SOFIA UNIVERSITY “ST. KLIMENT OHRIDSKI ”
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUS INESS ADMINISTRATION
MASTER PROGRAMME
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION – STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
MASTER THESIS
TOPIC:
APPLICABILITY OF THE CONCEPT “GAMIFICATION” WITHIN
BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS
PRESENTED BY
THESIS ADVISOR
YANA MARKOVA
PROF. DR. ANASTASIA BANKOVA
SOFIA
2013
Copyright by Yana Markova
February 2013
APPLICABILITY OF THE CONCEPT “GAMIFICATION” WITHIN BUSINESS
ORGANIZATIONS
Abstract
The purpose of the paper is to examine the applicability of the “gamification” concept within
business organizations. Due to the lack of academic research on this topic, a theoretical
framework is constructed in order to approach the implementation of enterprise gamification.
The theoretical considerations start with a review of two precursors of gamification-of-work
giving awareness of possible pitfalls by introducing playful elements within the workplace.
The next step describes how the traditional “work” and “play” dichotomy broke. The paper
then introduces the concept of the “Flow” by M. Csikszentmihalyi which provides the basis
for marking an ideal model that business organizations should strive for when applying
enterprise gamification.
The proposed framework is rounded off by considering the
applicability of typical motivations for employees and game-players within the context of
business organizations.
The section “Empirical Ascertainment” presents empirical evidence of the proposed
framework by examining 15 case studies on implementation of game elements within the
workplace. Four propositions and an analytic scheme guide the data collection and analysis
process. Firstly, this section examines how the findings of each case study match with the
propositions. Then, potential adjustments to the proposed framework are discussed. Following
that, a cross-case analysis is conducted to reveal additional patterns and validate the findings.
The overarching conclusion is that the “gamification” concept is applicable within business
organizations. Nonetheless, contextual specifics as an adequate level of voluntariness and the
secondary role of extrinsic rewards should be taken into consideration during implementation.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
6
1.1. WHAT IS “GAMIFICATION”?
6
1.2. WHY IS ENTERPRISE GAMIFICATION A QUESTION OF PRESENT INTEREST?
8
1.3. PROBLEM STATEMENT
11
1.4. METHODOLOGY
13
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
15
2.1 SOVIET AND AMERICAN PRECURSORS TO THE GAMIFICATION OF WORK
15
2.1.1 SOVIET PRECURSOR – “SOCIALIST COMPETITION”
16
2.1.2 AMERICAN PRECURSOR – “FUNSULTANTS” AND “WORK” AS “PLAY”
17
2.2 THEORETICAL CONCEPTS RELATED TO ENTERPRISE GAMIFICATION
20
2.2.1 THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT - “WORK” AS OPPOSITE TO “PLAY”
21
2.2.2 MOVE TOWARD FUSION OF “WORK” AND “PLAY”
22
2.2.3 CURRENT SITUATION – BLURRING BOUNDARIES BETWEEN “WORK” AND
“PLAY”
23
2.2.4 WHAT STILL MAKES THE DIFFERENCE?
25
2.2.5 THE CONCEPT OF “FLOW”
26
2.2.6 USER MOTIVATION FOR GETTING INVOLVED INTO GAMIFIED ACTIVITIES
29
2.2.7 WRAPPING UP THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND DEFINING WORKING
HYPOTHESES
35
EMPIRICAL ASCERTAINMENT
39
3.1. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
39
3.1.1. OBJECTIVE
39
3.1.2. RESEARCH DESIGN & RESEARCH METHOD
39
3.1.2.1. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research Design
39
3.1.2.2. Research Method
40
3.1.2.3. Following the 6 Steps for Organizing Case Study Research Successfully
41
3
3.1.2.3.1. Determine and Define the Research Questions
41
3.1.2.3.2. Select the Cases and Determine Data Gathering & Analysis Techniques 43
3.1.2.3.3. Prepare to Collect the Data
44
3.1.2.3.4. Collect the Data
45
3.1.2.3.5. Evaluate and Analyze Data
45
3.1.2.3.6. Prepare the Report
46
3.1.3. CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
46
3.2. RESEARCH RESULTS
47
3.2.1. CASE STUDIES
47
3.2.1.1. Case 1: PlayVov
47
3.2.1.2. Case 2: GamEffective
49
3.2.1.3. Case 3: Race to 1000 Series
51
3.2.1.4. Case 4: Nitro for Salesforce/ Salesforce Motivation
52
3.2.1.5. Case 5: Roadwarrior
55
3.2.1.6. Case 6: Ribbon Hero 2
56
3.2.1.7. Case 7: SAP’s Vendor Invoicing
57
3.2.1.8. Case 8: TrueOffice
58
3.2.1.9. Case 9: Gamifying Collaborative Decision Making
60
3.2.1.10. Case 10: Your Promptitude
61
3.2.1.11. Case 11: PropsToYou
62
3.2.1.12. Case 12: RedCritter Tracker
65
3.2.1.13. Case 13: Community Recognition & Reputation Program by SAP AG
67
3.2.1.14. Case 14: Venture Spirit
69
3.2.1.15. Case 15: CrowdWorx
70
3.2.2. DISCUSSION
72
3.2.2.1. Summarizing the Results from Analyzing the Single Cases
72
3.2.2.2. Pattern Matching in the Groupings
76
3.2.2.2.1. Core Business Activities, Game-elements Integrated into the Everyday
Tasks, High Level of Complexity
76
3.2.2.2.2. Core Business Activities, Game-elements Not Integrated into the
Everyday Tasks, Middle Level of Complexity
78
3.2.2.2.3. Core Business Activities, Game-elements Not Integrated into the
Everyday Tasks, Low Level of Complexity
4
78
3.2.2.2.4. Combined Business Activities (Core + Supporting), Game-elements
Integrated into the Everyday Tasks, How Level of Complexity
79
3.2.2.2.5. Supporting Business Activities, Game-elements Integrated into the
Everyday Tasks, Low Level of Complexity
79
3.2.2.2.6. Supporting Business Activities, Game-elements Not Integrated into the
Everyday Tasks, Middle Level of Complexity
80
3.2.2.2.7. Supporting Business Activities, Game-elements Not Integrated into the
Everyday Tasks, Low Level of Complexity
80
3.2.2.3. Summarizing the Findings from Pattern Matching & Recommendations 81
CONCLUSION
83
REFERENCES
88
FIGURES
91
TABLES
93
5
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1.
What is “Gamification”?
Millions of people worldwide come in touch with gamification every day, although often
they don’t realize it. The term is one of the buzz words in the marketing professionals’
community, but it is still unknown to the wide audience. Thus, I will start the current
exposition with explaining the term. One of the most frequently quoted definitions of
“gamification” is “the use of game mechanics and game design techniques in non-game
contexts” [Deterding, S. et al. 2011]. I am adopting this definition here, because it is
based on investigation of the historical origins of the term and on its relation to similar
fields as human-computer interaction, serious games, alternate reality games and playful
design. According to the authors, the first documented use of “gamification” dates back
to 2008, but the term did not see widespread adoption before the second half of 2010. The
breaking point was the success of the location-based service Foursquare, after which the
idea of using game design elements in non-game contexts to motivate user and to
increase activity and retention has rapidly gained traction in interaction design and digital
marketing. Parallel terms continue being used and new ones are still being introduced,
such as “game layer”, “playful design”, “productivity games”, etc. Yet “gamification”
has arguably managed to institutionalize itself as the common household term. Despite or
because of that, “gamification” is also a heavily contested term, especially within the
game industry and the game studies community. We will expose some critiques a bit later
after marking the purpose of implementing gamification and setting some examples.
Why Implementing Gamification?
Typically gamification applies to non-game applications and processes, in order to
engage users to participate, share and interact in some activity or community.
Gamification’s proponents argue that it works by: 1) making technology more engaging
[Takahashi, D. 2010]; 2) encouraging users to engage in desired behaviors [Stuart, K.
2010]; 3) helping to solve problems by taking advantage of humans' psychological
predisposition to engage in gaming [Radoff, J. 2011]; 4) showing a path to mastery and
6
autonomy1; etc. According to Mario Herger - one of the gamification gurus - available
data from gamified websites, applications, and processes indicate potential improvements
in areas such as user engagement, return of investment, data quality, timeliness, and
learning [Herger, M. 2012].
How did it start?
“Early examples of gamification are based on giving reward points to people who share
experiences on location-based platforms such as Facebook’s ‘Place’ feature, Foursquare
and Gowalla”2. In order to develop better understanding of the origin of gamification, let
us take a closer look at one of the examples. Foursquare is a location-based social
networking website for mobile devices. Users check in at venues using a mobile website,
text messaging or a device-specific application by selecting from a list of venues the
application locates nearby. Each check-in awards the user points and sometimes badges.
By posting their check-ins on Facebook and Twitter, the users can connect with friends,
as well as create “to-do”-lists and add tips to the venues. Nowadays Foursquare enjoys
huge popularity – as of April 2012, the company reported it had 20 million registered
users3.
Gamification Techniques & Game Mechanics
The most prominent gamification techniques are: achievement badges, achievement
levels, leader boards, progress bars (indicating how far from the completing the task the
user is), virtual currency, systems for awarding and exchanging, challenges between
users, etc.4 The purpose of implementing these techniques is to activate and harness the
power of game mechanics as Achievement (a virtual or physical representation of having
accomplished something), Envy (the desire to have something what others have), Epic
Meaning (players are highly motivated when they believe they are working to achieve
something great, awe-inspiring and bigger than themselves), etc. The social locationbased gaming platform for mobile phones – SCVNGR – published a list with nearly 50
different game mechanics which engage and motivate users5.
1
http://mashable.com/category/gamification/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification
3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foursquare
4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification
5
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/25/scvngr-game-mechanics/
2
7
Current Examples for Gamification
In the last two years gamification has been mainly used by marketers and website product
managers as a tool for customer engagement and for encouraging desirable website usage
behavior. A good example here is Nike's “Nike+” community. The company has turned
fitness into a kind of game, in which participants track progress against goals with a
"score" to improve health with every run. Members can save their run data, share
progress with friends, celebrate milestones and accomplishments, and motivate
themselves and their social circle to attain a healthier lifestyle. This way, the brand
experience has become more “sticky” for the consumers and the community has grown to
approximately seven million members since its launch in 20066. Another well-known
example is the “My Starbucks Rewards” program of Starbucks. The coffee company
employs game techniques such as progress bars, leveling and awarding within their
loyalty program, motivating members to register and spend their gift cards to receive
bigger and better benefits with every purchase. As of November 2011, My Starbucks
Rewards had 3.6 million active members - two million of those being gold members7.
The latest trend in gamification is the application of games/game elements for business
processes within the company. This concept is often called “enterprise gamification” and
its application is the matter of research in the current paper.
1.2.
Why is Enterprise Gamification a Question of Present Interest?
Market Predictions
A new report by M2 Research projects tremendous growth of the gamification market8.
The agency forecasts the market in 2012 to reach $242 million and climb to $2.8 billion
by 2016 (see “Figure 1: Gamification Market Forecast by M2 Research”). The biggest
contribution to this growth is expected to come from the enterprise segment. When
looking at “Figure 2: Gamification Vendor Survey 2011 – Vertical Market Segments”,
one can see that currently the gamification market is estimated as 62 percent consumerdriven (down from 91 percent in January 2011) and 38 percent enterprise-driven (up from
9 percent in January 2011). However, in 2013 enterprise gamification revenue is expected
6
http://nikeinc.com/news/nikeplus-experience
http://www.postano.com/blog/the-gamification-of-marketing
8
http://www.m2research.com/
7
8
to exceed consumer gamification revenue. This report provides us good reason to believe
in the increasing importance of enterprise gamification. Nevertheless, we should consider
the fact that sponsor of the report is one of the prominent gamification providers –
Badgeville.
The Gartner Group – a leading company for Technology Research and Insight – has also
underlined the importance of enterprise gamification by including the topic to their “top
predictions for IT organizations and IT users for 2013 and beyond” 9. According their
announcement, by 2015 40% of Global 1000 organizations will use gamification as the
primary mechanism to transform business operations. Elise Olding - Gartner’s analyst
presenting the topic - backs this prediction with the following arguments: “According to
John Kotter, 70% of business transformation efforts fail. Add to that the impact of 71%
of American workers who are not engaged or actively disengaged from their work
(according to Gallup), and less likely to be productive. This paints a dismal picture for
business change and transformation efforts as organizations are clearly not addressing the
fundamentals needed for success…it’s the lack of engagement and buy-in from
employees who need to embrace new ways of working. When transforming business
operations, organizations will need to cement behaviour changes and engagement as part
of the work activities…Gamification can help organizations make the workplace more
engaging and productive. The same incentives that inspire game players to strive for the
next level in a computer game can also inspire employees to reach for a higher level of
performance and engagement - if they are properly applied.”10
Deloitte Consulting LLP also appointed gamification one of the “Top 10 Technology
Trends for 2012”, announcing that: "Serious gaming simulations and game mechanics
such as leaderboards, achievements, and skill-based learning are becoming embedded in
day-to-day business processes, driving adoption, performance, and engagement." 11 Some
companies as SAP AG, IBM Corporation, etc. are already trying to apply enterprise
gamification, but these cases are just emerging.
Critique
After exposing the high expectations some analysts place on enterprise gamification, we
will proceed to the critiques. As already stated, enterprise gamification is just immerging,
9
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=2211115
Ibid.
11
http://bit.ly/vDzCXf
10
9
so there is not much critique written particularly on this topic. Howsoever, gamification
in general is much contested concept. Some critics dismiss gamification as a buzzword,
and note that many of its techniques have been in place for a long time 12. Ian Bogost - a
game researcher and designer - claims that “gamification is bullshit” and “more
specifically, gamification is marketing bullshit, invented by consultants as a means to
capture the wild, coveted beast that is videogames and to domesticate it for use in the
grey, hopeless wasteland of big business, where bullshit already reigns anyway.”13 He
adds that the concept of gamification is very easy to sell and it makes high management
comfortable, because they can hide behind it. Phil Shenk also states that “for business
purposes, gamification is invalid, faddish, exploitative, an oversimplification, or a
renaming of existing practices”14 For game developers and players gamification is often a
bad world15, because “it gets games wrong, mistaking incidental properties like points
and levels for primary features like interactions with behavioral complexity” 16.
According to Jon Radoff – an entrepreneur in the game industry – gamification
sometimes misses elements such as storytelling and experiences which are central to what
make games effective, or that gamification has mistaken the addition of points for the
application of genuine game mechanics. Similar critique comes from Margaret
Robertson, claiming that “gamification is the wrong word for the right idea” and that
what we often observe is “pointification”17.
Dynamics of the Business Environment
In the last years there is a very high interest in games. According to a research report by
Colin Sebastian, the global game industry will generate $80 billion in revenue in 2014,
thus, it is growing at 10% annually18. Only the popular game “Angry Birds” generated
$106.3 million in sales for 201119. Another example, the original version of “FarmVille”
grew its audience to as 83 million active users20. These two cases provide good
understanding of the desire to harness the power of games. However, logically follows
the question, what causes this explosion of game usage. One possible answer is that this
12
http://bit.ly/zhD1XQ; http://on.wsj.com/j0JBDk
http://bit.ly/oJDeAp
14
http://www.gravitybear.com/blog/archives/243
15
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/gamification/gamification-still-a-bad-word/676
16
http://bit.ly/oJDeAp
17
http://www.hideandseek.net/2010/10/06/cant-play-wont-play//
18
http://bit.ly/o559s0
19
http://bit.ly/WlD0ck
20
http://bit.ly/OXVb4m
13
10
process is result from the activation of the “Generation Y” (1979–2000), also called
“Millennians” or “Digital Natives”. “To them, technology is like the air” [Tapscott, D.
2008]. According to M. Burke and T. Hiltbrand (2001), this generation has grown up
with technology, and especially video games, as a part of everyday life. These individuals
don’t remember a time when video games were not a staple in their lives. The authors
state that currently the “Generation Y” is entering the labor market and soon will make
up the majority of the workforce together with the “Generation X” (1965–1978). Both
generations view the workplace differently from their baby-boomer predecessors, but the
“Digital Natives” (25.47% of the world population according the authors) are of
particular interest with respect to game mechanics [Burke, M. and Hiltbrand, T. 2001]. D.
Tapscott further elaborates: “growing up digital has had a profound impact on the way
this generation thinks, even changing the way their brains are wired… This changes the
way that millennials engage with others and how they interact in the workplace. They
come to work expecting the same engagement found in the digital world” [Tapscott, D.
2008]. The author states that the challenges this generation encounters in the workplace
can be overcome through gamification.
1.3.
Problem Statement
In the previous paragraphs we exposed gamification as a quite contested concept and
enterprise gamification as its newest trend. Recently, many blog articles and shared
power point presentations on this topic appeared online. Consisting of only brief
description of the idea and tips how to implement it, they often sound like magic tricks,
which will obsess the audience and solve all corporate problems, by making employees
embrace the company goals. Howsoever, there is neither a theory, nor significant
scientific research on this topic yet. A white paper21 from one of the enterprise
gamification providers – Bunchball – offers some guidance for approaching the topic, but
this work is obviously not enough to develop an understanding of the applicability of the
concept within business organizations. Additionally, the idea of making employees play
games in the workplace, while being paid for that, may sound awkward to the
conservative business world.
Nevertheless, the claimed potential benefits of enterprise gamification cannot be that
easily ignored. Here, I will mark two further examples, showing the power of games to
21
http://bit.ly/xMf04a
11
engage and motivate users. The first one comes from a project called “Digitalkoot”,
where a game helps weed mistakes out of the Finnish National Library's e-archives. This
is how it works in practice: old text newspaper is scanned by the software and then cut up
into individual words. These words are sent to volunteers in the form of two online games
(Mole Hunt and Mole Bridge). Volunteers must accurately decipher the words in order to
achieve certain game objectives, such as helping the moles cross a bridge or keeping
them away from a garden (see “Figure 3: Building Bridges by Weeding Mistakes”).
While playing, gamers inadvertently cross-check each other, thus ensuring complete
accuracy of the word before it gets the final approval. The project turned out to be very
successful. At the time of writing the report, 55 thousand people have taken part in the
experiment, which in a country of only 5 million people is quite remarkable. Together the
participants have contributed 3,400 hours of their time on a voluntary basis, and achieved
a staggering 99% of accuracy in the transcription of the archive. In conclusion, one of the
project managers said that: “What for volunteers was an amusing game, for the National
Library was an affordable way to digitize.”22
The second example is the most played game in the history – “The World of Warcraft”
which has over 10 million subscribers. By one analyst’s calculation since its introduction
in 2004 registered users worldwide spent nearly six million years by playing the game 23.
Considering the last two examples, imagine if one could leverage the power of games to
motivate and engage users within business organizations. Undoubtedly, the idea is very
promising and it is too worthy to be ignored, because of the lack of theoretical and
empirical research. Some analysts also claim that the concept unfortunately lacks the
seriousness it deserves24. The main problem we encountered, when examining enterprise
gamification, was the difficulty to scientifically approach the topic and develop
understanding of the applicability of the concept within business organizations. Even if
we posit that gamification can drive engagement, motivate employees, increase fun, etc.,
the question is whether this paradigm can be viable within the context of a business
organization? Isn’t “work” and “play” antithetical? Supposedly, in the conservative
business world, they often are. Isn’t enterprise gamification just a widely buzzed mean
for making money by consultants, gamification providers, etc.? How can the concept be
implemented without disturbing the functioning of the business organization? What has
22
http://bit.ly/kLbC7U
http://bit.ly/yYWBFo
24
http://bit.ly/sDziLR
23
12
to be considered when applying the paradigm within it? By searching for answers to the
questions listed above, we don’t pretend to elaborate a comprehensive theory. Time and
resources in one master thesis are too limited for such ambition. Thus, we are aiming at
developing a framework helping to approach the application of the gamification concept
within business organizations.
1.4.
Methodology
Assumption
When appropriate implemented, gamification can increase motivation, engagement,
adoption, productivity, collaboration and fun.
Research object
The application of gamification principles and techniques within business organizations.
Research matter/topic
The applicability of the gamification concept within business organizations.
Aim
Due to the lack of theoretical and empirical proof of the concept, our aim in the current
paper is to draw a framework helping to approach the implementation of the concept
within business organizations.
Hypothesis
Gamification can be implemented within business organizations. Nonetheless, there are
some specifics which have to be taken into consideration in this context.
Research Questions & Objectives:

