THE PROJECT WORLD – GAMIFICATION IN PROJECT
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Research in Progress
Schacht, Silvia, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, [email protected]
Morana, Stefan, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, [email protected]
Maedche, Alexander, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, [email protected]
Abstract
To this day, companies struggle to manage what they know. More specially, project teams are
reinventing the wheel by finding already known solutions or making mistakes that were already made
in the organization. Many researchers are studying the challenge of managing knowledge, and they
often focus on knowledge documentation, storage, and transfer. However, mostly knowledge reuse is
omitted by research. In this paper, we present a gamified project knowledge management system to
address this gap. Due to the integration of gamification mechanisms we follow a new approach to
enable project teams to share their experiences and thus, reuse project-related knowledge. With our
work we contribute to both research and practice. On the one hand, we follow the call of researchers
for more studies in the field of gamification since its effects needs to be tested and demonstrated by
applying rigorous research methods. On the other hand, by following the new way of integrating
gaming mechanisms in a knowledge management system, we open a new area for research
opportunities in knowledge management research. Furthermore, practitioners may leverage our
proposed ideas and build specific artifacts adapted to the actual needs of the organization and its
employees.
Keywords: Gamification, Project Knowledge Management System, Knowledge Reuse.
1
Introduction
Although knowledge management (KM) is intensively studied in many disciplines like psychology,
economics, and social sciences (Wiig 2000), practitioners are still struggling in managing what they
know. In particular, information systems (IS) projects may benefit from a sophisticated KM (Reich et
al. 2008), since more than 60 percent of IS projects are challenged or even cancelled (Standish Group
International 2013). A main reason is a lack of passing on project-related knowledge to other projects
resulting in valuable knowledge being lost (Schindler & Eppler 2003). Therefore, many researchers in
the IS area address their studies on KM-related issues. In general, IS researchers focusing on KM
follow one of two streams. First, researchers are observing individuals, project teams or entire
organizations in order to understand which factors influence KM (e.g. Swan et al. 2010; Petter &
Randolph 2009; Julian 2008; Majchrzak et al. 2004; Argote et al. 2003). Second, researchers study
KM systems, their design, reconfiguration and implementation in order to provide a solution to recent
KM issues (e.g. Petter & Vaishnavi 2008; Wei et al. 2002; Alavi & Leidner 2001; Markus et al. 2002).
Although a great deal research exists in the field of KM today, most key findings were published
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014
1
Schacht et al. /Gamified Project Knowledge Management System
between the late 1990s and early 2000s (e.g. Nonaka & Konno 1998; Alavi & Leidner 2001; Markus
2001; Gold et al. 2001; Majchrzak et al. 2004).
In line with Choi et al.'s (2010) statement that “… no matter how much knowledge is shared among
team members, it cannot enhance team performance unless it is effectively applied” (Choi et al. 2010,
p.866), our research focuses on knowledge reuse. In particular, our overall research aims to answer the
research question of which design principles of a project KM system increase the reuse of existing,
project-related knowledge. To address this question, we conducted an Action Design Research (ADR)
project. By determining meta-requirements of a project KM system within a case company and
translating the requirements into design principles, we designed and implemented an instantiation of a
project KM artefact. The artefact was implemented in the case company and qualitatively evaluated by
a series of workshops. Although, usefulness and ease of use of the project KM system was
acknowledged in the workshops, actual use of the project KM system by the project teams was rather
low. Therefore, we decided to redesign the system specifically focusing on design decisions that may
encourage individuals to reuse knowledge by actively consulting the system. By studying literature on
user motivation, we became aware of gamification. Gamification is a new approach promising to
increase the perceived enjoyment of using IS and by this, increasing its adoption and actual use. As a
result, our research presented in this paper is guided by following research question:
Do gamification mechanisms – as specific design decisions based on existing design principles
– increase the reuse of project knowledge by adoption and actual use of a project KM system?
