## 3 Results and Discussion
### Evaluation of the Gamification Model in Production
#### 3.2.1 Analysis of the Gamified Model from the Workers' Answers  
The model was presented to the worker, demonstrating the tool's functionalities as well as how team and individual feedback work. Following the presentation, a form was used to collect responses on the model. This form is broken down into the following sections: worker profile, consent for research participation, UEQ-S tool, NPS, and questions about the worker's preferences. Figures 6 and 7 show the outcomes.  
Figure 5: Information flow in construction site.  
As a result, as illustrated in Figure 6, 60% of the workers are young (less than 36 years old), 50% are servants, and 50% have an incomplete middle school education.  
An amount of 90 percent of them enjoy playing, with 90 percent preferring team games, and 50 percent preferring electronic games. They use social media, and 90 percent of them have WhatsApp.  
Table 1 summarizes the workers' answers to the UEQ-S.  
Figure 6: Profile of the sample of workers.  
Figure 7: Workers x Games x Technology.  
All scales were made up of a series of seven-point items ranging from \(-3\) (extremely bad) to \(+3\) (extremely good). Values between \(-0.8\) and \(0.8\) indicate a neutral evaluation of the corresponding scale, values greater than \(0.8\) indicate a positive evaluation, and values less than \(0.8\) indicate a negative evaluation [30].  
Figure 8 shows that the model has positive characteristics in the perception of workers, such as being interesting to receive feedback through gamification, reaching values above \(2.0\) (two), indicating that they approved of the model's quality and believe it will contribute to optimizing their daily work. For workers, pragmatic quality (efficiency, ease of use, and dependability) is more important than hedonic quality (originality, stimulation), both of which received high ratings.  
A benchmarking database is included with the UEQ-S tool. The averages of the measured scale are defined in relation to the existing values of a benchmark dataset. This dataset includes data from 14,056 people from 280 studies on various products (business software, web pages, web stores, social networks). When the evaluated product's results are compared to the benchmark data, conclusions about the relative quality of the evaluated product in comparison to other products can be drawn. These findings are shown in Table 2.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Scale** & **Mean** & **Comparison to Benchmark** & **Interpretation** \\ \hline \hline Pramatic Quality & 2.80 & Excellent & In the range of the 10\% best results \\ \hline Hedonic Quality & 2.35 & Excellent & In the range of the 10\% best results \\ \hline Overall & 2.58 & Excellent & In the range of the 10\% best results \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Benchmark results for workers’ responses to the UEQ-S.  
Figure 8: Quality of the model in the perception of the workers.  
The NPS was evaluated using only one question: Would you recommend this model for use on the site where you work? (Figure 9).  
Would you recommend this model to be used in the work you work on?  
10 answers  
Nine of the ten workers said 'yes', with only one saying'maybe', indicating that the model is in the Zone of Excellence (76-100) for this audience.