Is “play” substantially compatible with “work”? Can the application of
gamification principles and techniques be viable within business organizations?
Examine whether “play” is compatible with “work” and whether the concept can
be viable, when applied within business organizations. (Theoretical analysis)

What has to be considered by implementing gamification in this context?
13
Mark what has to be considered when implementing the concept within business
organizations. (Elaboration of the theoretical model)

How was the concept of enterprise gamification implemented so far?
Examine available implementations of the concept.

Are there any overlaps and/or inconsistencies with the proposed framework? What
are the reasons? Are any adjustments needed?
Examine if there are any overlaps and/or inconsistences and adjust the theoretical
framework if needed.

What knowledge has been gained on the topic and what is still open?
Summarize the findings and mark where further research is needed.
14
Chapter 2
Theoretical Considerations
As already pointed out, very little scientific work has been done on enterprise
gamification so far. This was also one of the motivations for writing a thesis aiming to
design a framework helping to approach the topic. On these grounds, we are going to
structure this section as follows. We will start the literature review from a narrow
perspective summarizing what has been written specifically on enterprise gamification.
Then, we will examine concepts and theoretical considerations, which are closely related
to our topic and will help us build a framework for approaching enterprise gamification.
2.1
Soviet and American Precursors to the Gamification of Work
Gamification of work often presents itself as a new movement, which will revolutionize
the workplace. Game mechanics have long motivated videogame players, but according
to this notion their power to motivate for serious, productive work has just been revealed.
In his recently published article “Soviet and American Precursors to the Gamification of
Work” Mark Nelson argues that gamication-of-work has at least two major precursors one in the Soviet Union of the early to mid-20th century, and another in American
management of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The Soviet approach focused on
games to increase productivity via experiments ranging from purely competitive games
directly tied to productivity, to attempts at morale-building via team games and
workplace self-expression. The American management approach focused more strongly
on a sense of childhood play, aiming to weaken the work/play split, but often with games
and competition integrated into the framework. Neither approach is identical to the
gamification-of-work movement, but there exist significant overlaps. Thus, both the
historical movements themselves, and the critiques that have been directed at them, can
help us to better understand how to approach the concept of enterprise gamification. By
investigating how the current movement builds on or diverges from the previous two, we
can learn from their successes and failures.
15
2.1.1 Soviet Precursor – “Socialist Competition”
The implementation of game techniques in the socialist context is connected to the
concept of “socialist competition”. The main intention thereby is to reconceptualize work
as something other than wage-labor and to motivate workers without relying on
capitalist-style monetary incentives. Here we find one elaboration of the idea: “The
Soviet Union’s extensive experiments with workplace-based “socialist competition”
hoped to use the power of games and completion to replace capitalist competition with
something that would be simultaneously more engaging and human, yet would motivate
high productivity” [Nelson, 2012]. On these grounds Lenin [1917/1964] proposed a
theory of “socialist competition", in which workers, groups of workers, or factories
would compete with each other to motivate greater production. A wide variety of
experiments followed: a factory might be awarded points for its performance, and win
commendations as it surpassed various point thresholds; teams building a bridge could
compete to see which side progresses fastest; borrowing a symbolic-motivation strategy
used by armies, particularly productive factories or workers might be awarded a medal
such as the “Order of the Red Banner of Labor” or the “Soviet Medal for Labor
Velour”25, etc. In order to measure productivity and to create visibility some specific
metrics were introduced: “counter plans”, “labor watches”, reports on the “enthusiasm of
workers of the towns and villages”, etc. [Zemtsov, 2011]. Zemtsov describes the adoption
of the metrics as follows: “Fabrication begins at the level of basic component unit of
industrial enterprise and the spreads throughout the entire bulky hierarchy of the Soviet
industrial production system” [Zemtsov, 2011]. According to some sources, the
productivity has been indeed improved, but other indicate that these measures lead to
coercion and oppression: “in stock Soviet rhetoric propaganda posters castigate those
who have failed to live up to the expectations”, ”the formula is to cast shame on the
culprits” [Zemtsov, 2011], etc.
According to Lenin and later Stalin [1929/1954], “socialist competition” was supposed to
be about real motivation and similar to emulation, where those further behind try to
match the best, distinguishing it from competition, where those ahead try to destroy those
further behind. Communism had promised to eliminate the alienation of workers, with
monetary motivation replaced by real engagement with one’s work. This intention sounds
quite similar to the idea of enterprise gamification. In both cases points, badges,
25
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakhanovite_movement
16
commendations, etc. are not payment, but just encouragement and recognition for
engaged workers, providing indication and acknowledgment of progress, and a way to
guide workers towards where they should be going.
According to Nelson (2012), the Soviet approach may have the most direct similarities to
gamification-of-work, since there the focus was squarely on motivating productivity, and
negotiating (in at times a very modern-seeming way) the rough waters between intrinsic
motivation, competitive sentiment, performance measurement and metrics, and extrinsic
rewards. However since Soviet workplace management is not widely considered a model
to emulate, a key question is whether it serves primarily as a negative case study, or
whether some of the gamification ideas themselves were good, but poorly implemented
in the context of a Stalinist political system [Nelson, 2012]. The author continues arguing
that the Soviet attempt degenerated into bureaucratization and an increasingly totalitarian
version of competition that reached its height during the Stakhanovite and shock-brigade
period. In that period, “socialist emulation" became a dystopian management culture in
which workers were expected to “voluntarily" meet ever-higher production quotas
[Nelson, 2012].
2.1.2 American Precursor – “Funsultants” and “Work” as “Play”
According to Nelson, since the 1990s “the idea that work needs to be replaced with a
more playful notion has become a popular view among management consultants”
[Nelson, 2012] in America. He even calls the proponents of this idea “funsultants”.
According to the author, two main motivations stay behind this reconceptualization of the
workplace. The first is more mercenary: the hope that there exist none-monetary
incentives that can elicit additional labor. This means motivating workers with things that
are “free” (such as internal competitions and points) rather than having to pay out as
many monetary incentives such as traditional performance bonuses. The second
consideration is that certain kinds of productivity are simply impossible to monetarily
incentivize, and instead require somehow producing intrinsically motivated, happy
workers [Nelson, 2012].
Fun at work in general
Some of the most respected management gurus view fun as being indispensable for
organizations seeking sustainable competitive advantage and many prescriptive writers
17
on organizational culture emphasize the need to have fun at work 26. According to Kanter
for example, fun is now the fifth 'F' (with the others being focus, fastness, friendliness
and flexibility) that successful organizations must practice. Fun is indeed the key for
Kanter: “If it's not fun in a company the rest (of the F-s) cannot apply”27. Another
interesting though comes from M. Redman: “Fun, it seems is no laughing matter and it is
a very serious business issue”. According to Barsoux28, fun can make an organization
more participative and responsive, generate more organizational energy, dispel
nervousness, enhance team spirit, and diffuse conflict.
Since 1990s many texts have been written on how to inject fun into the workplace, while
focusing mainly on fun in general sense rather than “play” or “games” per se. A good
example here is “301 Ways to Have Fun at Work” by Hemsath and Yerkes. Even some
empirical studies on the measurable effects of fun at work have been conducted. In his
work “Who Put the Fun in Functional? Fun at Work and its Effects on Job Performance”
Fluegge claims that: “…fun at work directly and indirectly affects job performance.
Specifically, fun at work was positively and directly related to organizational citizenship
behaviour and positively and indirectly related to task performance and creative
performance... individuals having fun at work were also more likely to be more engaged
in their work, and thus exhibit greater creative performance. Therefore, the notion that a
fun working environment results in greater employee productivity may indeed be true and
seems worthy of further investigation” [Flugge, 2008]. Another interesting research
comes from T. Redman and B. P. Mathews with their work “Managing services: Should
we be having fun?”. They examined different ways of introducing fun as: dressing up
days, setting of clowns noses, participating in belly dancing and karaoke, defining
laughter targets (ranging from 15 to 200 laughs per day), creating a “humor room”, where
employees can go for a “fun break”, etc. The benefits are mainly overlapping what we
already mentioned, so now we will just review the problems. The major one was that
some people found it difficult to cope with this fun culture. Therefore, the message here
is that out of control, competitive fun has serious negative repercussions, so that fun
cannot be seen as the universally applicable “quick fix” that is suggested by some the
managerial literature.
26
Deal, T. and Kennedy, A. 1999, “The New Corporate Cultures”
Kanter, R.M. 1991, quoted in “Northern Echo”, 25 Nov 1991
28
Barsoux, 1993, “Funny Business: Humour. Management and Business Culture”
27
18
Besides many proponents of fun-at-work, there are also some critics. They view on funat-work and corporate play as new forms of informal control by corporations over their
employees, and in particular, forms of control that try to harness traditionally nonemployment-oriented values such as self-expression within the workplace context. For
example “Authenticity and the Cultural Politics of Work: New Forms of Informal
Control” by Fleming devotes a chapter (chapter 3) to “the antimonies of corporate fun”
[Fleming, 2009], arguing in part that workplace fun is an attempt to harness the
previously subversive character of informal games that employees play at work,
incorporating even those into the official job, which coops them into a way of informally
directing work (but directing it nonetheless).
Critique comes additionally from a 1999 film, called “Office Space”. In one scene
employees are expected to express their creativity and the fun of their workplace by
wearing “pieces of flair" (i.e. badges or other personal tokens) pinned to their clothing.
Not all employees appreciate this mandatory enthusiasm, and, at least in the film, it ends
up seeming a rather dystopian perversion of fun.
As part of his larger investigation into the way modern corporations reproduce some of
the features of Stalinist management style (large, dysfunctional bureaucracy, with a
demand that workers not only obey, but actively profess to love it), Fisher recalls and
elaborates on the Office Space's critique of self-expression and being-yourself in a
corporate context. He points out that this approach makes affective, as well as productive
demands on workers. The author also comments that they are hidden expectations behind
the official standards. This is to be observed when Joanna, a waitress at the coffee chain,
wears exactly seven pieces of flair, but it is made clear to her that, even though seven is
officially enough, it is actually inadequate. The manager asks her if she wants to look the
sort of person “who only does the bare minimum" [Fisher, 2009].
Games/ Game Elements at Work
There are some books where specifically game/ game elements at work are under
consideration, but they are mainly focused on targeted celebrations and team-building
activities. For example, in “Corporate Celebration: Play, Purpose, and Profit at Work” by
Deal and Key it is discussed how to make employees feel appreciated and part of the
corporate family. “Fun and Gains: Motivate and Energize Staff with Workplace Games,
Contests and Activities” [Greenwich, 2001] focuses on using competition to motivate
employees. “Lessons from the Sandbox: Using the 13 Gifts of Childhood To Rediscover
19
the Keys to Business Success” looks back to childhood play, and “explores 13 key gifts
or talents we all possess naturally as kids that are also essential to success in the business
world" [Gregerman, 2000]. The advice is having fun at the workplace, where employees
play together, with the subsidiary inclusion of a few segments advising that you set up
games that motivate work goals.
On the other side, some authors have concerns regarding the implementation of games/
game elements at work. For example, Andersen (2009) sees the increasing use of games
in workplaces as a reorientation of power away from explicit, hierarchical forms. He
argues that: “where the boss and chain of authority may have structured work via openly
expressed fiat, such power-wielding looks increasingly clumsy, and is in the process of
being replaced by methods that simultaneously structure work while claiming to suspend
their own power to do so, having turned it over to more distributed, apparently
autonomous decision-making within game-like frameworks” [Andersen, 2012]. The
author later expands his observation into a general theory of “hybrid forms of
governance", of which workplace gamification is one [Andersen, 2012]. He further
elaborates that the hybrid forms of governance “constitute approaches to organizational
management (especially corporate management) that simultaneously want to exercise
traditional control, while also suspending such traditional control: “deparadoxification
machines" that try to find ways to tell employees: “Do as I say. Be autonomous."
[Andersen, 2012].
By examining the two main precursors of enterprise gamification it occurred that the
concepts of “fun”, “game” and “play” are really closely related. The game/ game
elements group, compared to the fun-at-work group, puts more focus on motivational
techniques borrowed from games, rather than entertainment techniques. Nonetheless, a
certain undertone of effortless fun is often present in game advocacy, and game-like
elements were some of the more prominent concrete features of fun-at-work proposals.
According to Nelson: “The novelty myth in gamification discourse obscures the
connections with the previous movements” [Nelson, 2012].
2.2
Theoretical Concepts Related to Enterprise Gamification
By examining the precursors of gamification-of-work, a key conflation between “fun”,
“work” and “play” came into sight. The narrow perspective helped us to develop an
intuition of how to approach the topic. The successes encouraged the belief that applying
games/ game elements can increase productivity, engagement, collaboration, satisfaction,
20
etc. The critiques gave us a hint where to be careful by implementing gamification into
the enterprise. However, it didn’t really help us answering the first research question whether the concept of gamification can be viable within business organizations, and
more specifically, whether “play” is compatible to “work”. Therefore, now we will
summarize some theoretical considerations which help us answer this question.
2.2.1 The Traditional Concept - “Work” as Opposite to “Play”
There is a famous quote from Frederick Taylor saying that: “It is a matter of ordinary
common sense to plan working hours so that the workers can really work while they
work and play while they play, and not mix the two” [Taylor, F. 1911/2010]. The notion
that “work” and “play” are opposite concepts and cannot be mixed is still widely spread,
although some research papers emphasize the contextual embeddedness of this view.
Donncha Kavanagh (2011) for example delivers very good description of how this
traditional dichotomy evolves and breaks down over the time. The author sees the “work”
and “play” relationship as central for the discipline of management studies. He argues
that at its birth management studies has constituted “work” as a “good object” and “play”
as a “bad object”, and that this has structured the discipline’s evolution. According to
Kavanagh, the current state of the discipline is the growing interest in play. The author is
turning to the birth of management studies (mid to late 19th century in USA, where largescale enterprises first developed and lead to the emergence of a new managerial class and
ideology) to see how the discipline might and should evolve into the future.
Kavanagh (2011) ascribes the idealization of work as good to the legacy of the Protestant
Reformation (1517-1648). Central to Calvinist and Lutheran thinking was the idea that
hard work and a frugal lifestyle were at the heart of an individual’s calling and success.
Work was virtuous, not only because of its social and material benefits, but also because
it marked out the individual as one who was predestined to be saved by God. As Max
Weber (1930/2002) has well demonstrated, capitalism was fundamentally influenced by
Protestantism (in its various forms), thus it is not a surprise that it also influenced the
nascent discipline of management studies, which was centrally concerned with analysing
the practice of capitalism. While “work” was seen as sacred, sign of salvation and
protection from temptation, “play” was seen as something bad, useless and even immoral.
For example: puritans disapproved of activities that were exclusively aimed at providing
or enhancing enjoyment, such as sport, acting and theatre, which they considered sinful;
widely spread was the notion that non-working time, or play time should be properly
21
regulated and controlled, only “to do good”, to recreate after the hard work, in order to be
fit to work again; the utilitarian philosophy rising during the nineteenth century viewed
activities, which are not concretely useful as worthless and immoral. According to
Kavanagh (2011), the notion that “work” was good and “play” – bad, was reinforced
during the 19th century as industrialization worked to separate work and play into
opposing categories (like in Taylor’s quote). He argues that the modern distinction
between the ideas of work and leisure, like the regular alternation of work and leisure was
a product of industrial capitalism. Another author – Burke - has a similar view claiming
that: “the very idea of a history of leisure before the industrial revolution is an
anachronism“[Burke, 1995]. Therefore, the traditional concept of “work” and “play”,
considering them as separate categories has its historical context and is not
transcendentally valid.
2.2.2 Move Toward Fusion of “Work” and “Play”
According to Kavanagh (2011), after the industrial revolution there was a move away
from the idealization of “work” as good and “play” as bad, to a more nuanced,
ambiguous understanding of the concepts. Some influence came from the Enlightenment,
during which reason and cognition (in other words “thinking work”) came to be
celebrated and manual work in opposition - was associated with toil and pain. Similar
ideas also run through the influential writings of Marx and Engels, who criticized the
brutalizing and alienating nature of factory-work in the mid-19th century [Kavanagh, D.
2011]. Marx posited that human identity is founded on work; man is “homo faber” (the
worker); but capitalism turns work into something that is unwanted, and because of this
work comes to be interpreted in instrumental ways, as merely a (painful) means to an end
rather than an end to itself [Kavanagh, D. 2011]. However, while Marx writings were
influential in Europe, they made little if any impact on the emerging discourse of
management studies, and, if anything, were seen to be in opposition to the discipline’s
core beliefs. In fact nothing significant was written about play/non-work in the early
twentieth century in the management studies, which may be interpreted as evidence for
the general disdain for play [Kavanagh, D. 2011].
In the same time some of the major figures in sociology (Simmel, Mead and Goffman)
found play as an important topic [Kavanagh, D. 2011]. Simmel saw the primary process
of society as, what he terms, “sociability”, which he argues is most manifest in play and
in art. Sociability he states is the seemingly “idle”, “pointless” interaction for its own
22
sake, which is “the ground tone”, “the very essence” of society as such [Kavanagh, D.
2011]. George Mead sees in play the essence of the socialization process. In play-acting,
the child is imagining itself as if it was another, and through doing so builds an
understanding of both self and other and the relationship between both [Kavanagh, D.
2011]. Goffman further elaborates this idea by arguing that organizations are the
institutionalized performances of actors engaged in dramatic roles and that the individual
person learns to assume masks that correspondent to various social and organizational
parts that they play [Kavanagh, D. 2011].
However, the social theory writings on “play” have had at least until recently relatively
little impact in management studies. Rehn (2008) gives a possible explanation of this: “an
important part of the management scholar’s self-identity is the capacity to position his or
her research in a way that conveys seriousness” [Rehn, A. 2008]. On these grounds it is
understandable why “play” was firstly disdained and categorized as something bad,
worthless, opposite to work. However, with the evolution of the discipline this dichotomy
broke down and “play” turned into attractive source of management techniques and
practices [Kavanagh, D. 2011].
As Wilensky put it in 1960 “whatever split between labor and leisure industrialization
brought in the past, modern society moves now toward a fusion of the two: work it is said
is becoming more like play, and play more like work” [Wilensky, 1960].
2.2.3 Current Situation – Blurring Boundaries between “Work” and “Play”
Based on the examples adduced above we can claim that management has certainly taken
a turn towards play in recent years, however the question is how far has this process
developed. Here we can employ the paper “Playbour, farming and leisure” by Joyce
Goggin, where she discusses trends in production and organization including “activities
or modes of being that, until fairly recently, would have been experienced or thought of
as playful, fun, or associated with well-defined sphere of leisure activities” [Goggin,
2011]. The author states that “play” has long been associated with buoyancy, gratuity and
voluntarism, and opposed to a symmetrical set of definitive characteristics that
supposedly distinguished “work” as being purpose-driven, profit-motivated and
obligatory. Then she argues that “we are currently experiencing a progressive mixing of
these two categories and their characteristics. “Work” and “play” have in numerous
contexts somehow changed places and or come together to form striking hybrids. Aspects
of what have once been thought of as “play” and “games” are being made profitable or
23
introduced to work settings” [Goggin, 2011]. Although Goggin doesn’t explicitly
mention enterprise gamification, her description of the work/play-hybrids sounds very
similar to the concept, thus we can adopt it in our considerations.
The author gives two interesting examples of such work/play-hybrids, which she also
calls “playbour”. The first one is about video game modders – fans who modify games.
According to Goggin (2011), in the process of modding they take creative risks that the
industry eschews and so they are “an important source of value for the games industry”
[Kücklich 2005], although they are rarely paid for that. By deploying “a range of
techniques, from changing characters’ appearances… designing new scenarios, levels, or
missions, up to radical departures that amount to building a whole new game… using
various authoring tools” [de Peuter Dyer-Witheford 2005], modders produce a significant
amount of content for the industry that “enables an immersive play experience” and is
itself the product of such an experience [de Peuter and Dyer-Witheford, 2005]. The
extraction of enormous amounts of work from “a skilled labor force for little or no initial
cost” [Goggin, 2011] relies on the notion that modding is a leisure activity, “an extension
of play” [Goggin, 2011]. According to Goggin (2011), this is an indication that in the
entertainment industries, “the relationship between “work” and “play” is changing,
leading… to playbour” or a condition where “work is play and play is work” [Dibbell
2006 cited in Goggin]. She claims that these people do not necessarily see their input as
being directly valuable and thus don’t see themselves as being exploited as source of free
labor. They are having fun, extending their playing experience and making it more
immersive, while contributing to financial prosperity of the entertainment industry. Yee
(2006) further elaborates on this idea arguing that creating labor of fun is “especially the
case in the gaming industry where it is common to hire employees whose passion match
the business endeavor”. This way, “work” and “play” become undistinguishing from one
other” [Yee, 2006].
Goggin’s second example is about “gold farmers” – workers (predominately in China),
which are paid to “grind” virtual items and power-level avatars in game worlds, which
are then sold on the Internet for real money. According to Dibbell (2007), there are
thousands of such facilities (called “sweatshops”) all over China, employing an estimated
100,000 workers for twelve hours a night, seven nights a week, and yearly they produce
$1.8 billion worth of virtual items for trade worldwide [Dibbell 2007]. Based on some
research with the workers the author states that they overwhelmingly seem to agree with
one interviewee who explained: “it’s not all work. But there’s not a big difference
24
between play and work” [Dibbell 2007]. Yet another farmer on the same grind said: “it’s
instinctual – you can’t help it. You want to play”. One other sweatshop employee who
was about to move on to another job when interviewed, explained that he would “miss
this job… it can be boring, but I still have sometimes a playful attitude… I loved to play
because when I was playing, I was learning” [Dibbell 2007].
In both examples given by Goggin, people play games and by doing so produce real
income. While modders do this unconsciously and are not interested in any material
benefits, “gold farmers” do this mainly to earn their living, although they are sometimes
having enjoyment as well. It seems that in their current forms “work” and “play” have
become very slippery categories. From this statement logically follows the question how
they still can be distinguished.
2.2.4 What Still Makes the Difference?
According to Goggin (2011), the worker’s attitude or orientation is important, and the
“competing notions of engagement, subjectivity and agency” [Goggin, 2011]. Another
statement comes from Bolton and Houlihan. In their work “Are we having fun yet? A
consideration of workplace fun and engagement”, they argue that: “whether or not
something is playful or fun has to do with one’s attitude when approaching and executing
it, as well as with the very conditions, rules and goals around which the activity is
structured. Whether or not something counts as mere play as opposed to work hinges not
only on the question of wages but also on the question of agency: who decides when I
will work? Do I have a choice? Am I taking on an activity purely for the sake of my own
amusement?” [Bolton and Houlihan 2009]. Another great help for distinguishing the two
categories comes from Mark Twain’s novel “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer”. There
the main character in the story - Tom Sawyer - has the task to whitewash a fence on
Saturday, while his friends are enjoying their free time. By pretending that this task is
much fun, he convinces his friends to whitewash the fence for him in exchange for
treasured items. So they end themselves paying for the privilege of working, because they
don’t perceive their activity as labor, but as fun. It seems that the border between “work”
and “play” is to a high extent a matter of personal perception. However, an activity can
be perceived as “play” only when it has high degree of voluntarily and agency. This
statement recalls Huizinga’s understanding of “play” as “disinterested”, “voluntary” and
with “no goal outside itself” [Huizinga 1938/1955].
25
Even though “playbour” is a source of significant financial benefits for some companies,
and employees have some enjoyment by completing their “playbour” jobs, some
concerns were raised against it. Postigo for example sees playbour as “an emerging form
of labor exploitation and not a joyful, poststructuralist dissemination of ludicity” [Postigo
2003, cited in Kücklich 2005].
According another author “the universal law of
instrumentalization in the continuing postmodern era is capable of absorbing play…play
might be made to earn its living like everything else” [Connor, 2005 ]. The same fear is
shared by Maurizio Lazzarato by claiming that forms of playfulness such as creativity,
communication, emotion, cooperation, and values are currently extraordinary being put to
work [Lazzarato, 1996].
2.2.5 The Concept of “Flow”
About 30 years ago, with an intention to explain happiness, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
found “Flow” - the feeling of complete and energized focus in an activity, with a high
level of enjoyment and fulfillment. At that time, the author was fascinated by artists,
especially painters, who would essentially get lost in their work, disregarding their needs
for food, water, sleep, etc.29 Thus, by trying to understand this phenomenon,
Csikszentmihalyi began research on their and later, on similar optimal experiences. In the
1980s and 1990s the concept attracted big interest among the psychology guild and flow
research became prevalent. The flow theory has a high relevance to the current thesis,
because it helps us to reveal the layer beyond the artificial distinction between “work”
and “play”. It focuses on the analysis of a mental state of the individual, which can be
observed by activities commonly classified as both – “work”-related and “play”-related.
This mental state, called “flow”, emanates from intrinsically motivated, or autotelic
activity: “activity rewarding in and of itself (auto=self, telos=goal), quite apart from its
end product or any extrinsic good that might result from the activity.” [Csikszentmihalyi
and Nakamura, 2002].
Csikszentmihalyi and his research fellows examined the optimal experiences of various
social actors who emphasized enjoyment as the main reason for pursuing an activity. The
research base was wide – from gamers (where the intrinsic rewards are salient) to
surgeons (where the extrinsic rewards of money and prestige could be themselves
justifying participation). This way they mapped the general characteristics of the optimal
29
http://bit.ly/WQA3ld
26
experience and its proximal conditions, finding out that “the reported phenomenology
was remarkably similar across play and work settings” [Csikszentmihalyi and Nakamura,
2002].
According to Csikszentmihalyi and his research fellows (2002), under following
conditions an activity evolves into flow experience:

Perceived challenges, or opportunities for action, that stretch (neither
overmatching nor underutilizing) existing skills; a sense that one is engaging
challenges at a level appropriate to one’s capacities.

Clear proximal goals and immediate feedback about the progress that is being
made.
The authors argue that being “in the flow” is the way that some interviewees described
the subjective experience of engaging just-manageable challenges by tackling a series of
goals, continuously processing feedback about progress, and adjusting action based on
this feedback. Under these conditions, experience seamlessly unfolds from moment to
moment, and one enters a subjective state (flow) with the following characteristics:

Intense and focused concentration on what one is doing in the present moment.

Merging of action and awareness.

Loss of reflective self-consciousness (i.e., loss of awareness of oneself as a social
actor).

A sense that one can control one’s actions; that is, a sense that one can in principle
deal with the situation because one knows how to respond to whatever happens
next.

Distortion of temporal experience (typically, a sense that time has passed faster
than normal).

