

area of work, the author should check the option

FROM OTHER area, Description Knowledge /

Commentary, where the author describes a unique

knowledge or comment having as criteria the

relevance, which represents the degree of

importance of this knowledge, the clarity, which is

how this knowledge is described, and the

attendance to the subject, which represents the

alignment, compliance and potential to solve a given

problem or subject.

The remaining fields are filled by the Master if

the Card is approved, the "Pack Card and

Communicate Target Audience" step, with the

exception of queries field, which is filled when

creating a Card comment related to this card. The

"Grade" field corresponds to the sum of the grades

assigned by the Expert, to the knowledge created

based on the relevance, clarity and attendance to the

subject. The Expert field must be filled in with the

name of the participant who has the Gamification

Expert profile. The Target Audience field must be

completed with the public to whom this knowledge

is intended, identified by the Expert.

After the creation of the Card, each Player has

taken note of their Individual Tracking Form, as can

be seen in Figure 4, identifying all their created

cards with their registration number and sequential

creation number.

In the Evaluate Card step of the flow was

evaluated the Comments and Cards generated by

other users, and the Player can not evaluate the ones

he / she created. Each Player, and the Expert,

evaluated the Cards and Comments created in the

current Gamification iteration, based on the criteria:

Gamiﬁcation and Evaluation of the Knowledge Management Application in a Software Quality Lab: An Experimental Study

205

Figure 2: Gamification Worksheet – Start step.

relevance, where it was evaluated whether the

knowledge generated in the Card or the comment

was important to the organization, scoring from zero

to two, clarity, where it was evaluated if the

information described in the Card or comment was

understandable, scoring between zero and two, and

attendance to the subject, where it was evaluated if

the knowledge described in the Card or comment

answered the proposed problem, punctuating

between zero and six in this question, following the

descriptions in (Alcantara and Oliveira, 2018).

Figure 3: Knowledge Cards.

Following the Gamification flow, in the Identify

Target Audience step, the Players and the Expert,

after evaluating each Card or comment, identified a

target audience, where this knowledge best applied.

Figure 4: Individual Tracking Form - Created Cards.

In the Duel step of the Gamification flow, the

grades given for the same Card or comment by the

Players and by the Expert in the Evaluate Cards step

were compared, and the Player who had the

evaluative grade equal to the grade given by the

Expert was the winner of the Duel, receiving an

extra score defined and disseminated by the Master

at the beginning of the Gamification iteration,

according to Alcantara and Oliveira (2018).

In the Pack Card and Communicate Target step

of the Gamification flow, the Cards or Comments

that obtained in the Evaluate Cards step the grade

greater or equal to six in the Expert's evaluation, in

addition to the points given in the criteria of

relevance, clarity and attendance were fixed in the

Knowledge Board, as can be seen in Figure 6, and

the target public, identified by the Expert in the

Identify Target Audience step, informed of the

availability of this new knowledge for possible

queries and comments.

The Knowledge Board, in Figure 5, was

organized in such a way that in the upper part was

identified the 7 types of knowledge that are:

Description of the process, where the knowledge is

exposed in a sequential and logical, Case that it

describes a specific situation, Lesson Learned,

which reports a learning of a particular case, Idea,

which alludes to a suggestion of improvement or

something innovative, Doubt, which describes a

question or subject that needs an explanation,

Domain, knowledge related to the area of expertise

of who is generating the knowledge, and

Association Rule, which represents the knowledge

generated from observance of other facts, enabling a

logical conclusion (Oliveira, 2018).

In the left part of the Knowledge Board, the

Target Public was identified, so that the Cards were

positioned according to the Knowledge Type and the

Target Audience, making it easy for users to identify

the Cards.

ICSOFT 2019 - 14th International Conference on Software Technologies

206

Figure 5: Knowledge Board.

In the Knowledge Repository step of the

Gamification flow, Players had access to all

approved Knowledge Cards and comments, which

were made available in the Knowledge Board, and

thus to identify possible areas where it is feasible to

generate a new Card or create a comment related to

a Card in the Knowledge Repository.

Finally, the Ranking step, where the Players

identified their performance in relation to the other

players in the amount of points reached throughout

the gamification and through the average of the final

medals. Finally, the general medal was presented

that is attributed to each participant according to

their performance in the activities of each step of the

flow and their participation, as can be seen in Figure

Figure 6: Ranking step.

5 THE EVALUATION

In order to evaluate the application of Gamification

proposed by Alcantara and Oliveira (2018) in the

lab, the Gamification Worksheet was used to

analyze the performance of the Players in the main

activities of each step, through the Activity Medals;

the commitment throughout the flow (presence,

doubts, suggestions, participation, faults, not to carry

out the activities and disrupt the work), through the

Participation Medals, as can be seen in Figure 2; the

Final Medals were also analyzed, resulting from the

combination of Activity Medals and Participation

Medals; and, finally, the General Medal.

5.1 Comparison between the Results

Obtained

The quantitative data that were collected for the

analysis of this case study are allocated in the

Gamification worksheet, while the qualitative data

were collected by audio and analyzed by the authors

of the study.