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: The next section provides an overview by briefly
summarizing our previous research. Section 3 discusses the results of the conducted literature review
on gamification forming the foundation of the presented work. Subsequently, Section 4 presents the
redesign of the project KM system by integrating gamification mechanisms as new design decisions.
Since our research is ongoing, Section 5 briefly concludes the paper with our intended contributions.
2
Designing a Project Knowledge Management System
Aiming to increase the reuse of project-related knowledge, we conducted an ADR project following
the approach as discussed by Sein et al. (2011). Further details of our ADR project and its results are
presented in (Schacht & Maedche 2013). In order to provide a basic understanding, the subsequent
section provides an overview by briefly presenting the key results of our previous research.
2.1
The ADR project “Project KM System”
As the first step of our ADR project, we searched for a case company. We selected a company from
the banking sector because banks primarily deliver services based on IS, ultimately resulting in a high
amount of IS projects (Tan & Teo 2000). We subdivided – in line with Sein et al. (2011) – our ADR
project into four phases. In the first phase, we identified and defined the issues of our case company
related to project knowledge reuse. Therefore, we conducted an exploratory interview study
discovering goals and requirements of knowledge reuse. Twenty-seven employees possessing various
roles within the company were asked in semi-structured interviews to provide their experiences. The
interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed by using an inductive coding approach (Thomas
2006). In total, we identified 971 codes that were finally clustered into 20 categories covering five
themes that continuously arose in the interviews. Based on the resulting themes we extracted in total
13 meta-requirements. Next, we translated the meta-requirements into five design principles. In the
second phase we defined appropriate interventions which instantiate our design principles. In doing
so, we consulted and studied existing literature from the fields of project management, KM, and IS
research. Based on various behavioral and design science research studies, we selected design
decisions that seemed to be appropriate to increase project knowledge reuse within the case company.
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014
2
Schacht et al. /Gamified Project Knowledge Management System
Some design decisions are exemplarily presented in Figure 1 depicting two screenshots highlighting
the key functionalities of the project KM system.
Search
Rating &
Feedback
Project
Insights
Overview
Community
of Practice
Project
Overview
Tagging
Figure 1.
Screenshots of the project KM system and its functionalities
After planning and sketching our design decisions, we evaluated the effects of the interventions in the
third phase. Within three workshops, we received feedback on the design of the project KM system
from various employees of the case company. In a first workshop we presented the design to key
decision makers. Based on their feedback, we conducted another workshop asking some experts to
provide feedback on the design related to its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT
analysis). After refining the project KM system design, we presented our planned interventions in
front of a project team in order to capture opinions of all roles of a project team. Within all three
workshops, the participants acknowledged a high usefulness and ease of use of our project KM
system. In the final phase we reflected our key results. In doing so, the remarks on possible
improvements were assessed and implemented. Finally, key decision makers of the case company
agreed to realize the planned interventions. An entire overview on the meta-requirements, design
principles, the resulting artefact, and its evaluation is presented in Schacht and Maedche (2013).
2.2
Drivers of redesign
Although, usefulness and ease of use of the project KM system was acknowledged, it is actually rarely
used by the project teams. By reanalyzing our interview data as well as the results of the evaluation
phase, we revealed one key reason for the adoption issues: a lack of employees’ motivation to use the
project KM system. In order to be able to reuse project-related knowledge, project teams need access
to relevant and valuable knowledge. Therefore, most companies (as well as the case company) conduct
a lessons learned meeting at the end of each project (Newell 2004), aiming to gather and document
project insights that might be also relevant for further projects. However, often the gathering of
relevant insights does not take place (Schindler & Eppler 2003), resulting in project teams lacking
possible valuable information. In consequence, the gathering, documenting, and storage of project
insights is inevitable to encourage knowledge reuse.