Experience of the activity as intrinsically rewarding, such that often the end goal
is just an excuse for the process.
When in flow, the individual operates at full capacity [cf. de Charms, 1968; Deci, 1975;
White, 1959]. Csikszentmihalyi et al. describe the state as “one of dynamic equilibrium”
[Csikszentmihalyi et al. 2002]. It is meant that entering flow depends on establishing a
balance between the subjectively perceived action capacities (skill level) and subjectively
perceived opportunities (challenge level). According to the authors, the balance is
intrinsically fragile. If challenges begin to exceed skills, one first becomes vigilant and
27
then anxious; if skills begin to exceed challenges, one first relaxes and then becomes
bored (see Figure 4: Skill & Challenge Levels, Csikszentmihalyi, M (1997).
How to enter and stay in the flow?
According to Csikszentmihalyi, one cannot force oneself to enter flow. It just happens.
Although it is most likely to occur when one is wholeheartedly performing a task or
activity for intrinsic purposes, the state can be principally entered while performing any
activity. However, passive activities like taking a bath or watching TV usually don’t elicit
flow experiences as individuals have to actively do something to enter a flow state30.
Attention plays a key role in entering and staying in the flow. Entering flow is largely a
function of how attention has been focused in the past and how it is focused in the present
by the activity’s structural conditions. Interests developed in the past will direct attention
to specific challenges. Clear proximal goals, immediate feedback, and just-manageable
levels of challenge orient the individual, in a unified and coordinated way, so that the
attention becomes completely absorbed into the stimulus field defined by the activity.
Attention is taken up entirely by the challenges being engaged. The passing of time, a
basic parameter of experience, becomes distorted because attention is so fully focused
elsewhere. Staying in the flow requires that attention be held by this limited stimulus
field, which happens by increasing the challenges.
“When attention is completely absorbed in the challenges at hand, thoughts, feelings,
wishes, and actions are in concert”31. The flow state is intrinsically rewarding and leads
the individual to seek to replicate flow experiences. This introduces a selective
mechanism into psychological functioning that fosters growth. In order to continue
experiencing flow, the individual must identify and engage progressively more complex
challenges. This way the individual improves his/her skills, achievements and
satisfaction. According to Csikszentmihalyi, this account of flow has been proven
remarkably robust and the experience is the same across line of culture, class, gender, age
and types of activity.
The concept of the flow is central for the current thesis. This state of mind beyond
“work” and “play”, when “the individual operates at full capacity”, “fully immersed in a
feeling of energized focus” and filled with “spontaneous joy, and even rapture” marks the
case when the application of gamification principles and techniques within business
30
31
http://bit.ly/4akhtJ
Ibid.
28
organizations is not only appropriate, but even requirable. Thus, bringing employees to
the flow is the ideal model that companies should strive for, when applying games/game
elements into the workplace. On these grounds, we will consider this case as a base for
elaborating our framework for approaching enterprise gamification. Later on, in the
research part, we will analyze the current efforts of some companies to apply games/
game elements from this perspective. Here, logically comes the question of how can we
investigate whether the undertaken initiatives foster flow. Considering the wide research
base, accessibility issues and limited resources, one can state that it is not possible to
verify if the individuals involved have experienced flow. Csikszentmihalyi helps us here
arguing that companies can shape activity structures and environment so that they foster
flow or at least obstruct it less. Thus, we will investigate whether the conditions for
entering flow have been fulfilled by the undertaken initiatives. This means, on one side to
examine whether the activities have been structured, so that they evolve into flow
experience (including clear proximal goals, immediate feedback about the progress and
dynamic balance between perceived skills and challenges) and on the other side –
whether the initiatives correspondent to the interests of the involved individuals (as
described above the personal interest directs the attention).
2.2.6 User Motivation for Getting Involved into Gamified Activities
In order to further elaborate on our theoretical model we have to mark what is meant with
“interests of the involved individuals”. There is a wide variety of possible interests and
motivations that drive individual behavior, so we have to somehow narrow the
perspective. In our case the “involved individuals” have two roles – on the one hand they
are employees and on the other hand – game players. Therefore, we will sketch some
typical motivations and behavior drivers for these two roles.
Employee
We will not spend so much time on the employee motivation, because it is a very
prominent topic and the intention of including it here is just to give us an orientation,
where to focus our attention. According Herzberg's “two-factor model of motivation”,
money is a motivator, however it tends to have a motivating effect on staff that lasts only
for a short period. Abraham Maslow's theory of motivation and Douglas McGregor's
“theory X and theory Y” (pertaining to the theory of leadership) demonstrate that praise,
29
respect, recognition, empowerment and a sense of belonging are far more powerful
motivators than money32.
Game player
To my knowledge, R. Bartle first tried to outline different types of motivation and
behavior of game players. Although his work is based on specific genre - MUDs (MultiUser Dimension – a multiplayer real-time virtual world, combining elements of roleplaying games, hack and slash, player versus player, interactive fiction, and online
chat)33, it provides useful means to examine game audience in general. According to
Bartle, not all players play for the same reasons, or in the same way. He outlines four
types of players - socializers, achievers, explorers, and killers - each with different
motivations, in-game behaviors, and play styles. These types arise from the interrelationship of two dimensions of playing style: action versus interaction, and worldoriented versus player-oriented. Bartle introduces following “Interest Graph” to visualize
his model. The axes of the graph represent the source of players' interest in a MUD. The
x-axis goes from an emphasis on players (left) to an emphasis on the environment (right).
The y-axis goes from acting with (bottom) to acting on (top). The four extreme corners of
the graph show the four typical playing preferences associated with each quadrant.
Figure 5: Bartle’s Interest Graph
According to Bartle, most players lean at least a little to all four, but each tends to have
some particular overall preference. Here comes an interesting description of the player
types:
32
33
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD
30

Achievers are acting on the world, interested in doing things to the game. They are
proud of their formal status in the game’s built-in formal hierarchy, and of how
short a time they took to reach it. These players regard points-gathering and rising
in levels as their main goal, and all is ultimately subservient to this. Exploration is
necessary only to find new sources of treasure, or improved ways of wringing
points from it. Socializing is a relaxing method of discovering what other players
know about the business of accumulating points, that their knowledge can be
applied to the task of gaining riches. Killing is only necessary to eliminate rivals
or people who get in the way, or to gain vast amounts of points (if points are
awarded for killing other players).
Achievers say things like: "I'm busy.", "Sure, I'll help you. What do I get?", "So
how do YOU kill the dragon, then?", "Only 4211 points to go!"

Explorers are interacting with the world, interested in having the game surprise
them. They are proud of their knowledge of the game's finer points, especially if
new players treat them as founts of all knowledge.
These gamers try progressively esoteric actions in wild, out-of-the-way places,
looking for interesting features and figuring out how things work. Scoring points
may be necessary to enter some next phase of exploration, but it's tedious, and
anyone with half a brain can do it. Killing is quicker, and might be a constructive
exercise in its own right, but it causes too much hassle in the long run if the
deceased return to seek retribution. Socializing can be informative as a source of
new ideas to try out, but most of what people say is irrelevant or old. The real fun
comes only from discovery, and making the most complete set of maps in
existence. Explorers say things like: "Hmm...", "You mean you don't know the
shortest route from x to..?", "I haven't tried that one, what's it do?"

Socializers are interacting with other players, interested in people and what they
have to say. These players are proud of their friendships, their contacts and their
influence. The game is merely a backdrop, a common ground where things happen
to players. Inter-player relationships are important: empathizing with people,
sympathizing, joking, entertaining, listening, even merely observing people play
can be rewarding - seeing them grow as individuals, maturing over time. Some
exploration may be necessary so as to understand what everyone else is talking
about, and points-scoring could be required to gain access to neat communicative
spells available only to higher levels (as well as to obtain a certain status in the
31
community). Killing, however, is something only ever to be excused if it's a futile,
impulsive act of revenge, perpetrated upon someone who has caused intolerable
pain to a dear friend. The only ultimately fulfilling thing is not how to raise levels
or kill other players. It is getting to know people, to understand them, and to form
beautiful, lasting relationships.
Socializers say things like: "Hi!", "Yeah, well, I'm having trouble with my
boyfriend.”, "What happened? I missed it, I was talking."

Killers are acting on other players, interested in doing things to people. They are
proud of their reputation and of their oft-practiced fighting skills. Killers get their
kicks from imposing themselves on others. Commonly they attack other players
with a view to killing off their persona. The more massive the distress caused, the
greater the killer's joy at having caused it. Normal points-scoring is usually
required so as to become powerful enough to begin causing havoc, and
exploration of a kind is necessary to discover new and ingenious ways to kill
people. Even socializing is sometimes worthwhile beyond taunting a recent
victim, for example in finding out someone's playing habits, or discussing tactics
with fellow killers. They're all just means to an end, though. Killers say things
like: "Ha!", "Die!", "Die! Die! Die!" (Killers are people of few words).
Bartle’s model provides an important foundation in understanding the motivations of
different players, but it suffers from some significant weaknesses. In his paper
“Motivations of Play in MMORPGs” Nick Yee summarizes them as follows: “First, the
proposed components of each player type may not be highly correlated. For example, the
desire to chat may be uncorrelated with the desire to role-play. Second, the proposed
types might be overlapping and not truly distinct types. For example, a member of a raidoriented guild may be equally an Achiever and a Socializer at the same time. Bartle’s
model forces this player to be either one or the other” [Yee, N. 2005]. To resolve these
weaknesses, Yee offers a refined and empirically grounded model, based on wide
research on MMORPG (Massively multiplayer online role-playing game) players. The
updated model has three main components and 10 subcomponents, whereat the
subcomponents within the same main component are correlated with each other but
largely uncorrelated with subcomponents from the other two main components. Here are
the groupings:

Achievement: Advancement, Mechanics, and Competition
32

Social: Socializing, Relationship, Teamwork

Immersion: Discovery, Role-playing, Customization, Escapism
Yee is careful not to describe his work as player types and calls the groupings
“overlapping sets of psychological and social motivations based on player behavior and
preferences”. Here follows a useful description of the sets (see also “Figure 6: Yee’s
Components & Subcomponents”).

Achievement Component
 Advancement
Players who score high on this motivation derive satisfaction from reaching
goals, leveling quickly and accumulating in-game resources such as gold. They
enjoy making constant progress and gaining power in the forms offered by the
game - combat prowess, social recognition, or financial/industrial superiority.
 Mechanics
Players who score high on Mechanics derive satisfaction from analyzing and
understanding the underlying numerical mechanics of the system. Their goal in
understanding the underlying system is typically to facilitate templating or
optimizing a character that excels in a particular domain.
 Competition
Players who score high on this subcomponent enjoy competing with other
gamers on the battlefield or economy. They also enjoy the power that derives
from beating or dominating other players.

Social Component
 Socializing
Players who score high on this subcomponent enjoy meeting and getting to
know other gamers. They like to chit-chat and gossip with other players as
well as helping out others in general.
 Relationship
Players who score high on this subcomponent are looking to form sustained,
meaningful relationships with others. They typically seek out close online
friends when they need support and give support when others are dealing with
real crises or problems.
 Teamwork
33
Players who score high on Teamwork enjoy working and collaborating with
others. They would rather group than solo, and derive more satisfaction from
group achievements than from individual achievements.

Immersion Component
 Discovery
Players who score high on Discovery enjoy exploring the world and
discovering locations, quests or artifacts that others may not know about. They
enjoy collecting information, artifacts or trinkets that few others have.
 Role-Playing
Players who score high on Role-Playing enjoy being immersed in a story
through the eyes of a character that they designed. Also, they enjoy roleplaying their characters as a way of integrating their character into the larger
ongoing story of the world.
 Customization
Players who score high on this subcomponent enjoy customizing the
appearance of their characters. It is very important to them that their character
has a unique style or appearance.
 Escapism
Gamers who score high on Escapism use the environment as a place to relax or
relieve their stress from the real world. These players may use the game as a
way to avoid thinking about their real problems or in general as a way to
escape.
What makes Yee’s component model so useful is that players get scores on every
motivation component. In other words, a player can score high on Advancement and
Socializing at the same time where neither motivation is subservient to the other. More
importantly, the components model can differentiate this player from another player who
scores high on Advancement but low on Socializing. Actually, low scores are just as
interesting as high scores, so it is very useful to have means to track them. The
components model allows us to take into account dislikes as well as preferences.
However, the proposed updated model also has its weaknesses. The primary one is that
the resulting components are depending on the initial inventory set derived particularly
from MMORPGs. Thus, it is possible that other motivations exist that are unaccounted
for. In the best case, the model should be adapted to the context of the particular
34
application, so that the categorization of players/users occurs within this context.
However, Yee’s component model is a great help for us to articulate the motivational
differences among the involved individuals and to understand the possible complex
behaviors and interactions in game/game-like environments.
2.2.7 Wrapping Up the Theoretical Framework and Defining Working Hypotheses
In the previous paragraphs we referred to our first two research objectives: 1) to examine
whether the concepts of “work” and “play” are substantially compatible; and 2) to mark
what has to be considered when applying games/game elements within business
organizations. First, we started with a review of two precursors of the gamification-ofwork movement, which helped us develop an intuition how to approach the topic and
gave us awareness of possible pitfalls associated with implementing game and fun
elements into the workplace. The Soviet precursor proved to have bigger overlap with the
gamification-of-work movement. Aiming to increase productivity, while not relying on
capitalist motivators as competition and material incentives, Soviet leaders implemented
game scenarios, metrics and incentives into the “entire bulky hierarchy of the Soviet
industrial production system” [Zemtsov, I. 1991]. By some accounts, the productivity
has been indeed improved, but these measures lead to overall coercion and oppression,
and castigation of those who have failed to live up with the high expectations. Thus,
“socialist emulation became a dystopian management culture in which workers were
expected to “voluntary” meet even-higher production quotas”. When introducing fun and
playful elements, the American precursor movement aimed at fostering intrinsic
motivation, because it is required in the particular production, or just because it is for
free. While some measures proved to be able to generate organizational energy, dispel
nervousness, diffuse conflict, enhance team spirit, improve task performance, etc. the
main message here is that out of control competitive fun has serious negative
repercussions. Mandatory enthusiasm as “laughter targets” and “pieces of flair” is often
perceived as oppression from the employees and reminds of the socialist dystopian
management culture, demanding from workers not only to obey, but actively to profess to
love it [Fisher 2009]. Some critics see fun at work and corporate play as new forms of
informal control by corporations over their employees, trying to harness traditionally
none-employment oriented values as self-expression. On these grounds, we can conclude
that introducing fun and playful/ game elements into the workplace might give rise to
perceived coercion and oppression, which can lead to serious negative repercussions.
35
After reviewing the precursors of gamification-of-work, we focused on answering the
question whether the concepts of “work” and “play” are substantially compatible. Here,
we explained that the traditional view of “work” as antithetical to “play” is contextual
embedded and therefore, not transcendentally valid. Then, we studied how with the
evolution of management studies the “work” and “play” dichotomy broke and some
“playbour”- hybrid forms emerged. The presented cases 1) modders having fun and
immersive play experience, while unconsciously contributing to the financial prosperity
of the entertainment industry; and 2) “gold farmers” making their living by playing
games, while still having some enjoyment; demonstrated how blurry the boundaries
between “work” and “play” have become nowadays. However, with some help from
Goggin, Mark Twain and Huizinga we figured out that distinguishing between “work”
and “play” is mainly a matter of personal perception. Nevertheless, a playful attitude
requires a high degree of voluntariness, agency and no goal outside itself.
Summarizing the outcomes of the current and the previous paragraph, we can state that
applying fun and game elements into the workplace is a powerful tool for improving
employee performance and satisfaction, but if there is not enough room for voluntariness
and agency, it can also lead to serious negative repercussions.
After proving that “play” is not only substantially compatible with “work”, but even
requirable for the optimal functioning of the business organisation, and after outlining,
what has to be considered by applying fun and game elements into the workplace, we
introduced the concept of the “flow”. Thereby, we stated that bringing employees to the
flow is the ideal model that companies should strive for, when applying games/game
elements into the workplace. On these grounds, in the research part of the current paper
we will examine whether the conditions for entering flow have been fulfilled in the
analyzed gamified initiatives. Thus, we will investigate how the structure of the activities
has been shaped and how the initiatives correspondent to the interests of the involved
individuals.
When aiming at investigating the structure of gamified activities, logically raises the
matter of categorizing the activities, in order to compare the outcomes. The question here
is how the analyzed activity refers to the business process, which it is part of. According
to the organizational theory, a business process can be decomposed into several subprocesses, which have their own attributes, but also contribute to achieving the goal of
the super-process. The analysis of business processes typically includes the mapping of
processes and sub-processes down to activity level. However, since 1) our resources are
36
limited; and 2) our aim by clustering the activities is simply to be able to compare the
outcomes; we don’t need such high level of precision as delivered by the process
mapping. Thus, we will examine the goals of the gamified initiative and the level of
complexity of the implementation (is it a simple tool, or a comprehensive enterprise
solution). Trying to make a prediction about which activities are most likely to be
gamified, when thinking through the classical business process categories - management,
operational and support processes – is very hard. According to Byron Reeves and J.
Leighton Read (2009), every work task can be gamified. The authors argue that they
found evidence in every category of serious work they examined. “Gamers organize,
categorize, analyze, evaluate, diagnose, invent, buy, sell, lead and follow” [Reeves and
Read 2009]. Reeves, Read and their research fellows list forty work categories that can be
linked to tasks fulfilled in MMORPGs. They found evidence for tasks typical for all three
classical business process categories.
Based on the intuition developed from the theoretical considerations and the analysis
presented above, we are formulating following working hypotheses:

Considering the requirement for high degree of agency and voluntariness, we
assume that gamified activities are more appropriate, when the tasks are not
obligatory and allow agency.