5.1.1 Quantitative Results

Analyzing the Gamification Worksheet, in the

Participation Medals question, we noticed 80% of

the participants in the Ninja Turtle level and only

20% in the Piccolo level.

While in the Medal of Activities and Final

Medals, along the stepd of the Gamification flow,

the performance of the Players was analyzed, as

shown below.

In the Start step, 100% of the participants

reached Activity Medals of Yoda, which

demonstrates their mastery over the activities

proposed in this stage. To win this medal was

necessary to perform the activity "Participate in the

simulated round" which totaled 10 points. While in

Final Medal, 80% of Players won the Ninja Turtle

Medal, and 20% the Piccolo Medal.

Table 1 shows the range of points required for

each Medal in Create Knowledge Cards and / or

Comments, Evaluate Cards, Identify Target

Audience, Duel, Pack Card and Communicate

Target Audience, and Knowledge Repository steps.

Then, in the "Create Knowledge Cards and / or

Comments" step, in the Activity Medals category,

80% of the Players achieved the Shrek Medal and

only 20% of the Players the Ninja Turtle Medal. As

for the Final Medal, 60% of the Players won the

Shrek Medal and 40% the Ninja Trutle Medal.

In the Evaluate Cards step, in the Medals of

Activity category, 20% of the Players reached the

Shrek Medal, 60% of the Players reached the Ninja

Turtle Medal, and only 20% of the Players the

Piccolo Medal. In the Final Medal, 20% of the

Players won the Shrek Medal, and 80% the Ninja

Turtle Medal.

Next, in the Identify Target Audience step, in the

Medals of Activity category, 20% of Players reached

the Shrek Medal, 40% of Players reached the Ninja

Turtle Medal, 20% of Players reached the Piccolo

Medal, and only 20% of Players a Yoda Medal. In

Gamiﬁcation and Evaluation of the Knowledge Management Application in a Software Quality Lab: An Experimental Study

207

the Final Medal question, 20% of the Players won

the Shrek Medal, 40% the Ninja Turtle Medal, and

40% the Piccolo Medal.

Table 1: Score Range for Medal of Activities in Create

Knowledge Cards and / or Comments, Evaluate Cards,

Identify Target Audience, Duel, Pack Card and

Communicate Target Audience, and Knowledge

Repository steps.

Medal of Activity

Create Knowledge Cards

and / or Comments,

Evaluate Cards and

Identify Target Audience

Duel

Pack Card and

Communicate Target

Audience

Knowledge Repository

Range of Points

Yoda

From 61

From 350

From 160

From 13

Piccolo

41 to 60

150 to

300

100 to

140

10 to 12

Ninja

Turtle

21 to 40

50 to 100

40 to 80

7 to 9

Shrek

0 to 20

0 to 49

0 to 20

0 to 6

In the Duel step, in the Medals of Activity

category, 20% of the Players reached the Shrek

Medal, 60% of the Players reached the Ninja Turtle

Medal, and only 20% of the Players the Piccolo

Medal. In the Final Medal question, 20% of the

Players won the Shrek Medal, and 80% the Ninja

Turtle Medal.

In the Pack Card and Communicate Target

Audience step, in the Activity Medals question,

100% of the Players reached the Ninja Turtle Medal.

In Final Medal, 100% of Players won the Ninja

Turtle Medal.

In the Knowledge Repository step, in the Medals

of Activity question, 100% of the Players reached

the Shrek Medal. In the Final Medal, 80% of the

Players won the Shrek Medal, and 20% the Ninja

Turtle Medal.

Finally, in the Ranking step, the scores of each

participant were presented along with the General

Medal of each one, as can be seen in Figure 7, where

80% of the participants obtained the General Medal

of Ninja Turtle, and only 20% the Piccolo Medal.

Table 2 shows the range of points required for each

Medal in this step.

Table 2: Value intervals for General Medal.

Arithmetic Average

of Final Medals

General Medal

3,1 to 4

Yoda

2,1 to 3

Piccolo

1,1 to 2

Ninja Turtle

0 to 1

Shrek

5.1.2 Qualitative Results

The qualitative results were collected from

interviews in the feedback meeting with all

Gamification participants. Dynamics, generated

products, flow, Gamification (elements and

mechanics), and roles (actors) were analyzed.

In relation to the Dynamics present in the

Gamification, the social interaction, promoted by the

dynamics, the possession aspect, the almost

instantaneous feedback and the exchange of

knowledge were presented as strengths. As

Opportunities the participants pointed out the

possibility of using a public worksheet for better

monitoring by all stakeholders along the dynamics

or a tool that enables instant feedback. As

weaknesses, still in relation to the dynamics, they

punctuated the absence of playful terms and

narrative, characteristic of most games. And, as a

threat, they punctuated the amount of participants

that can compromise the follow-up of the process,

and the execution time of each step that may detract

from the outcome.

In the Generated Products criterion were

presented as strengths the Tracking Form, which

enabled participants to control the knowledge cards

that allowed interpretation in a clear and intuitive

way and the use of the lab environment. As

Opportunities the participants scored the possibility

of Level Creation progression for the products. As

weaknesses they pointed out the absence of the

fields with the types of knowledge in the Cards.

