## 3 Results and Discussion
### Evaluation of the Gamification Model in Production
#### 3.2.3 Analysis of the Gamified Model from the Responses of Off-Site Users  
Figure 13 depicts responses from people of varying ages and education levels, with a focus on young people. The first section of the questionnaire refers to the System Usability Scale tool, which assesses the system's acceptability and is composed of 10 statements on which the respondent must indicate their level of agreement on a scale of 0 to 4, as explained in the methodology. As a result of using this tool, the averages were calculated, and a value of 61 was obtained, indicating acceptability as an average (50-70). Because they were not a specific construction production audience, the external user group had some difficulty understanding the system, indicating that care should be taken in selecting the images representing the weekly goals and that training workers in the system are essential for their understanding. To evaluate the gamified model based on the information displayed on the worker screen, external users were asked to rate it using the full UEQ Tool, with flag values ranging from 1 (most negative) to 7 (most positive) for each of the attributes. Table 5 contains a summary of the responses. Figure 13: Age range and education level of external users. Figure 14 shows that the external users' results are all positive and greater than 0.8. Figure 14: Graph of the external users’ results to the UEQ. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Item** & **Mean** & **Variance** & **Std. Dev.** & **No.** & **Left** & **Right** & **Scale** \\ \hline
1 & 2.1 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 10 & annoying & enjoyable & Attractiveness \\ \hline
2 & 1.4 & 4.0 & 2.0 & 10 & not understandable & understandable & Perspective \\ \hline
3 & 0.0 & 7.1 & 2.7 & 10 & creative & dull & Novelty \\ \hline
4 & 1.0 & 4.9 & 2.2 & 10 & easy to learn & difficult to learn & Perspective \\ \hline
5 & 0.5 & 6.1 & 2.5 & 10 & valuable & inferior & Stimulation \\ \hline
6 & 1.8 & 0.8 & 0.9 & 10 & boring & exciting & Stimulation \\ \hline
7 & 2.4 & 0.5 & 0.7 & 10 & not interesting & interesting & Stimulation \\ \hline
8 & 1.1 & 0.8 & 0.9 & 10 & unpredictable & predictable & Dependability \\ \hline
9 & 0.4 & 7.2 & 2.7 & 10 & fast & slow & Efficiency \\ \hline
10 & 1.3 & 7.6 & 2.8 & 10 & inventive & conventional & Novelty \\ \hline
11 & 2.4 & 0.9 & 1.0 & 10 & obstructive & supportive & Dependability \\ \hline
12 & 1.1 & 7.0 & 2.6 & 10 & good & bad & Attractiveness \\ \hline
13 & 2.2 & 1.5 & 1.2 & 10 & complicated & easy & Perspective \\ \hline
14 & 2.4 & 0.5 & 0.7 & 10 & unlikable & pleasing & Attractiveness \\ \hline
15 & 2.1 & 1.4 & 1.2 & 10 & usual & leading edge & Novelty \\ \hline
16 & 1.9 & 1.7 & 1.3 & 10 & unpleasant & pleasant & Attractiveness \\ \hline
17 & 1.1 & 4.3 & 2.1 & 10 & secure & not secure & Dependability \\ \hline
18 & 0.9 & 6.5 & 2.6 & 10 & motivating & demotivating & Stimulation \\ \hline
19 & 1.5 & 4.9 & 2.2 & 10 & meets expectations & does not meet expectations & Dependability \\ \hline
20 & 2.0 & 1.6 & 1.2 & 10 & inefficient & efficient & Efficiency \\ \hline
21 & 0.6 & 4.3 & 2.1 & 10 & clear & confusing & Perspective \\ \hline
22 & 2.2 & 1.1 & 1.0 & 10 & impractical & practical & Efficiency \\ \hline
23 & 1.5 & 3.6 & 1.9 & 10 & organized & cluttered & Efficiency \\ \hline
24 & 1.1 & 3.0 & 1.7 & 10 & attractive & unattractive & Attractiveness \\ \hline
25 & 1.3 & 6.0 & 2.5 & 10 & friendly & unfriendly & Attractiveness \\ \hline
26 & 2.8 & 0.2 & 0.4 & 10 & conservative & innovative & Novelty \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Summary of external users’ responses to the UEQ. The UEQ tool also allows us to compare the model's attractiveness and quality. For external users, we observed that the model's Pragmatic and Hedonic Quality are very close positive values, well above 0.8, which the tool's authors consider the neutral range limit [30].