A playful attitude also requires a goal outside itself. On these grounds and
considering that the potential game players are employees at the same time, we
assume that gamified initiatives should be linked to the motivators outlined by A.
Maslow and D. McGregor: “praise”, “respect”, “recognition”, “empowerment”
and “sense of belonging”. Extrinsic rewards can also be implemented, but should
play secondary role.

The third working hypothesis emanates from Yee’s “overlapping sets of
psychological and social motivations based on player behavior and preferences”.
We assume that not all sets are to the same extent appropriate for being employed
within business organizations. We suppose that: 1) the Social component with its
three sub-components is very common and appropriate; 2) the subcomponents
“advancement”, “mechanics”, “discovery” and “customization” can also easily
align with business goals; 3) “competition” has high relevance to the business
environment, but as outlined above, it can easily lead to perceived coercion and
oppression, as well as castigation of those who have failed to live up with the high
expectations; 4) the sub-component “role playing” is a bit distanced and therefore
37
not really functional; and 5) “escapism” as an expression of the willingness to
relax and escape is not really appropriate and can be even contra productive in this
context.
38
Chapter 3
Empirical Ascertainment
In the previous chapter we constructed theoretical framework helping us to approach the
implementation of game/game elements within business organizations. In doing so, we
achieved our first two research objectives. Now, we will proceed to our third research
objective, namely to examine available implementations of enterprise gamification. The
underlying purpose here is to prove the constructed framework by examining the
phenomenon enterprise gamification in its real-world contexts, so that we can adjust the
framework according to the reality, and deliver comprehensive and credible theoretical
construct at the end of the paper. Before presenting the results from the empirical
research, we will give an overview of the applied research methodology.
3.1.
Research Methodology
In this section we will first describe the research objective and the research design of the
following empiric study and then we will top it off with a critical review of the applied
research methodology.
3.1.1. Objective
As already mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, the objective of the subsequent
empiric research is to prove the constructed theoretical framework by examining how the
concept of enterprise gamification has been implemented in the practice so far.
3.1.2. Research Design & Research Method
3.1.2.1.
Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research Design
As previously emphasized, implementations of the enterprise gamification concept are
just emerging. In order to overcome this lack of proven knowledge and experience
qualitative research approaches are more appropriate than quantitative. They provide
“diverse and profound insights into the objective of the study” [Kuß and Eisend, 2010]
and seek to “understand phenomena in context specific settings” [Golafshani, 2003].
39
These approaches are specifically helpful when analysing “the connection between theory
and reality” [Kuß and Eisend, 2010], which is namely the case in the current paper. On
these grounds, we can claim that by applying qualitative research approaches we will be
able to gather data, which helps us to achieve our research objective. However, the
disadvantage of qualitative research is that it deals with less representative samples and
provides less quantifiable statements. Thus, we have to consider that the “findings will
not allow hard and rapid conclusions” [Kuß and Eisend, 2010]. Being more specific, we
are going to conduct the three main types of research - exploratory, descriptive and
explanatory, but we will focus more on the first two. The main aim of explanatory
research is to identify any causal links between the factors or variables that pertain to the
research problem34. The potential findings of such kind of research are quite interesting
and we will not ignore them, but they are not that useful for achieving our research
objective. Bearing in mind that our aim here is to prove the compatibility of the proposed
theoretical framework with the reality, the explorative and descriptive research will help
us gather more focused information. According to Kuß and Eisend (2010), explorative
research compensates a lack of knowledge by gaining insights into the problem area.
Thus, it is most useful and appropriate for projects that are addressing a subject about
which there are high levels of uncertainty, and when the problem is not very well
understood. The main aim of the exploratory research is to identify the boundaries of the
environment in which the problems, opportunities or situations of interest are likely to
reside, and to identify the salient factors or variables that might be found there and be of
relevance to the research. The main aim of descriptive research is to prove an accurate
and valid representation of the factors or variables that are relevant to the research
question. None of the three research types can provide the full spectrum of information
we need, therefore we will combine them.
3.1.2.2.
Research Method
The research method we are going to apply here is the case study research. Robert Yin
defines this method as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon
within its real-life context” [Yin, 1984]. The author also states that it is best suitable for
studying complex social phenomenon and for questions about “how” and “why”. Our research
objective is to prove the proposed theoretical framework by examining how the concept of
34
http://bit.ly/XR4sfy
40
enterprise gamification has been implemented so far. Thus, it fully matches the characteristics
described by Yin and we can claim that this method is suitable for being applied in the current
study. “Many well-known case study researchers such as Robert E. Stake, Helen Simons,
and Robert K. Yin had written about case study research and suggested techniques for
organizing and conducting the research successfully” 35. Here are six steps that one can
follow to ensure that the method is applied properly: 1) Determine and define the
research questions; 2) Select the cases and determine data gathering and analysis
techniques; 3) Prepare to collect the data; 4) Collect the data in field; 5) Evaluate and
analyze the data; and 6) Prepare the report.
3.1.2.3.
Following the 6 Steps for Organizing Case Study Research Successfully
3.1.2.3.1. Determine and Define the Research Questions
The first step is to establish a firm research focus, to which we can refer over the course
of study of the complex phenomenon. Here, we will outline the purpose of the study, the
research object, the research questions and the theoretical propositions. The latter are
very important, because they guide the collection and the analysis of the data by focusing
the attention, limiting the scope and suggesting possible links between phenomena. They
are based on the theoretical considerations and similar to the hypothesis by applying
other research methods, they make an educated guess to the possible outcomes of the
study.

Purpose
To prove the proposed theoretical framework by examining how the concept of
enterprise gamification has been implemented so far.

Research Object
Available implementations of the enterprise gamification concept.

Research Question
How has the concept of enterprise gamification been implemented so far?

Theoretical Propositions
When studying how the concept of enterprise gamification has been implemented so
far, we are going to refer to the ideal model outlined in the theoretical considerations.
There, we stated that bringing employees to the flow is the ideal model that business
35
http://chesterrep.openrepository.com/cdr/bitstream/10034/100375/3/chapter%202.pdf
41
organizations should strive for when applying game/game elements into the
workplace. Thus, we will examine whether the undertaken gamified initiatives foster
flow and particularly, whether the conditions for entering flow have been fulfilled by
shaping the gamified activities. By revising the working hypotheses presented in the
conclusion of the theoretical consideration, the following propositions emerge:
 Proposition 1
Similar to Byron Reeves and J. Leighton Read (2009), we propose that every
work task can be gamified. Therefore, we will examine which part of the work
has been gamified and will try to roughly categorize the results by means of
the following categories: 1) classical types of work (managerial, operational
and supporting); 2) objectives; and 3) level of complexity of the
implementation (e.g. a simple tool or comprehensive enterprise platform).
 Proposition 2
One of our working hypotheses was that gamified activities are more
appropriate when tasks are not obligatory and allow agency. Thus, in the
current empirical research we will examine whether the gamified tasks are
obligatory, and whether they allow agency. We propose that the gamified
activities can be closely tied to the everyday tasks of the employees, but they
should allow some agency.
 Proposition 3
Based on the structural conditions for fostering flow, we pose that the gamified
activities provide 1) clear proximal goals; 2) immediate feedback about the
progress been made; and 3) dynamic balance between skills and challenges.
 Proposition 4
According to the last condition for fostering flow, the gamified activities
should correspondent to the interests of the involved individuals. As already
stated, the users of the implementations have two main roles: 1) an employee;
and 2) a game player. Therefore, we pose that the gamified activities employ
motivators typical for both roles. To be more precise:

P4a. The gamified initiatives should be linked to the employee motivators
outlined by A. Maslow and D. McGregor: “praise”; “respect”;
“recognition”; “empowerment”; and “sense of belonging”. Extrinsic
rewards can be also implemented, but should play secondary role.
42

P4b. Yee’s “overlapping sets of psychological and social motivations based
on player behavior and preferences” - Achievement (“advancement”,
“mechanics”,
“teamwork”);
“competition”);
and
Social
Immersion
(“socializing”,
(“discovery”,
“relationship”,
“role-playing”,
“customization”, “escapism”) should also be intensively employed in the
gamified activities. However, as already stated, not all sets are very
appropriate for implementation in business organizations. We pose that the
Social
component
with
its
three
sub-components
(“socializing”,
“relationship” and “teamwork”) is common and appropriate. The subcomponents
“advancement”,
“mechanics”,
“discovery”
and
“customization” can also align with business goals. The motivator
“competition” has high relevance to the business environment, but it
should be implemented in healthy levels, because it can lead to coercion,
oppression and castigation of those who have difficulties with the high
expectations. The sub-component “role playing” is a bit distanced and
therefore not really functional. “Escapism” as an expression of the
willingness to relax and escape is not really appropriate and can be even
contra productive in this context.
3.1.2.3.2. Select the Cases and Determine Data Gathering and Analysis Techniques
In this section we define cases to examine and select data-gathering and analysis
strategies.
Single vs. Multiple Cases
As our research object - available implementations of enterprise gamification - is multiple
and there are many real-life cases that reflect the research question, we are going to
conduct a multiple case study. According to Yin (2003), when examining multiple cases,
each case is treated as a single one, but each case conclusion can be considered in the
light of the multiple-case phenomenon. This approach enables us to explore differences
within and between the cases and thus, to gather more comprehensive knowledge about
the variety of real-life enterprise gamification implementations.
43
Instrumental vs. Intrinsic Case Study
Our multiple case study is instrumental. We are going to try to understand the situation in
each case, but its main aim is to provide insight that will help us to prove the theoretical
framework. In this sense, the single cases play supporting role, facilitating our
understanding of the viability of the concept within business organizations.
Methods of Data Collection
The information we strive for, concerns the internal functioning of business units,
therefore it is often confidential and not so easily accessible. Additionally, the topic is
most developed in USA and barely present in Europe. On these grounds, and considering
the limited resources of a master thesis project, conducting direct observation, interviews
in person and surveys as methods of data collection is unfortunately not realistic. Thus,
we will collect the data by reviewing available on internet documentation, articles and
videos about enterprise gamification. However, we will keep in mind that the gathered
data might be to some extend shifted, because the published information comes mainly
from proponents of the concept. The advantage of the selected data collection method is
that it enables us to gather evidence from multiple real cases time- and cost-effectively.
Methods of Data Analysis
According to Yin (2003), there are two main strategies for analyzing collected data –
“analytic strategy” and “case description”. We will apply the “analytic strategy”, because
it relays on the propositions to guide the analysis. By the other strategy, the analysis is
organized on the basis of description of the general characteristics and relations of the
phenomenon in question. The analytic technic we are going to apply is “pattern
matching”, which means “comparing if the initial predicted results have been found and
alternative patterns are absent” and then, “the presence of certain explanations should
exclude the presence of others” [Yin, 2003].
3.1.2.3.3. Prepare to Collect the Data
In this section of the paper researchers usually describe how they are going to organize
the training of interviewers, the protocols, the pilot study, etc. This step is essential when
there are many interviewers participating into the fieldwork, but for our case study it is
not relevant.
44
3.1.2.3.4. Collect the Data
As already stated above, we are going to apply the “analytic strategy” by evaluating the
collected data, which means that the theoretical propositions will guide the analysis. In
order to be more effective, we will try to collect data selectively, i.e. pick out
characteristics relevant to the research propositions.
3.1.2.3.5. Evaluate and Analyze Data
When analyzing the data we will use the following scheme to compare if the initial
predicted results, i.e. the research propositions, have been found in the data (the technic
“pattern matching”). According to Yin (2003), when a pattern from one data type is
corroborated by the evidence from another, the finding is strong.
Scheme for Case Analysis

Case #: Name
Indicating case name and number helps presenting the case analysis
systematically.

Overall description & Objectives of implementing games/game-elements
This section and the following one refer to the first proposition, claiming that every
work can be gamified. They give an overview and a context of the implementations,
providing information on the objectives, business areas, complexity, etc.

Which part of the work has been gamified?

Are the gamified tasks obligatory? Do they allow some agency?
This part of the analytic scheme refers to the second proposition, stating that
gamified activities can be closely tied to the everyday tasks of the employees, but
should allow some agency. Following indicators are kept in mind by performing
the analysis: level of voluntariness, time and place restrictions, and strict
directions on performing the gamified task.

