<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for RodKing</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/RodKing/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/RodKing/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:32:27 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: An Interview with Richard Bartle about Gamification</title><link>http://www.gamified.co.uk/2012/12/31/an-interview-with-richard-bartle-about-gamification/#comment-1167975999</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi Andrzej,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;An interesting interview. Thanks to you and Richard Bartle for sharing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;With regard to Bartle's Player Types, you may like to take a look at a holistic framework that I have developed and which is driven by the 3 legs of Business Model Gamification: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (the What), Bartle's Player Types (the Who) and the concept of "Total Happiness" (the Why). The holistic framework is called the "Customer Gamification Pyramid."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Since the Customer Gamification Pyramid is designed to apply to gamification projects, game design projects, and classic business projects, I've introduced the personality types of "Survivor" and "Discoverer". The Survivor and Discoverer loosely correspond to Bartle's "Killer" and "Explorer." In terms of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the terms of "Survivor" and "Discoverer" seem more appropriate. I deal with the What, Who, and Why of gamification projects in the emerging discipline of Business Model Gamification.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A slideshare presentation on Business Model Gamification is available here:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.slideshare.net/RodKing/rod-gamification-pyramid-templaterodking" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.slideshare.net/RodKing/rod-gamification-pyramid-templaterodking"&gt;http://www.slideshare.net/R...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I hope that you find the above presentation interesting. It would be great to have feedback from you and Richard.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the meantime, have a great day.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rod.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RodKing</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:32:27 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Big History Project Teaches The Story of Humanity with Game Based Learning</title><link>http://www.gamification.co/2013/12/13/big-history-project/#comment-1163293785</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Great! And thanks for sharing.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RodKing</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:12:16 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Here’s how to show VCs what your competition looks like</title><link>http://venturebeat.com/2013/11/11/heres-how-to-show-vcs-what-your-competition-looks-like/#comment-1133050838</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Steve Blank's Petal Diagram is interesting.  Its main advantage over the classic X/Y-Competitive Graph is that it illustrates customer segments (industry sub-groups or categories of competitors) as well as potential individual competitors. As I've argued elsewhere, when the X/Y-Competitive Graph is visualized and redrawn as a "Trade-off Map", all of Blank's criticisms of the X/Y-Competitive Graph disappear. The Trade-off Map also covers all the features and benefits of the Petal Diagram as well as offers over 15 more features than the Petal Diagram. And like the Petal Diagram, the template of the Trade-off Map is visually simple; it's just like a tic-tac-toe (3x3) graph; see &lt;a href="http://goo.gl/8TKHm4" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://goo.gl/8TKHm4"&gt;http://goo.gl/8TKHm4&lt;/a&gt; . Your feedback is welcomed.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RodKing</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:23:30 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: A SWOT Analysis On America</title><link>http://avc.com/2008/10/a-swot-analysis/#comment-2880832</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The caption, "A SWOT Analysis on America," certainly caught my attention and the posting is an interesting one. Krassen Dimitrov certainly provides a good framework for discussing America's situation. I feel, however, that there may be a tendency to view the situation as 'cut and dried.' Among other reasons, I have decided to visually summarize Krassen's contents using a Project Storyboard (I hope Krassen doesn't mind; he is appropriately credited and Fred Wilson's blog is referenced).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;To see a visual summary of a SWOT Analysis on the USA, please visit the following link:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://projectstoryboard.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2282204%3ABlogPost%3A381" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://projectstoryboard.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2282204%3ABlogPost%3A381"&gt;http://projectstoryboard.ni...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A template for Visual SWOT Analysis is also included so that people can extend the SWOT Analysis on the USA from their own perspectives. Afterwards, we can construct a massive "wisdom of the crowd" SWOT-Storyboard that includes the perspective of every contributor both online and offline.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Best,&lt;br&gt;Rod King.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://search.galaxyit.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://search.galaxyit.com"&gt;http://search.galaxyit.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RodKing</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:57:45 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>