In dialogue with some project team members and by consulting existing literature, we identified four
reasons for a low motivation to conduct and participate in lessons learned meetings. First, project
teams generally have a lack of time within the entire project duration. In order to be as effective as
possible, they shift the documentation of their insights to project’s end (Mueller 2012). In addition,
project teams are only united for a limited amount of time. At the end of projects, some team members
have already left the team. In consequence, gathering project-related insights from all team members is
almost impossible. This is aggravated by the fact that individuals in general tend to avoid documenting
project knowledge and storing it in a central knowledge base. Rather they prefer to share their
experiences in a bilateral dialogue (Julian 2008). Second, related to the lack of time, project teams are
also not motivated to document their insights, because they do not perceive any benefit in sharing their
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014
3
Schacht et al. /Gamified Project Knowledge Management System
experiences. Due to the documentation of lessons learned at the end of the project, sharing knowledge
does not have any effect on projects’ success. Only succeeding project teams can benefit from
documented project insights, may resulting in individuals perceiving the documentation of knowledge
as a waste of time. Thus, it is important for companies to develop and maintain an appropriate
knowledge sharing culture (Ajmal and Koskinen 2008; Owen et al. 2004). Third, when deploying a
new KM system intended for knowledge exchange, a main issue is the initial filling of the database.
Since existing lessons learned in the case company are highly heterogeneous in its form, usefulness,
currency, and comparability, it is difficult to import the existing project insights in the new project KM
system. Thus, the initial system is empty. However, as often observed in studies regarding knowledge
sharing – for example in wikis – only 1% of all users actively document and maintain knowledge in
such a knowledge database (Palmisano 2009). Fourth, entering data or information in a storage bin is
simply not fun. As studies (e.g. Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Pijpers and van Montfort 2006) could
demonstrate, the “… degree of user perception of the usefulness and enjoyment […] are strong factors
that influence individual intentions whether to utilize this technology.” (Serenko et al. 2007, p.127).
Based on the results of our evaluation phase, we conducted a second ADR cycle aiming to refine the
design of the project KM system. In order to solve most – if not even all – of the issues mentioned by
workshop participants, we became aware of gamification promising to motivate individuals to adopt
and use new technology.
3
Designing a Gamified Project Knowledge Management System
Aiming to improve the design of our project KM system, we intensively studied literature related to
gamification. After analyzing the articles, we redesigned the system by integrating game elements. In
the following subsections, we discuss the results of our literature study, describe the new design of our
project KM system, and discuss the intended outcomes.
3.1
Gamification research
We applied the approach as discussed by Webster and Watson (2002) to study existing literature on
gamification. In total, we identified 111 articles studying game-based mechanisms motivating
individuals’ to perform repetitive or even boring and uninteresting tasks. Some articles (e.g. Deterding
et al. 2011; Huotari & Hamari 2012; Susi et al. 2007) focus on the phenomenon of gamification from a
general perspective, by defining the term of gamification and distinguishing it from related concepts.
One of the first definitions is formulated by Deterding et al. (2011), defining gamification as “…the
use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (Deterding et al. 2011, p.7). When considering
this definition in more detail, three key characteristics of gamification can be extracted. First,
gamification is a kind of a game since it has a set of rules, a declarative content, and a social layer
“…where the actual behaviour of the players takes place” (Bree 2011, p.5). Second, gamification is
not an entire game, rather it consists of various mechanisms usually adapted in games. Such
mechanisms can display (1) users’ progression in task fulfilment like achievements, points and levels,
(2) provide feedback on users’ activities such as leaderboards, countdowns or appointments, (3) or aim
to change users’ behavior by appealing basic needs such as epic meaning, loss aversion or
collaboration (Burke & Hiltbrand 2011). Third, gamification applications are implemented in nongame contexts such as in organizational or educational environments. When combining the definition
of Deterding et al. (2011) with Thom et al.'s (2012, p.1067) words regarding the purpose of
gamification applications, gamification can be described as the use of game design elements in nongame contexts to create a sense of playfulness so that participation becomes enjoyable and desirable.