Do the gamified activities fulfill the structural conditions for fostering flow?
This section refers to the third proposition – “Gamified activities provide 1) clear
proximal goals; 2) immediate feedback about the progress been made; and 3)
dynamic balance between skills and challenges”.
45

Do the gamified activities employ motivations typical for both roles performed by
the users (employee and game player)?
In this part we analyze, which motivations have been employed and how
intensively.
3.1.2.3.6. Prepare the Report
Here, we will present the evidence and give special attention to conflicted proposition.
3.1.3. Critical Review of the Research Methodology
The first critique that might come regarding the selected case study method is that the findings
might not allow hard and rapid conclusions. Indeed, this is the disadvantage of the method,
but it has proved as being the most appropriative one, when examining just emerging
contemporary phenomena within their real-life contexts [Yin, 1984], which correspondents to
the aim of the current paper. Second objection might be raised regarding the collected data.
Firstly, our research object “available implementations of the gamification concept within
business organizations” is quite broad, thus systematic data gathering and analysis will be
difficult. Nevertheless, we didn’t set any boundaries, because in order to construct a
comprehensive and reliable theoretical framework we have to explore all available
implementations and to cluster them according the findings. We admit that there is a risk of
missing an important case, because we cannot guarantee that we have found all public
available cases. However, by this knowledge level, there is no other way to achieve our
research objectives. In order to ensure systematic data collection and analysis, we followed
the six proposed steps for properly application of the method, defined propositions and
introduced an analytic scheme. Secondly, there is always the risk that public available data,
concerning the internal functioning of business units, is manipulated by the publisher. We
realize that we cannot control this risk, because in the current situation it is not realistic to
gather data from users of the application.
46
3.2.
Research Results
3.2.1. Case Studies
3.2.1.1.
Case 1: PlayVov
Overall Description & Objectives of implementing games/game elements
The collaboration platform provider Arcaris launched in November 2012 PlayVox - a
“web platform that helps to improve employee motivation and talent management at
contact centers through gamification.”36 It integrates HR processes with videogame
dynamics and social psychology techniques in an effort to help organizations rise to the
challenges of the industry – demotivation, low productivity and turnover (ibid). The idea
to make contact centers more efficient and better place to work seems substantial,
because according to Arcaris, 70% of the total cost in the industry is people. The
introduction video37, targeted at supervisors and managers in contact centers, explains
how this solution can help them to organize their work more effectively and achieve
higher productivity, efficiency, and fellowship. It also says that: “with PlayVox you can
easily communicate with and motivate your team through social collaboration tools; you
can follow each of your agents and send messages to maintain constantly back; upload
educational content to train new agents and generate public recognition for your best;
give private coaching sessions with them, when you need it” 38.
Which part of the work has been gamified?
The platform optimizes HR processes and in particular - “internal communication process,
training, feedback and coaching”39. According to the corporate website40, the gamified
product has the following functionalities:

Build a community - publish news, birthdays, events and keep agents up to date;

Train agents in minutes - create, privately share and analyze trainings by the
means of screencasts, video, audio; reward with Karma points, medals and badges
for positive actions as completing quizzes; review analytics to monitor the
36
http://bit.ly/Twzn4D
http://bit.ly/14Kzs8p
38
Ibid.
39
http://bit.ly/PAmDYF
40
http://www.arcaris.com/
37
47
learning process of single members/ the entire team; track the impact of trainings
with built-in assessment tools;

Let agents collaborate to solve customer problems - capture ideas, promote
teamwork;

Communicate better with agents - give and ask feedback at the right moment and
time;
Are the gamified tasks obligatory? Do they allow some agency?
PlayVox is a free platform offering an app-store with variety of gamification apps that
can be used. Thus, it highly depends on the manager, which apps and tools are going to
be implemented and how intensively are they going to be used. However, there is no data
indicating that the core process of customer service has been gamified. On these grounds,
I suggest that the platform users still have a high degree of agency by performing their
everyday activities. One company using PlayVox is Groupon Inc. It operates a “deal-ofthe-day website that features discounted gift certificates usable at local or national
companies”41. By October 2010, it served more than 150 markets and had 35 million
registered users42. The Company started testing the PlayVox platform in March 201243. So far
the tools were mainly used by the hiring and training processes. Time was saved by inviting
applicants not in meeting rooms, but in online private PlayVox community. There, applicants
created personal profiles and were given specific tests by the mangers in order to filter out
unqualified personal. PlayVox was also used to offer e-learning courses for the newly hired
and current agents. According to the article, “the largest benefit is that Groupon has been able
to continuously train and have easily access to analytic results, ensure immediate results from
each person taking the course”. An interesting statement comes from Carolina Bucarey, head
of customer service at Groupon LatAm, saying that: “PlayVox lets us detect and make a quick
diagnosis of underperforming agents or those who ignore certain important procedures in
serving our customers.’’44 We suggest that this statement concerns the “detection of
underperforming agents” and of “those who ignore certain important procedures” during the
training process and not during the agents’ everyday core activities. So far, no evidence has
been found on the option of tracking agents’ everyday core activities. However, “a next step
for PlayVox will be to debut an enterprise version of the platform as the company considers
41
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupon
Ibid.
43
http://bit.ly/TGrRB0
44
http://bit.ly/XRekWN
42
48
deeper support and analytics capabilities through integrations with workforce management,
CRM, and quality management systems.”45
Do the gamified activities fulfill the structural conditions for fostering flow?
Here again, it highly depends on the manager which tools will be used and how
intensively. Nevertheless, we can say that the three conditions are fulfilled, because the
platform provides the following options: 1) to see achievements, ranks, goals that have to
be achieved, number of points to reach the next level; 2) track the progress of single
agents and of the entire team, give and receive immediate feedback; 3) uploaded training
content and coaching sessions can be distributed precisely according to the skill levels of
the uses.
Do the gamified activities employ motivators typical for both roles performed by the
users (“employee” and “game player”)?
Extrinsic rewards as “Karma points” and badges (“Team Player”, “Company Energizer”,
“Inspired Worker”, “Leader”, "Goal Master", etc.) have prominent role here. “Praise”,
“respect”, and “recognition” are implemented through the publishing of achievements.
“Sense of belonging” is also covered through the building of community, awarding, etc.
“Empowerment” is provided by the possibility of achieving goals and giving coaching
sessions. The main game player motivators employed are: “advancement”, “socializing”,
“teamwork”, “relationship”, “competition”, and “customization”.
3.2.1.2.
Case 2: GamEffective
Overall description & Objectives of implementing games/game elements
GamEffective is a young startup from Israel offering a gamification platform for contact
centers. Their platform “provides a decent number of game mechanics, as well as integration
to the agent's desktop, IVR/CTI solutions like Avaya and Genesys, as well as CRM solutions
like from Salesforce, Microsoft, or Oracle.“46 So far, not much information can be found
about the activities of the young business organization. There is a video from October 2012
describing the idea, a company’s website and few texts in Hebrew/Arabic. According to the
45
46
http://bit.ly/VJbJAC
http://bit.ly/X8cHpm
49
website47, the startup offers flexible business solutions for Sales, Customer Service, and
Knowledge Collaboration, whereat the following goals can be achieved:
Sales

Improve sales performance of call center agents and field sales persons by recognition,
competition, focus on the right things to do, the right products and the right customers.

Improve on-boarding of new employees.
Customer Service

Call Center, Contact Center, Help Desk and field support will be improved by
higher employees' engagement. Adjust the focus on quality, productivity &
efficiency, while improving the retention of the employees.

Improve on-boarding of new employees.
Knowledge Collaboration

Teams will collaborate and create content by-product of solving problems, while
having fun.
Which part of the work has been gamified?
During the data collection phase, no information on any concrete implementations of the idea
has been found. Therefore, we will describe how the concept is presented in the introduction
video48 from October 2012. The plot of the video is dropping productivity in a sales
department of a call center. The main challenge is that the job is “stressful, repetitive and
boring”. A member of the high management explains how this problem can be resolved
with GamEffective by implementing following points: 1) personal and team
competitions, leaderboards, badges, level progress, etc.; 2) employees make progress in
the game by achieving business goals; 3) each user has his/her progress bar and
challenges he/she is facing; 4) the main leaderboard and the game status are displayed on
large plasma screens, so that everyone can see them; 5) the team leader sets challenges,
encouragements and can even change the game pace; this way, he is setting goals,
monitoring and improving engagement in the same time; 6) an interesting storyline
(pirates, chefs, farmers, etc.) and wizards guiding game participants.
47
48
http://gameffective.com/
http://bit.ly/TwBq8R
50
Are the gamified tasks obligatory? Do they allow some agency?
Based on the information provided above, one can suggest that in this case the gamified work
elements are more closely related to the everyday core activities of the employees or that they
even coincide with each other. The statement that the “progress in the game is made by
achieving business goals” is still broad, but the notion of implementing “KPI metrics” and
“scoring on activities” belonging to the core processes and everyday routine indicates low
levels of agency.
Do the gamified activities fulfill the structural conditions for fostering flow?
The data presented above gives us a hint that the first two conditions will be most
probably fulfilled. Regarding the third one – it is very difficult to make a statement,
because there is no related data. We can just suggest that it highly depends on the
manager, because he/she is in charge of setting personal and team goals/challenges.
Do the gamified activities employ motivators typical for both roles performed by the
users (“employee” and “game player”)?
In this case, many game-elements and respectively game player motivators are employed:
1) extrinsic rewards (points, batches); 2) “advancement” (level progress, progress bars on
goals, challenges); 3) “competition” (personal and team contests, leaderboards); 4)
“teamwork” (collaboration on solving problems); 5) “relationship” (encouragements); 6)
“roleplaying” (pirates, chefs, etc.); 7) even “escapism” is to some extend relevant here.
All typical employee motivators can be observed as well.
3.2.1.3.
Case 3: Race to 1000 Series
Overall description & Objectives of implementing games/game elements
“Race to 1000 Series” by SAP AG is an example for gamification of sales analytics.
The main objectives by introducing this application are 1) to track and boost sales team
performance; and 2) to develop competitiveness among team members and teams49.
49
http://bit.ly/11z6PLH
51
Which part of the work has been gamified?
Focusing on sales analytics, “Race to 1000 Series” has a rather narrow field of application.
Instead of simply displaying sales data as bar or pie chart, the application races the user
through the number of closed deals for each region for every period. The total annual target is
1000 closed deals. The world regions - EMEA, NA, APJ, LATAM and DACH - compete in
closing as much deals as possible for 365 days. At the end of the race the leaderboard displays
the winner of the period and overall closed deals compared to the annual goal50.
Are the gamified tasks obligatory? Do they allow some agency?
Based on the accessible information on this case, one can claim that not the entire process of
closing deals has been gamified, but only the analytics. Thus, most probably the gamified
activities are not so intense and time-restricted and therefore they allow high levels of agency.
Do the gamified activities fulfill the structural conditions for fostering flow?
The goal setting, the actions, the progress, etc. in this case are on a higher level. Game
players are not the single users, but the world regions. Thus, the employees are not able
to see their personal goals and their contribution to the team progress. There is no
particular data regarding the dynamic balance between skills and challenges, but the
racing through the numbers of closed deals for some periods, can’t be seen as significant
challenge, thus such balance should be present.
Do the gamified activities employ motivators typical for both roles performed by the
users (“employee” and “game player”)?
The motivators “extrinsic rewards” (points), “praise”, “respect”, “recognition”, “sense of
belonging”, “advancement”, “competition” and “teamwork” are definitely covered by the
application. “Role playing” can also be observed to some extent.
3.2.1.4.
Case 4: Nitro for Salesforce/ Salesforce Motivation
Overall description & Objectives of implementing games/game elements
Salesforce.com Inc. is a global enterprise software company headquartered in San
Francisco, California. It is best known for its “Sales Cloud” - a customer relationship
50
http://bit.ly/YvwX5w
52
management (CRM) product, but the “Service Cloud” - a customer service solution - and
the “Marketing Cloud” - a marketing application - also get a lot of attention from
customers. One of the latest offerings is “Nitro for Salesforce” - “a gamified application
aiming at motivating sales professionals”51 It relays on methods that have been practiced
for years such as - team competitions, leaderboards, rewards, etc. The added value of
“Nitro for Salesforce” is that these activities don’t have to be tracked and managed
manually anymore, because the application leverages sales data and statistics that are
already being stored in centralized systems like Salesforce. Thus, the next suggested step
after automating the sales force of a company is engaging it with “Nitro”. This statement
comes from a video pitch, where it is also claimed that the gamified application “drives
adoption, engagement and performance”52. Another video shows the features of the
application: “A personal progress bar shows users how there are doing and how close they
are to the next level. The feature “Challenge” highlights what their manager wants them to
focus on and who has already completed it. The “Team leaderboard” displays who is on the
top. With a simple click on the “Nitro” tab the app comes alive with personalized profile,
team standings and rewards pages. Dynamic news feed keep your team up to date and helps
you spread marketing messages. The profile page keeps your team focused on the activities
that matter most to your business: the challenges, teams, point values, trophies. Everything is
easily customized by the Salesforce manager or administrator. Each time the user completes a
challenge he is notified real time. You can also create teams any type you want – to encourage
collaboration and healthy competition. Regions, managers, markets go head to head. Rewards,
chatter posts and social media activities get people engaged and keep them communicating.
You can incentivize with rewards available in Salesforce shop. Virtual or physical – you name
it!”53
Which part of the work has been gamified?
“Nitro” adds gamification elements to automated customer relationship management and
customer service activities. Managers can use the application for managing challenges and
respectively rewards, and for tracking employee performance. Sale agents on the other side
are guided by Nitro in focusing on what their manager wants them to do and in finding their
way to mastery.
51
http://bit.ly/WKJEHu
http://bit.ly/14KBuoO
53
http://bit.ly/vtCRNV
52
53
Are the gamified tasks obligatory? Do they allow some agency?
The description from the last video and especially the statement “…you name it!”54 indicate
that Salesforce manager and/or administrator have a lot of freedom in designing the gamified
activities. Thus, it is hard to make a general comment here. However, bearing in mind that the
sales activities have already been automated and therefore become highly structured, one can
suggest that the gamification elements don’t change much the character of the activities and
respectively their levels of agency.
Do the gamified activities fulfill the structural conditions for fostering flow?