And, as a threat, they punctuated the possibility of

excess Cards which can create bottlenecks,

especially in the Evaluate Cards step.

Regarding the Flow were presented as strengths

the Visual Representation of the Gamification,

which makes it possible to visualize the whole flow.

As Opportunities the participants pointed out the

possibility of improving the Duel activity. As

weaknesses they pointed to the absence of a pre-

established target audience list, which could become

a disincentive factor for participants.

In the Gamification criterion, almost instant

feedback was presented as strengths. As

ICSOFT 2019 - 14th International Conference on Software Technologies

208

Opportunities participants pointed out the possibility

of an award at the end of the experiment, the

possibility of a reward based on the grade given by

the expert for each Card and the use of a software in

the gamification that allows greater agility in the

creation of Cards and generate feedback snapshot.

As weaknesses they pointed out the existence of

many rules and a weak feeling of play, necessitating

something more playful. And, as a threat, they

punctuated the limitation of tasks.

Finally, in relation to the Roles (actors) were

presented as strengths the fact of the roles being well

defined and clear, helping in the identification of

each actor. And, as a threat, they punctuated the

number of players that, if there are many, can

demand a greater number of participants in both the

Judge profile and the Expert profile.

6 CONCLUSION

This paper presented the results of a case study that

allowed improving the teaching and learning

techniques of Knowledge Management. The results

obtained with the Gamification worksheet and

feedback from the participants enable the QR

response that was presented in Section 5, where the

use of gamification as a tool to support teaching and

learning of knowledge management contributes

positively.

As future works, the authors suggest the use of

the Gamification proposal in scenarios of different

professional contexts, in order to ascertain the

suitability of Alcantara and Oliveira (2018) proposal

in different scenarios; the application of the proposal

with a more expressive number of participants; and

the use of the proposal in the classroom.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the Dean of

Research and Postgraduate Studies at the Federal

University of Pará (PROPESP/UFPA) for providing

financial support through the Qualified Publication

Support Program (PAPQ).

REFERENCES

Aires, R. W. do A., Freira, F. K., 2017. Indústria 4.0:

Desafios e tendências para a Gestão do Conhecimento.

In: I SUCEG. Santa Catarina.

Alcantara, A, S., Oliveira, S, B., 2018. Uma abordagem

Gamificada para Apoio ao Ensino e Aprendizagem da

Gestão do Conhecimento. In: XVII SBGames. Foz do

Iguaçu – Paraná.

Alcantara, A, S., Oliveira, S, B., Junior, R, V., Cardoso,

W, R., Paiva, L, O, A., 2018. Aplicação de Core

Drives e Elementos de Jogos para o Ensino e

Aprendizagem da Gestão do Conhecimento. XXIII

TISE.

Chou, Y., 2015. Actionable Gamification - Beyond Points,

Badges, and Leaderboards. Octalysis Media.

Costa, A, C, S., Marchiori, P, Z., 2016. Gamificação,

elementos de jogos e estratégia: uma matriz de

referência. In: CID: R.

Dalkir, K., 2005. Knowledge management in theory and

practice. Boston: Elsevier.

Elm, D.; Tondello, G. F.; Kappen, D. L.; Ganaba, M.;

Stocco, M.; e Nacke, L. E., 2016. CLEVER: A Trivia

and Strategy Game for Enterprise Knowledge

Learning. CHI PLAY’16.

Falcão, A, P., Leite, M, D., Tenório, M, M., 2014.

Ferramenta de apoio ao ensino presencial utilizando

gamificação e design de jogos. In:XXV SBIE. Mato

Grosso do Sul.

Freitas, S, A, A., Lima, T., Canedo, E, D., Costa, R, L,.

2016. Gamificação e avaliação do engajamento dos

estudantes em uma disciplina técnica de curso de

graduação. In: XXVII SBIE. Minas Gerais.

Gonçalves, L., Giacomazzo, G., Rodrigues, F., Macaia, B.,

2016. Gamificação na Educação: um modelo

conceitual de apoio ao planejamento em uma proposta

pedagógica. In:XXVII SBIE Minas Gerais.

Jurado, J, L., Fernandez, A,. Collazos C, A., 2015.

Applying gamification in the context of knowledge

management. In:15th I-KNOW. Austria.

Oliveira, A. L. C., 2018. Uma abordagem para a

implementação da Gestão do Conhecimento dos

resultados esperados do MR-MPSSW usando a rede

social Facebook. Mestrado. PPGCC/UFPA.

Tabares, M. S.; Giraldo, L.; Joyanes, L., 2016. Improving

the Business Processes Management from the

Knowledge Management. 11th KMO.

Werbach, K,. Hunter, D,. 2012. For The Win: How Game

Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business. Filadélfia,

Pensilvânia: Wharton Digital Press.

Yin, H.; Yamamoto, K.; Kuramoto, I.; e Tsujino, Y., 2016.

Light Quest: A Gamified Knowledge-sharing System

to Increase Motivation to Provide Long-tail

Knowledge. 13th ACE.

Gamiﬁcation and Evaluation of the Knowledge Management Application in a Software Quality Lab: An Experimental Study

209