In addition to their definition of gamification, Deterding et al. (2011) provide an overview on related
concepts such as playful interactions, game-based learning, serious games, or games with a purpose
(GWAP) and distinguish the concepts from each other. A comprehensive overview on the origins of
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014
4
Schacht et al. /Gamified Project Knowledge Management System
gamification and related concepts is provided by Susi et al. (2007) as well as Breuer and Bente (2010).
Within the analysis of our literature study results, we realized that nearly 50% of all identified articles
(54 out of 111) discuss the implementation and realization of gaming elements in different settings
such as education, private life, and organizations. However, articles discussing the implementation of
game mechanisms in applications used in private life mainly focus on the motivation of individuals to
“…perform tasks computers are unable to perform.” (von Ahn & Dabbish 2008, p.58) According to
von Ahn and Dabbish (2008), such applications are defined as GWAP. Furthermore, articles
discussing the education by realizing games or game mechanism refer to (digital) game-based
learning, serious games, or edutainment applications (Susi et al. 2007). In consequence, only 16 out of
54 articles focus on gamification applications as previously defined. Most realizations of gamification
in organizational environments refer to points, badges, and leaderboards (e.g. Thom et al. 2012; Li et
al. 2012; Sjöklint et al. 2013). However, there are many more game elements that can be implemented
in gamified applications (see Table 1). Some of the elements can be implemented directly in the
application, we call these elements in-game mechanisms, while other elements aim to address users’
emotions. An entire overview and detailed discussion is provided by Schacht and Schacht (2012).
Table 1 categorizes various game elements with regard to their main target and their classification.
In-game
mechanism
In-person
mechanism
Progression
Feedback
Behavior
-
Achievements
-
Appointments
-
Community collaboration
-
Points and bonuses
-
Countdowns
-
Virality
-
Levelling up
-
Leaderboards
-
Cascading information
-
Envy
-
Epic meaning
-
Loss aversion
Table 1: Excerpt of gamification elements (Source: Schacht & Schacht, 2012)
Only a few publications report research results addressing the effects of gamification. With the
emergence of gamification, some studies (e.g. Farzan et al. 2009; Li et al. 2012) proclaim that
implementing gamification leads to increased motivation of users to participate in activities they
usually avoid doing. However, more and more researchers observe a limited effect of gamification,
especially when purely focusing on mechanisms that reward behavior extrinsically via points or
badges. Such a concentration of point systems is often referred to as “Pointification” (Sjöklint et al.
2013). Thom et al. (2012), for example, observed users’ motivation to participate in a social network
after removing the point system. They realized that points motivate participants only for limited period
of time. After the removal of the point system, the amount of comments decreased significantly.
Similar results are determined by other researchers (e.g. Anderson et al. 2013; Hamari 2013; Montola
et al. 2009) resulting in researchers calling for more studies on the effects of gamification.
In summary, only a few articles studying the phenomenon of gamification from a research perspective
exist since the topic is pretty much new with the first articles addressing gamification published in
2010. Within our literature study, we noticed some requirements mentioned by various researchers
that have to be fulfilled in order to exploit the maximum potential of gamification applications. Some
pioneering researchers call for the application of a more sophisticated approach when designing and
implementing gamification. Paharia (2012), for example, calls for the application of design thinking
and design processes in order to (1) understand why users engage in gamification applications and (2)
include game elements appropriate to organizations’ and users’ needs and goals. In addition to
procedural requirements, others call for the realization of several functional requirements. For
example, some researchers call for more meaningful activities and frameworks in gamified
applications (e.g. Lawley 2012; Laschke & Hassenzahl 2011). Only implementing game-elements like
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014
5
Schacht et al. /Gamified Project Knowledge Management System
points, badges, or leaderboards is just one side of the coin. In order to change individuals’ behavior –
for example to document and reuse project-related knowledge more often and more consistently –
there must be some kind of meaningful story implemented in the gamified application. This means,
activities and goals realized in the application need to be derived from the overarching goals of the
organization and its employees (Laschke & Hassenzahl 2011). When points are only designed for the
game and have no meaning in the real world, they can be annoying (Cramer et al. 2011). Furthermore,
some researchers caution against making the participation to such gamified applications mandatory
since it “…might create rule-based experiences that feel just like school” (Lee & Hammer 2011, p.4).