The “goal setting” function is quite developed in this application. Sales managers can create
different types of goals: long-term vs. short-term; individual vs. team goals; ad hoc goals
around point-in-time events vs. periodic goals; etc. Certain goals can also be highlighted to
ensure that employees are focused on them. Progress can be tracked toward all goals and
feedback is immediately provided. According to the Bunchball’s whitepaper, immediate
feedback is “built into the application and provided on via “toast”, in-browser
notifications that display at the moment when a user accomplishes something of note, like
closing a deal”55. The option of providing dynamic balance between skills and challenges
is also supported. Nevertheless, as already stated, it highly depends on the Salesforce
manager and/or administrator how the application is going to be designed and used.
Do the gamified activities employ motivators typical for both roles performed by the
users (“employee” and “game player”)?
All employee motivators and almost all game player motivators are employed into this
application. No prove was found only on “role-playing” and “escapism”. It is interesting how
“discovery” is applied: in order to improve onboarding and mastery, goals can be created
around exploring and learning new features with Salesforce. Another innovative idea by
“team work” is to let team mates compete against each other to see who can contribute most
of them. In this application individuals can also be part of more than one team. Additionally,
every team has its own private discussion area to plan strategy and tactics.
54
55
Ibid.
http://bit.ly/xMf04a
54
3.2.1.5.
Case 5: Roadwarrior
Overall description & Objectives of implementing games/game elements
“Roadwarrior” is an interactive game that helps SAP AG to train its sales agents on the
following topics: 1) mobile solutions offered by the company; 2) profiles and requirement of
potential customers; and 3) sales know-how. Although not much data can be found, there are
some screenshots56 revealing the idea and some main features of the application. According to
this source, the game teaches sales representatives through a simulated meeting with a
customer, how and what to respond to the customer’s questions. It provides the sales agents
with some information about the customer’s company and on this basis he/she has to tailor the
offer, bearing in mind the potential requirements of the customer. In the “pre-call planning”
session the sales representative can progress, unlock levels and earn badges by answering
questions correctly. In the end of this session a “cheat sheet” with the correct information is
aggregated, which later in the meeting with the customer, can be used to take a glance. After
the “pre-planning” the sales representative meets the customer. When answering his
questions, players can see immediately on the conversation “meter”, how well the meeting is
going. Once all meetings with customers from one area are completed, the next level with
customers in different areas is unlocked. This allows sales representatives to gather crosstechnology knowledge. Players can also challenge other players, to match answers to a
question. Leaderboards show the results from the completions on questions and number of
won clients.
Which part of the work has been gamified?
In this case, if not the entire training of sales representatives, then at least a broad part of it has
been gamified. This includes: presenting product specifications; educating on strategic
business development and classical sales know-how; coaching; giving and receiving
feedback; rewarding; promoting team work; etc.
Are the gamified tasks obligatory? Do they allow some agency?
The gamified activities are neither a part of the core business, nor timely restricted, thus they
should allow high levels of agency.
56
http://bit.ly/IfSs5q
55
Do the gamified activities fulfill the structural conditions for fostering flow?
Here, all three conditions are fulfilled.
Do the gamified activities employ motivators typical for both roles performed by the
users (“employee” and “game player”)?
In this case again, all typical employee motivators are employed. Regarding the game player
motivators - 1) “customization” is absent; 2) there is not much data matching to “mechanics”
and “discovery”; 3) “escapism” is applied to some extent; and 4) the rest of the motivators are
present.
3.2.1.6.
Case 6: Ribbon Hero 2
Overall description & Objectives of implementing games/game elements
“Ribbon Hero 2” is a gamified application that encourages MS Office users to learn more
about the different features by watching videos and taking short exams. The user experience
provided by the application is quite involving. Players explore different time periods on the
board of a time machine and with each time period there is a new game with challenges the
user has to complete to get to the next level. Each challenge takes the player into Word,
Excel, PowerPoint, or OneNote to complete a task57. This way the user discovers new office
features by using them. After each successfully completed session the players earn ribbons.
Which part of the work has been gamified?
“Ribbon Hero 2” was not exclusively developed for business organizations, but it can be
used well in trainings and specifically by onboarding and mastering.
Are the gamified tasks obligatory? Do they allow some agency?
The gamified activities are neither a part of the core business, nor timely restricted.
Therefore, they should allow high levels of agency.
57
http://www.ribbonhero.com/
56
Do the gamified activities fulfill the structural conditions for fostering flow?
The first two conditions are fulfilled. Regarding the third one – it is not clear whether the
difficulty of the challenges can be amended according to the skill level of particular
employee.
Do the gamified activities employ motivators typical for both roles performed by the
users (“employee” and “game player”)?
In this case, the intensively employed motivators are: 1) “extrinsic rewards”, and “praise”
(employee); 2) “advancement”, “role-playing”, and “discovery” (game player).
3.2.1.7.
Case 7: SAP’s Vendor Invoicing
Overall description & Objectives of implementing games/game elements
Employees working in vendor invoicing have to fulfill repetitive tasks – manually enter data
again and again. Additional challenge is to enter the amounts and the accounts properly. In
order to optimize these activities and make them more fun for employees, SAP gamified them
as follows58: for each invoice and line item users and their teams earn points and raise
their status this way; team challenges are organized on daily and/or on monthly basis,
where the reward for the winner is some amount of money that is donated to a charity;
the winning team has the right to select the charity. According to some records,
competition is kept within the healthy limits and is more directed towards teams from
different offices. The solution is based on collaborative platform, where employees can
ask and answer questions, reward each other with points, solve problems together and
show each other the way to mastery. The proponents of the application claim that this
way, not only engagement and collaboration are encouraged, but “review costs are
decreased and costly fines and corrections after audit minimized”59.
Which part of the work has been gamified?
SAP AG has gamified its vendor invoicing activities.
58
59
http://bit.ly/VDQmEd
Ibid.
57
Are the gamified tasks obligatory? Do they allow some agency?
The processing of invoices is obligatory, but helping someone to find a solution of a
problem is not. Additionally, the vendor invoicing activities are so strictly structured, that
they don’t really leave much space for agency. Nevertheless, collaborative problem
solving and deciding whom to donate the won amount of money provides much more
space for agency.
Do the gamified activities fulfill the structural conditions for fostering flow?
When examining the screenshots, no individual stand-alone goals can be seen. On the
other side, the number of invoices processed by each team member is displayed. The user
with the highest number of processed invoices marks the challenge of the day. It is not
clear though, whether it is expected from every team member to reach this number. If this
is the case, the game might be quite overwhelming and frustrating for some players.
Thus, it depends on the expectations of the manager and/or the team, whether the third
condition is fulfilled. The displayed numbers of processed invoices indicate the clear
proximal goals and feedback is constantly provided. According to the collected data, the
system registers every submitted invoice and users get points for this action and for
replying to someone’s question. However, there are no badges and other symbols
providing qualitative feedback.
Do the gamified activities employ motivators typical for both roles performed by the
users (“employee” and “game player”)?
Here again, all employee motivators are present. Regarding the game player motivators –
leading role have “advancement”, “competition”, “team work” and “relationship”.
3.2.1.8.
Case 8: TrueOffice
Overall description & Objectives of implementing games/game elements
The slogan of “TrueOffice” is “fun-to-use mobile compliance apps”60. The idea is to help
employees learn about corporate policies through fast-paced 20 minutes games, based on
interactive story. According to one video, “TrueOffice” “creates data rich mobile games
that help companies to reduce risk and save money”61.
60
61
http://vimeo.com/41805848
Ibid.
58
Their aim is to turn compliance training into “fun, intelligible and quantifiable
experience”62. Thus, no lists and boring texts are applied, but stories and game play.
During the training people are not chained to their desk, because they use tables and
mobile platforms. How does it work?
After a briefing about the game, the user is
transported in high risk situations and ethical dilemmas, where he/she is the key for
unlocking the truth. This happens by walking from office to office, talking with people
about the situation, picking up and investigating objects of interest, hunting down
violations and red-flagging them. All these steps are performed with the help of the
company’s actual policies and industrial regulations. When ready with investigating, the
user moves on to the quiz. There, by answering the questions the user instantly sees
his/her score plus other gamers’ results in the interactive dashboard. Once the player
passes, the surprise ending unlocks. Then, the user is acknowledged about “some very
tricky business stuff”63, while the whole training process takes only about 30 min.
Through some tools managers can analyze employee progress and protect the company
against liability suits.
Which part of the work has been gamified?
“TrueOffice” generally offers “fun-to-use mobile compliance apps”64. However, the
training focus in the described example is on employee responsibility, network & device
safeguards and incident reporting.
Are the gamified tasks obligatory? Do they allow some agency?
Compliance trainings are usually obligatory, but in our case employees can choose when and
where to take the training and how to unlock the surprise ending. Therefore, there is a high
level of agency.
Do the gamified activities fulfill the structural conditions for fostering flow?
While the first two conditions are fulfilled, there is not enough information on the third
one, thus we cannot give any plausible comment here.
62
Ibid.
Ibid.
64
Ibid.
63
59
Do the gamified activities employ motivators typical for both roles performed by the
users (“employee” and “game player”)?
All employee motivators are employed and the leading game player motivators are
“advancement”, “discovery”, “role-playing” and “competition”.
3.2.1.9.
Case 9: Gamifying Collaborative Decision Making
Overall description & Objectives of implementing games/game elements
Taking decisions is rarely easy and what makes it even more complicated nowadays is
the high level of unpredictability of the business environment and the wide currency of
multinational teams distributed across the globe. On these grounds, three computer
scientists from Toronto, Canada - Mohammad Ali Moradian, Kelly Lyons and Maaz Nasir –
developed an application through which employees can fully participate in an online
collaborative decision-making activity, while simultaneously juggling their busy
schedules65. The team developed two decision tools based on ThinkLets 66 – one for
brainstorming, the other one for fast focus – and integrated them together with game
mechanics into the social media platform of SAP AG – StreamWork (supports enterprisewide and inter-organizational group collaboration through common tools such as pro/con
lists, ranking lists, SWOT tables and polls)67. For both tools - the brainstorming and the
focusing one - they added leaderboards and achievements. Additionally, there were a
progress bar for the brainstorming and points for the focusing tool. According to the
description, the scientists aimed at creating healthy competition, encouraging participants
by giving points, guiding users by setting goals and providing real time feedback. The
hypotheses they tested in two groups (one “with implemented game-elements” and one –
“without”) were whether users will be more satisfied with 1) the process and 2) the
outcome of the collaborative decision making when game-elements are applied. The
results showed that the users were equally satisfied with 1) the process and 2) the
outcomes. Nevertheless, significantly more users from the team with game-elements
liked the experience and said that the activity was great for them (8 “with gameelements” vs. 1 “without”).
65
http://bit.ly/VJeBxk
http://www.fi.uu.nl/thinklets/
67
http://bit.ly/Yvzj4l
66
60
Which part of the work has been gamified?
In this case, online collaboration decision-making activities and being more specific,
brainstorming and focusing on ideas, have been gamified.
Are the gamified tasks obligatory? Do they allow some agency?
Usually the attendance at such online workshops is highly recommended. Nevertheless, it
is up to employees how intensively involved they are. In our case, there are some
leaderboards, points, etc. that measure the intensity and the quality of the contributions,
but there is no data indicating that the achievements in this activity are somehow
connected with the assessment of the overall performance of the employees. Thus,
participants can still enjoy high levels of agency.
Do the gamified activities fulfill the structural conditions for fostering flow?
The first two conditions are fulfilled and for the third one we don’t have enough data to
make a plausible suggestion. The dynamic balance between skills and challenges depends
on the competence of the involved individuals.
Do the gamified activities employ motivators typical for both roles performed by the
users (“employee” and “game player”)?
In this case leading role have “extrinsic rewards” (points), “competition” (points,
leaderboards), “advancement” (progress bar, achievements) and “team work”. “Praise”,
“respect” and “recognition” are not completely absent, but they are not so intensively
employed, because neither a story line, nor an epic meaning has been developed around
the gamified activities. “Sense of belonging” and “empowerment” are also covered to
some extent, but this is a result from the specific of the activity rather than from the
implementation of game-elements. “Mechanics”, “role-playing”, “customization” and
“escapism” are absent.
3.2.1.10. Case 10: Your Promptitude
Overall description & Objectives of implementing games/game elements
One of the challenges consulting companies face by organizing their internal work is
making consultants assign their time spent on projects correctly and promptly. The ideal
case is to have the time entries completed at the end of each week, so that managers can
61
approve them and clients can be billed. On these grounds, Slalom Consulting LLC
implemented “Your Promptitude” - a gamified version of time recording system. The tool
measures how timely the consultants are in submitting their time by the weekly deadline.
The user evaluation is based on monthly base and there are four levels of promptitude.
The lowest level has the following title - “You are making this hard to everyone”68.
Which part of the work has been gamified?
Here only one tool has been gamified and namely – the time reporting tool.
Are the gamified tasks obligatory? Do they allow some agency?
The gamified task is obligatory and the activity is structured very strictly. Nevertheless, the
activity is not so time-consuming and there is still some flexibility when choosing the time to
perform it. Thus, the gamified task allows some agency.
Do the gamified activities fulfill the structural conditions for fostering flow?
Although the three conditions are fulfilled, the activity takes so little time, that it might
not be possible to experience flow.
Do the gamified activities employ motivators typical for both roles performed by the
users (“employee” and “game player”)?
Very little game-elements (only points and levels) have been implemented in “Your
Promptitude”. The application is based mainly on “extrinsic rewards” (points),
“advancement” and “competition”. “Praise”, “respect”, “recognition” and “sense of
belonging” are to some extend also present, but less than the “stick” 69 motivator finding
expression in the public punishment of consultants that haven’t completed their entries on
time (the status “You are making this hard to everyone”). There is neither a story line, nor
an epic meaning that connects the user activities with a higher purpose.
3.2.1.11. Case 11: PropsToYou
Overall description & Objectives of implementing games/game elements
68
69
http://bit.ly/NppWgm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_and_stick
62
“PropsToYou” by Six Fish LLC is a “project management that helps you get noticed,
support your team and celebrate your unique talents and contributions”70. According to
the product’s website, it can help a company to achieve following three main objectives:

