JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Traditional serious game (SG) Redesign methods often overlook stakeholder needs and preferences. This study addresses this challenge. By integrating stakeholder theory (ST) and enterprise architecture (EA), alongside the Architecture Development Method (ADM), we propose a novel framework for SG design. This framework is crafted to aid practitioners, researchers, and specialists in leveraging their resources, policies, and programs more effectively. Utilising a design science research methodology, the framework's utility is validated through an exploration of stakeholder practices in SG projects. Expert reviews have further refined its features, processes, and outputs, making it a robust tool for enhancing SG design and implementation.

Objective:

This paper introduces a framework for designing SGs, covering stakeholder analysis, requirements gathering, and design implementation planning. It highlights the importance of expert review in validating and refining the framework, ensuring its effectiveness and reliability for use in SG design. Through critical assessment by experts, the framework is optimised for practical application by practitioners, researchers, and specialists in the field, ensuring its robustness and utility in enhancing SG development. The next step will be to validate the framework empirically by applying it to an SG development project.

Methods:

The study develops and validates a conceptual framework for SG design by synthesising ST and EA through literature review, concept mapping, and theory development by way of a design science research approach. The framework is iteratively refined and validated via expert review, drawing on insights from professionals experienced in SGs, ST, and EA. This method ensures the framework's practical relevance and effectiveness in addressing real-world design challenges.

Results:

An expert review by 29 SG practitioners validated the framework's success in stakeholder management, confirming its stakeholder-centric effectiveness. While experts praised its structured approach, they suggested clearer guidance for game design elements. Despite recognising the framework's complexity, its depth was seen as valuable for efficient management. The consensus calls for a refined balance between detailed functionality and user-friendly design, with the framework’s impact on stakeholder capabilities revealing a spectrum of professional needs.

Conclusions:

This paper presents a framework at creating more effective and organisationally aligned SGs. The framework, evaluated across Execution, Practical, and EA levels, is found to be logical but varies in ease of understanding and length, with calls from experts for the EA level to be more accessible. It is recognised for enhancing stakeholder efficiency and management, yet critiques point to its rigidity and the need for greater flexibility. Recommendations for improvement include streamlining the framework, enhancing clarity, reducing administrative tasks, and incorporating clear guidelines on technology use, motivational elements, and specific operational tools. This approach aims to guide SG stakeholders in producing more targeted and adaptable game designs. The next iteration of the framework will be developed after it has been applied to a development project and feedback is obtained from a group of practitioners as a team rather than distributed experts.