Therefore, the gamified application has to be designed in a way that the documentation and reuse of
knowledge can take place in both a traditional as well as a gamified way of documentation.
3.2
Architectural design of Project World
Because the prior project KM system is designed for a document management and collaboration
platform, such as Microsoft SharePoint, the integration of a gamified application is feasible without
considerable expenditure. In particular, Microsoft SharePoint is designed in a way that it can be
extended easily. In order to extend the platform with its own functionalities or applications, the
platform offers three possibilities. First, the platform can be extended by using the functionalities and
features already provided by the SharePoint framework. Second, by developing and integrating custom
Webparts, the platform can be adapted and configured to the needs of users. Third, via open interfaces
(such as iFrames) external applications can be integrated into the platform. The overall architectural
design of Project World is depicted in Figure 2 and discussed below.
The Persistence Layer. Project World utilizes features provided by the SharePoint framework.
Project World is realized by a wiki and a document library. Each project is represented by one wiki
page and uses the common document library. When a new project is documented in the platform, the
user has to complete a predefined form. Within this form contextual information regarding the project
such as project size, stakeholders, project team members, duration, etc. will be documented. This
information will be captured as project meta-data and stored as meta-data on the wiki page. In
addition, after a lessons learned workshop, the gathered insights need to be stored in the platform.
Similar to the project, meta-data a form has to be completed. The data describing the project insights
will be stored in an entity called project insights which itself will be stored within the common
document library. Furthermore, a project can relate to other projects realized by links between the wiki
pages.
Business Logic and User Interface. In the case of Project World, the borders between the business
logic layer and the user interface layer are blurred. A Webpart is visualizing the data retrieved from
the persistence layer in the Project World in each wiki page. Each project will be depicted by a world.
The world consists of several elements: (1) a sun depicts the progress of the project and (2) a globe
contains the remaining meta-data of a project. When project-insights will be entered, (3) a tower
grows on the globe. With each documented project insight the tower gets a new tier. The number of
tower tiers is equal to the number of documented insights. The relationship of one project to others is
visualized by (4) a small city in the background of the tower. The more relationships exist between the
projects, the larger the city in the background. All elements representing information can be activated
by the user. When clicking on an element, the information will be displayed in the Project World as
well as the SharePoint wiki page. Another gamification aspect is realized by implementing (5) various
badges. When project insights are assessed by other employees as useful, the tower tiers receive the
“useful badge”. This assessment is also used to create a top 10 of most useful project insights
displayed on (6) an accompanying leaderboard. Tower tiers can also be marked with a “help needed”
sign marking the project insight as an issue that is not solved by the project. When the issue gets
solved, the tower tier receives the “supported” badge. In addition, the project which supported another
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014
6
Schacht et al. /Gamified Project Knowledge Management System
project by solving an issue receives the “first aid” badge. Thus, Project World does not only promote
knowledge documentation but also socialization and collaboration within and between project teams.
Figure 2: Architectural design of Project World
3.3
Intended outcomes of Project World
Various positive outcomes are expected due to the integration of gamification mechanisms into the
design of the project KM system. By applying the ADR approach, design thinking and design
processes, as identified by Paharia (2012), are integrated. Within the problem definition phase of the
first ADR cycle, requirements of employees and the organization as well as goals related to a project
KM system were determined. These goals are now translated in the design of Project World. One
design principle refers to the need to provide access to knowledge and experts to encourage
knowledge reuse. Therefore, the system is designed using standard Microsoft SharePoint features.