Automate employee recognition program
“Recognizing your employees for exceptional work is tricky business. If you leave
someone out or the recognition criteria appear arbitrary, you'll spread resentment in
your team. PropsToYou picks the right reward for the right person, at the right
frequency. And since the choice is based on measured performance and out of your
hands, no one can accuse you of favoritism.”71

Upgrade performance reviews
“PropsToYou lets HR direct, monitor and incent on-the-job skill acquisition across
your org. And weekly peer reviews and real-time monitoring of teamworking skills
give you unparalleled visibility into social and professional development of you
staff.”72

Project management that help business organizations improve
“PropsToYou's full suite of user-friendly project management tools keep everyone
organized and on the same page. We also provide you critical process feedback to
constantly improve your procedures. And the built-in incentives taken from
behavioral science direct teams to best organizational and communication
practices.”73
Additionally, a video on the webpage74 describes the idea and the way it works. The main
character – Jason – works on a project “doing amazing stuff”. Like most project teams
these days he works with people from all over the world. He uses a web app to coordinate
tasks, assignments, etc. so that everyone stays on the same page. The problem he
encounters is that “people treat you as machine”. For example, when he finishes
something no one even notices. Thus, he sometimes feels like a rat on a wheel. How does
this situation change with “PropsToYou”? When an employee finishes something he/she
earns “skill points”. Once in a week there is an automatic check on the performance of
each employee. In case he/she 1) completed a lot of tasks; 2) helped someone; or 3)
unlocked the secret praise, the app notifies the employee and his/her team about the
70
http://www.propstoyou.com/
Ibid.
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid.
74
Ibid.
71
63
accomplishment. Achievements are automatically saved on the user’s profile, where
everyone can see them. This way, week after week the user develops a reputation.
According to the video “what really matters is what you’ve done and not your to-do-list”.
Thus, it is not surprising that the slogan of the company is “You’ve earned it!”
Which part of the work has been gamified?
“PropsToYou” is a mixture of gamified activities from various business functions as project management, performance management, skill management, rewarding, process
management, quality assurance, etc.
Are the gamified tasks obligatory? Do they allow some agency?
Unfortunately, there is not a significant amount of data that gives us a basis to make
plausible statements here. We can only suggest that the automated employee recognition
activities are implemented into the everyday routine of the users. However, they don’t
require any activeness from the employees. Regarding the rest of the gamified activities –
it is not clear whether the implemented game-elements are intensively employed into the
everyday tasks of the employees.
Do the gamified activities fulfill the structural conditions for fostering flow?
The collected data doesn’t indicate that clear proximal goals are set. Feedback comes 1)
in form of “skill points” when the user has finished something; and 2) once in a week
when the user has completed many tasks, has helped people or has unlocked the secret
praise. However, since there are no clear proximal goals the feedback is not on the
progress been made. Regarding the third condition – there is not enough data to make a
comment.
Do the gamified activities employ motivators typical for both roles performed by the
users (“employee” and “game player”)?
The game-elements used here are points (“skill points”) and badges (by completing many
tasks, helping people or unlocking the secret praise). However, they reflect the personal
best of team members and not how each member fares in comparison to others. Thus,
“competition” plays a marginal role here. While all typical employee motivators are
employed, the game player motivators are barely present. “Advancement” and “team
work” have the leading role among them.
64
3.2.1.12. Case 12: RedCritter Tracker
Overall description & Objectives of implementing games/game elements
“RedCritter Tracker”75 is “the new way to manage projects”. It “helps to create better
software faster and keeps your team motivated and engaged along the way”76. The
application is “ideal for projects that require a "what's next type of approach” and it
“works for multiple teams or even individuals.”77 “RedCritter Tracker” applies badges,
rewards, leaderboards and real-time Twitter-style feeds. A video on the website78
describes the concept and its functionalities:

Project Management
“RedCritter” helps manage in track multiple projects and teams. For example,
when selecting a team for a certain project, tracker helps finding the right people
for the job with the skill based search. Once the team members are added to the
project, they get notifications automatically. Then, the team leader can post
requirements, manage tasks, track the actual time for the billing records, etc.

Rewards & Badges
There are 50 unique badges that the team can unlock for performing activities
such as successfully completing a project. A wall of fame presents the users that
got a badge. The achievements are prominently displayed on the employee’s
profile and all the communication with the team. Additionally, the platform has
the option of setting up “a company rewards store”, where employees can spend
their points for gift cards, tickets, a day off, etc.