Now all employees can access the projects and their insights, either by using Project World or
accessing the SharePoint wiki and document library directly. This implementation decision also
enables the documentation of project insights without participating in Project World. The voluntary
participation fulfills Lee and Hammer's (2011) requirement for effective gamification. Various
gamification mechanisms aim to increase the motivation of project teams to share and reuse projectrelated knowledge. Hereby, motivation is not only encouraged by extrinsic rewards like badges or
leaderboards, but also by intrinsic factors such as collaboration and socialization. Since many of the
employees we interviewed also called for the option to share knowledge via direct communication, the
project KM system needs to enable networking and collaboration. Project World realizes this demand
by connecting the own project to similar projects and by externalizing issues that need be solved by
the entire community. Furthermore, Project World fulfills employee’s demand for a better overview of
currently running and former projects of the organization. By integrating meta-data of a project and
depicting all projects that are similar with the own project, users of Project World get an easy and
quick overview on related projects, participating colleagues, and project insights. Because Project
World not only includes points and badges, but also provides information and overview on various
projects, the design reflects goals of the organization and its employees. Thus, the system includes
gaming, collaborative, and social networking elements collected into a meaningful framework. As a
result, the system design fulfills the demand of being meaningful as expressed by several researchers
(e.g. Lawley 2012; Laschke & Hassenzahl 2011).
Since the requirements expressed by employees of the case company and various researchers are
fulfilled in the design of Project World, it is expected that users would be more motivated to utilize the
system. In consequence, the more the system will be used, the higher will be the quantity and quality
of knowledge captured in Project World resulting in increased knowledge reuse. However, the
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014
7
Schacht et al. /Gamified Project Knowledge Management System
outcomes of the gamified project KM system needs to be evaluated by an appropriate evaluation
design in the future.
4
Conclusion
By focusing on project knowledge reuse in our research, we aim to address major KM issues. We are
aware that many other researchers addressed the topic of KM and its challenges before. However, we
are combining results of previous KM research with a new approach to accelerate the adoption and
actual use through gamification. In doing so, we expect to increase users’ motivation to document,
exchange, and reuse project-related knowledge. The overall research follows an ADR approach
resulting in the application of design processes as suggested by Paharia (2012). An essential part of
ADR is the first stage where problems and goals of the company and its employees are examined.
Thus, the final design of our project KM system is grounded on requirements of the case company and
reflecting its goals in a meaningful framework (Laschke & Hassenzahl 2011). In addition, the
gamified project KM system does not only include points and badges since some researcher report a
limited effect of pure Pointification (e.g. Thom et al. 2012; Anderson et al. 2013; Montola et al. 2009).
Rather, the application also includes aspects of socialization and collaboration where employees can
report issues and colleagues are asked to support a project by solving the issue.
We consider the gamified project KM system and the discussion of including gamification
mechanisms in KM systems as valuable, since we enter a new way of designing and implementing
KM systems. We are curious to evaluate our Project World in our case company and discover whether
gamification is motivating employees to share and reuse project-related knowledge. The results of our
research will contribute to research and practice as researchers will receive new insights on aspects
influencing technology acceptance. Today, factors like fun and entertainment are becoming more and
more important for users’ decision to adopt and adapt to the use of technology. By following the
requirements of researchers on gamification and employees of the case company, we expect to
minimize negative effects like boredom because of Pointification or reluctance due to missing
translation of goals into the system design. In addition, we strongly believe that gamification can
rekindle the KM research since many issues of practitioners still seems to be unresolved. In addition,
practitioners will receive design guidelines for producing KM systems that motivate project teams to
share their experiences. By doing so, existing knowledge can be reused, preventing the reinvention of
the wheel.
References
Von Ahn, L. & Dabbish, L., 2008. Designing games with a purpose. Communications of the ACM,
51(8), pp.57–67. A
Ajmal, M.M. & Koskinen, K.U., 2008. Knowledge transfer in project-based organizations: An
organizational culture perspective. Project Management Journal, 39(1), pp.7–15.
Alavi, M. & Leidner, D.E., 2001. Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management
Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), pp.107–136.
Anderson, A., Kleinberg, D.H.J. & Leskovec, J., 2013. Steering user behavior with badges. In
Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web. pp. 95–106.
Argote, L., McEvily, B. & Reagans, R., 2003. Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative
framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), pp.571–582.
Bree, J. van, 2011. The End of the Rainbow: In search of crossing points between organizations and
games. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2011 Conference: Think Design Play.
Breuer, J. & Bente, G., 2010. Why so serious? On the Relation of Serious Games and Learning.
Eludamos: Journal for Computer Game Culture, 4(1), pp.7–24.
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014
8
Schacht et al. /Gamified Project Knowledge Management System
Burke, M. & Hiltbrand, T., 2011. How Gamification Will Change Business Intelligence. Business
Intelligence Journal, 16(2), pp.8–16.
Choi, S.Y., Lee, H. & Yoo, Y., 2010. The Impact of Information Technology and Transactive Memory
Systems on Knowledge Sharing, Application, and Team Performance: A Field Study. MIS
Quarterly, 34(4), pp.855–870.
Cramer, H. et al., 2011. Gamification and Location- Sharing: Some Emerging Social Conflicts. In CHI
2011 Workshop on Gamification. pp. 30–33.
Deterding, S. et al., 2011. Gamification: Towards a definition. In CHI 2011 Workshop on
Gamification. pp. 6–9.
Farzan, R., DiMicco, J.M. & Brownholtz, B., 2009. Spreading the honey: a system for maintaining an
online community. In Proceedinfs of the ACM 2009 international conference on Supporting group
work - GROUP ’09. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, p. 31.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. & Segars, A.H., 2001. Knowledge Management : An Organizational
Capabilities Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), pp.185–214.
Hamari, J., 2013. Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on
gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications.
Huotari, K. & Hamari, J., 2012. Defining gamification: A service marketing perspective. In
Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference on - MindTrek ’12. New
York, New York, USA: ACM Press, p. 17.
Hwang, Y., 2005. Investigating enterprise systems adoption: uncertainty avoidance, intrinsic
motivation, and the technology acceptance model. European Journal of Information Systems,
14(2), pp.150–161.
Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S. & Baroudi, J.J., 1996. A Motivational Model of Microcomputer Usage.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(1), pp.127–143.
Julian, J., 2008. How project management office leaders facilitate cross-project learning and
continuous improvement. Project Management Journal, 39(3), pp.43–58.
Laschke, M. & Hassenzahl, M., 2011. Mayor or Patron? The Difference Between a Badge and a
Meaningful Story. In CHI 2011 Workshop on Gamification. pp. 72–75.
Lawley, E., 2012. Games as an Alternate Lens for Design. Interactions, 19(4), pp.16–17. Available at:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027211423?accountid=14570 [Accessed May 24, 2013].
Lee, J.J. & Hammer, J., 2011. Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother? Academic
Exchange Quarterly, 15(2), pp.1–5.
Li, Z., Huang, K. & Cavusoglu, H., 2012. Quantifying the impact of badges on user engagement in
online Q&A communities. In Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems.
Orlando, Florida, USA.
Majchrzak, A., Cooper, L.P. & Neece, O.E., 2004. Knowledge Reuse for Innovation. Management
Science, 50(2), pp.174–188..
Markus, M.L., 2001. Toward a Theory of Knowledge Reuse: Types of Knowledge Reuse Situations
and Factors in Reuse Success. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), p.36.
Markus, M.L., Majchrzak, A. & Gasser, L., 2002. A Design Theory for Systems That Support
Emergent Knowledge Processes. MIS Quarterly, 26, pp.179–212.
Montola, M. et al., 2009. Applying game achievement systems to enhance user experience in a photo
sharing service. In Proceedings of the 13th International MindTrek Conference: Everyday Life in
the Ubiquitous Era on - MindTrek ’09. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, p. 94.
Mueller, J., 2012. Knowledge sharing between project teams and its cultural antecedents. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 16(3), pp.435–447.
Newell, S., 2004. Enhancing Cross-Project Learning. Management, 16(1), pp.12–20.
Nonaka, I. & Konno, N., 1998. The concept of “ ba ”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation.
California Management Review, 40(3), pp.40–54.
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014
9
Schacht et al. /Gamified Project Knowledge Management System
Owen, J., Burstein, F. & Mitchell, S., 2004. Knowledge Reuse and Transfer in a Project Management
Environment. Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications, 6(4), pp.21–35.
Paharia, R., 2012. Gamification means amplifying intrinsic value. Interactions, 19(4), p.17. Available
at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2212877.2212883 [Accessed May 24, 2013].
Palmisano, J., 2009. Motivating Knowledge Contribution in Virtual Communities of Practice: Roots,
Progress and Needs. In AMCIS 2009 Proceedings. p. Paper 198.
Petter, S. & Randolph, A.B., 2009. Developing soft skills to manage user expectations in IT projects:
Knowledge reuse among IT project managers. Project Management Journal, 40(4), pp.45–59.
Petter, S. & Vaishnavi, V., 2008. Facilitating experience reuse among software project managers.
Information Sciences, 178(7), pp.1783–1802.
Pijpers, G.G.M. & van Montfort, K., 2006. An Investigation of Factors that Influence Senior
Executives to Accept Innovations in Information Technology. International Journal of
Management, 23(1), pp.11–23.
Reich, B.H., Gemino, A. & Sauer, C., 2008. Modeling the knowledge perspective of IT projects.
Project Management Journal, 39, pp.4–14.
Schacht, M. & Schacht, S., 2012. Start the Game: Increasing User Experience of Enterprise Systems
Following a Gamification Mechanism. In A. Maedche, A. Botzenhardt, & L. Neer, eds. Software
for People SE - 11. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 181–199.
Schacht, S. & Mädche, A., 2013. How to Prevent Reinventing the Wheel? – Design Principles for
Project Knowledge Management Systems. In J. Brocke et al., eds. Design Science at the
Intersection of Physical and Virtual Design SE - 1. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 1–17.
Schindler, M. & Eppler, M.J., 2003. Harvesting project knowledge : a review of project learning
methods and success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21, pp.219–228.
Sein, M.K. et al., 2011. Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), pp.37–56.
Serenko, A., Bontis, N. & Detlor, B., 2007. End-user adoption of animated interface agentsin everyday
work applications. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(2), pp.119–132.
Sjöklint, M., Constantiou, I. & Trier, M., 2013. Numerical Representations And User Behaviour In
Social Networking Sites: Towards A Multi- Theoretical Research Framework. In ECIS 2013
Proceedings. p. Paper 167.
Standish Group International, 2013. Chaos Manifesto 2013 - Think Big, Act Small, Available at:
http://versionone.com/assets/img/files/ChaosManifesto2013.pdf.
Susi, T., Johannesson, M. & Backlund, P., 2007. Serious Games: An Overview,
Swan, J., Scarbrough, H. & Newell, S., 2010. Why don’t (or do) organizations learn from projects?
Management Learning, 41, pp.325–344.
Tan, M. & Teo, T., 2000. Factors influencing the adoption of Internet banking. Journal of the AIS,
1(5), pp.1–42.
Thom, J., Millen, D. & DiMicco, J., 2012. Removing gamification from an enterprise SNS. In
Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW ’12.
New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, pp. 1067–1070. Thomas, D.R., 2006. A General
Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data. American Journal of Evaluation,
27, pp.237–246.
Venkatesh, V. & Bala, H., 2008. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on
Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), pp.273–315. Webster, J. & Watson, R.T., 2002. Analyzing
the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26, pp.xiii–xxiii.
Wei, C.-P., Hu, P.J.-H. & Chen, H.-H., 2002. Design and evaluation of a knowledge management
system. IEEE Software, 19(3), pp.56–59.
Wiig, K.M., 2000. Knowledge Management: An Emerging Discipline with a Long History. In C.
Despres & D. Chauvel, eds. Knowledge Horizons. Butterworth Heinemann, pp. 3–26.
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014
10