Communication
With “RedCritter Tracker” team leaders can create dedicated feeds for their
teams, products and projects. There they can discuss technical issues, share files
and links, see colleagues’ profiles, etc.
Which part of the work has been gamified?
In the current case, the management of software development and “’what’s next type’
approach projects” has been gamified. Being more specific, it is a mixture of activities from
75
http://www.redcrittertracker.com/
Ibid.
77
Ibid.
78
Ibid.
76
65
the following fields:
skill, task, document and time management; rewarding; internal
communication; etc.
Are the gamified tasks obligatory? Do they allow some agency?
Although there is no information on concrete implementations of the application, some
screenshots show that managers assign tasks as “Tune SQL” and “Secure login” to employees
and they seem to be obligatory. However, it is not clear whether the majority of users
themselves can create tasks in the system. If this is the case, some tasks can be voluntary as
well. Regarding the time and way of completing tasks restrictions – 1) the system keeps
record of the time when a task has been assigned, but there is no further time restriction to be
seen; 2) there are no directions how a task should be completed. Therefore, one can suggest
that the gamified activities allow some agency.
Do the gamified activities fulfill the structural conditions for fostering flow?
Although the word “goal” is not particularly mentioned anywhere, tasks have the same
role here. They mark the next steps in completing the “sprint” (the basic unit of
development in agile project management). “Sprint” is a “timeboxed” (restricted to a specific
duration) effort, during which a team creates finished portions of a product79.
Regarding the second condition – when creating tasks, managers set 1) amount of story points
indicating the estimated effort to complete the job; and 2) the maximal amount of reward
points that can be given. Thus, employees receive feedback after every assigned task they
complete. However, this feedback is rather quantitative and it doesn’t necessarily show a path
to mastery. Nevertheless, additional feedback comes ad hoc, when employees unlock badges
by completing important tasks. This feedback is more comprehensive and contains both –
quantitative and qualitative statements. For example, there are badges for 1) particular number
of logins, successfully completed sprints, number of participations in developing product for
some restricted period of time, etc.; 2) being an active social media user - adding a picture to
the personal profile, sharing first message, etc.; 3) being collaborative - “having more tasks
accepted than rejected”, etc.; 4) onboarding – completion of the first task, creating a profile,
etc.; 5) having positive personal qualities as being modest (“having purchased the least
expensive reward in the store”), hard-working (“you log out very late last night”, “working
79
http://bit.ly/14qzd
66
through lunch”), etc. Regarding the third condition – it again, highly depends on the managers
how tasks are going to be designed and assigned.
Do the gamified activities employ motivators typical for both roles performed by the
users (“employee” and “game player”)?
Here all typical employee and most of the game player motivators are present. However,
“mechanics”, “discovery”, “role-playing” and “escapism” have very low level of
employment, or are completely absent.
3.2.1.13. Case 13: Community Recognition & Reputation Program by SAP AG
Overall description & Objectives of implementing games/game elements
Recognizing the value of online collaboration and knowledge sharing, SAP AG
developed an online professional community called – “SAP Community Network”. The
platform enables customers, partners, experts and developers to communicate, share,
network and collaborate. Over the years SAP Community Network has grown to 2
million members, currently creating about 6,000 forum posts a day. According to the
same data source80, the platform stores more than 200,000 unique assets. This large scale
knowledge accumulation has definitely a high value for the company, but it also raises
the problem of recognizing the helpful content and the true experts among the large
volume of people and information. SAP’s solution was to build a Contributor
Recognition & Reputation Program into SCN whereby users earn points for every
contribution they make - blogging, answering questions in forums, editing wiki pages or
submitting whitepapers and documents. The quality evaluation and respectively the
rewarding come through multiple channels: “automated from the system (blogging), from
peers (the ones who asked a question), and the moderators or administration team
(whitepapers, wiki edits…)”. “Points are aggregated and for each expert area
leaderboards are displayed.” Recognition can also be gained by earning badges. There are
badges indicating SCN mentors, SAP employees, and 4 different levels of Active
Contributors (Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum)81. To reach the initial level of Bronze
Active Contributor, users only need 250 points, but to gain recognition as a Top
Contributor in their fields of expertise they have to work hard to level up. Along with the
80
81
http://bit.ly/XCWRDc
http://bit.ly/VxW5Gf
67
individual leaderboards, there are also team and companies’ leaderboards, which “even
leads to companies adding SCN points to the KPIs for their employees for performance
evaluation.” According the same article, “businesses looking for SAP experts use
rankings on SCN to determine who they should talk to” and “hiring managers are looking
for SCN points on resumes, and interviewing those candidates first”82.
Which part of the work has been gamified?
In this case following activities have been gamified: 1) online sharing of expertise; 2)
evaluation of content contributions; 3) online collaboration on problem solving; and 4)
recognition and rewarding of contributors.
Are the gamified tasks obligatory? Do they allow some agency?
Generally, these tasks don’t seem to be officially obligatory. Nevertheless, as in the
example mentioned above, some companies might be adding SCN points to the KPIs for
evaluating the performance of their employees. Even if this is not the case, there might be
an unofficial pressure for being an active contributor. Unfortunately, there is no further
accessible data, which can help us being more precise here.
Do the gamified activities fulfill the structural conditions for fostering flow?
Even though the platform provides some levels of achievement users can strive for and an
ultimate goal, (to establish a reputation on the SCN site that positively impacts their
career) no data indicates that clear proximal goals are being set. Immediate feedback
about the progress is given to some extent, because users automatically receive points by
blogging. Regarding the third condition, so many people with different levels of expertise
and so many instances that can dictate expectations are involved, that based on the
accessible data it is not possible to give a plausible interpretation.
Do the gamified activities employ motivators typical for both roles performed by the
users (“employee” and “game player”)?
All employee motivators as well as “advancement”, “competition”, “socializing” and
“teamwork” have been employed into the platform.
82
Ibid.
68
3.2.1.14. Case 14: Venture Spirit
Overall description & Objectives of implementing games/game elements
“Venture Spirit” is a Belgian consulting and innovation solution company whose service is
an “online business game that engages hundreds of people and invites them to connect and
work together”83. According to the company website84 - within the game, users “set up virtual
ventures around their ideas and team up with colleagues”85 aiming at building the best plan,
becoming the most valuable venture and eventually winning the game. Although “Venture
Spirit” is delivered as “fully customized, turnkey project”, there are some basic constant
elements. For example, employees always fill out the roles of three types participants: 1)
creative entrepreneur - the initiator and the one that “spots the opportunity at the start, but
does not necessarily have the capacity or capability to develop it further”; 2) talent – person
that “wants to participate, has no initial idea, but is skilled at elaborating and implementing
ideas”; and 3) investor – “a technical or industry expert, or perhaps a senior manager, who is
able to judge ideas, and can give useful feedback to teams and invest in potential winners”86.
Such “game” usually runs for three to four months including the time needed for an
awareness campaign. Employees can join the game regardless of their function or
location. After users start registering their ideas, investors have between 8-10 weeks to
provide feedback and invest in the most promising ventures. According to some accounts,
the ideas are ranked by "pure capitalist greed". This is seen as an important advantage of
the practice “given that traditionally influences like internal company politics, the opinion
of the highest paid person in the room and other biasing factors, can distort the outcome
for innovation.”
Which part of the work has been gamified?
Innovation management and in particular – ideas generation, development of business plans,
staff allocation and project evaluation – have been gamified.
Are the gamified tasks obligatory? Do they allow some agency?
According to the company’s website – “participation is voluntary and does not interfere
with day to day work”. Thus, it allows very high levels of agency.
83
http://amex.co/QiIEX5
http://bit.ly/WouUl5
85
http://bit.ly/XhTBeJ
86
http://bit.ly/QgqM0a
84
69
Do the gamified activities fulfill the structural conditions for fostering flow?
Unfortunately there is no available data about any real implementations.
Do the gamified activities employ motivators typical for both roles performed by the
users (“employee” and “game player”)?
There is no data indicating about extrinsic rewards, but all other typical employee motivators
are covered in the concept. From the game player motivators the following are present “advancement”, “competition”, “socializing”, “teamwork”, “role-playing” and maybe
“relationship” to some extent.
3.2.1.15. Case 15: CrowdWorx
Overall description & Objectives of implementing games/game elements
According to the company’s website, “CrowdWorx is the top Enterprise Social Decision
Support tool worldwide”87. It serves “clients in Europe and North America with the full range
of Social Decision Support services, including Social Forecasting, Crowdsourcing, and
Enterprise 2.0 portals”88. The company has experience in introducing Crowdsourcing and
Social Business methods in the following areas: “demand sensing, demand planning, sales
forecasting, Sales and Operations Planning, new product ideas, new product forecasting of
sales potential, and for finding the optimal price for new products”89. A video90 describes how
the concept works and “how you can win by making good forecasts”91 The presented example
is about forecasting the demand for a product called “Tidy”. The user gives his/her forecast
for the demand in units and stakes certain amount of points on their forecast. As time goes by,
actual outcome materializes and the system calculates the achieved accuracy of every user.
Then, it also generates the payouts – when the forecast was close to the actual outcome the
user makes profit. If this is not the case, the user receives less than he/she has staked and
makes a loss. The closer the forecast is to the actual outcome, the higher the payout will be.
Respectively, the farther away the forecast is from the actual outcome, the lower the payout
will be.
87
http://www.crowdworx.com/about-us/
Ibid.
89
http://www.crowdworx.com/resources/case-studies/
90
http://www.crowdworx.com/resources/videos/
91
Ibid.
88
70
When logging into their “CrowdWorx” system, users see their profile pages displaying the
currently open topics they can contribute to, the time of closing the topic, the free cash
available to be staked, rankings on the accuracy, etc.
Which part of the work has been gamified?
Here, a full range of social decision support activities has been gamified in the area of
“demand sensing, demand planning, sales forecasting, Sales and Operations Planning, new
product ideas, new product forecasting of sales potential, and for finding the optimal price for
new products”.
Are the gamified tasks obligatory? Do they allow some agency?
The gamified tasks are not obligatory. According to the website, “employees self-select which
questions to answer”. The time restrictions are also very loose. There is no indication of
connection between user performance within the game and overall employee performance
evaluation.
Do the gamified activities fulfill the structural conditions for fostering flow?
According to the company’s website, “multiple types of daily, weekly and monthly rankings
provide short-term, mid-term and long-term goals for sustained user motivation”. Feedback
comes mainly through the calculated pay-outs after a question has been settled and through
leader boards displaying the best performers on answering it. Considering that the gamified
activities are not obligatory and allow high levels of agency, one can suggest that users, who
participate believe they have the required level of skills to face this challenge.
Do the gamified activities employ motivators typical for both roles performed by the
users (“employee” and “game player”)?
“CrowdWorx” employs all typical employee motivators. For example: 1) ensuring visibility
and recognition for the best performers by publishing winners in company magazines and the
intranet; 2) organizing competitions around open topics, e.g. “Become the Marketing Expert
2012”; 3) appointing winners by area of expertise, e.g. “Strategy Champion”, “Marketing
Champion”, “Competitive Intel Champion”, etc. 4) introducing a “Club of Experts” which
adds members only once per quarter; 5) giving non-cash rewards, e.g. Amazon vouchers for
the monthly top performers, etc.
Regarding the player motivators - “advancement”,
71
“competition”, “team work” and “socializing” have an important role and the rest is not really
present.
3.2.2. Discussion
In the first part of “Research Results” we applied the analytic scheme (based on our four
propositions) on fifteen accessible cases of implementing games/game elements within
business organizations. A wide variety of possible objectives, areas of application,
complexity, levels of voluntariness, etc. has been observed and described. Although the
examined diverse constructs have different roles, importance and relevance, they
generally proved to be viable in various real-life enterprise contexts. The question as to
how efficient they are and how to apply them optimally, remains open for further
research. In order to illustrate the statement about the viability of games/game elements
within business organizations, we will first summarize the findings of the single case
studies and examine how they match to our four propositions. In doing so, we carry out
our fourth research objective, namely to explain overlaps and/or inconsistences with the
proposed theoretical framework and to prove whether any adjustments are needed.
Secondly, we will utilize the advantage of the multiple case study method by conducting
cross-cases pattern matching. Thus, we will gain more comprehensive knowledge by
discovering additional patterns and/or strengthening the validity of some findings.
3.2.2.1.
Summarizing the Results from Analyzing the Single Cases
Proposition 1
Our first proposition was that every work can be gamified. Although the empirical
research revealed a wide variety of work constellations with implemented games/game
elements, we cannot pretend that we proved that every task can be gamified. However, 1)
no data indicates that this statement is wrong; and 2) our aim here was not to prove the
correctness of the proposition, but to roughly categorize the cases, in order to compare
and explain the research results. After examining the implementations, we claim that it is
not precise to cluster the cases by the means of the classical types of work (managerial,
operational and supporting), because the majority of the examined constellations consists
from at least two of the classical types of work. On these grounds, we will differentiate
between 1) activities constituting the core business and creating primary value stream
(purchasing, manufacturing, advertisement, marketing, sales); and 2) supporting activities
72
(accounting, recruitment, call center, technical support). The second clustering
characteristic we are going to apply is the level of complexity of the implementation.
Here, we will distinguish between 1) low (a tool, sub-processes); 2) middle (several
tools/sub-processes, entire process); and 3) high (a comprehensive platform, superprocess). Our third distinction is between 1) games/game elements implemented into
everyday tasks of employees; and 2) games/game elements not tied to the everyday
activities. By the means of these three characteristics, later we are going to group the
cases and search for common patterns. Before proceeding with the findings related to the
second proposition, we will shortly comment on the observed most common areas of
application of games/game-elements. By introducing the word “constellation”, we
wanted to express that the implementations are tangled combinations of diverse activities
and contexts. Thus, it is not really correct to designate single areas of application.
However, without pretending for hard and rapid conclusions, we claim that there are
some concentrations of games/game elements usage in trainings (e.g. cases 1, 2, 5, 6, 8),
sales related activities (e.g. cases 2, 3, 4, 15), project management (e.g. cases 11, 12),
employee rewarding and recognition programs (e.g. cases 1, 11, 12) and knowledge
collaboration (e.g. cases 2, 13). However, gamified solutions were clearly observed also
in hiring (e.g. case 1), customer service (e.g. case 2), vendor invoicing (e.g. case 7),
collaborative decision making (e.g. case 9), time recording (e.g. case 10) and innovation
management (e.g. cases 14, 15).
Proposition 2
The second proposition stated that gamified activities can be closely tied to the everyday
tasks of the employees, but should allow some agency. Following indicators were
considered during the analysis: level of voluntariness, time/place restrictions and strict
directions on the way of performing the gamified task. The empirical research revealed
that in the most cases gamified activities allow some agency. To be more precise, we
observed the following situations:

Gamified activities not closely related to the everyday tasks, thus providing high
levels of voluntariness (e.g. cases 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14, 15);

Gamified activities closely tied to the everyday tasks, but no strict time/place and
way of performing the task restrictions (e.g. cases 7, 8, 9);
73

Gamified activities closely linked to the everyday tasks, but activities already
highly structured. Therefore, the character of the activity does not change that
much and there is no “fun pressure” (e.g. case 4);

It highly depends on the manager/administrator how the activities will be
designed and whether they will be intensively applied (e.g. cases 1, 4);

In case 2 the level of agency is low. However, this judgment is made only by
analyzing the described concept, because there is no data about realized
implementation. This fact can be already indicative of possible omission in the
concept.

Not enough relevant data for Case 11.
Proposition 3
According to the third proposition, the gamified activities provide 1) clear proximal
goals; 2) immediate feedback about the progress been made; and 3) dynamic balance
between skills and challenges. Indeed, in the majority of the cases activities have a
structure fostering flow or at least not obstructing it.

All three conditions fulfilled (e.g. cases 1, 5, 10);

Conditions 1 and 2 fulfilled, 3 depends to some extent on how the activity is
designed by the manager/administrator (e.g. cases 2, 4, 7, 12, 15);

Conditions 1 and 2 fulfilled, in most cases 3 as well, but it is not clear whether the
challenges can be amended according to the skills (e.g. cases 6, 8, 9);

Conditions most probably not fulfilled (e.g. cases 3, 13, 14);

Again, no significant data on case 11;
Proposition 4
The forth proposition claims that gamified activities employ motivators typical for both
roles performed by the users (“employee” and “game player”). The analyzed data (see the
overview in Tables 1 and 2) gave proof of this statement and revealed the following
additional findings:

In case 6 “Ribbon Hero 2” very little motivators in total and especially
“employee” motivators are covered (“trophy” and “praise” from the employee
motivators; “advancement” and “role-playing” from the game player motivators).
Bearing in mind that this is the only application in the sample that wasn’t
74
exclusively developed for internal trainings, we can consider it as some kind of
control case. On these grounds, this observation strengthens the belief that the
proposed theoretical framework is credible and helpful.

We
have
underestimated
the
role
of
the
extrinsic
rewards
(points,
badges/trophies). In all cases except “Venture Spirit” (number 14) players receive
points and/or badges/trophies by accomplishing something. Thus, in the real-life
implementations of the enterprise gamification concept, extrinsic rewards don’t
necessarily have a secondary role. We can admit that they can be utilized for
drawing the attention of the users to the gamified activity as some kind of
“enticement”. However, bearing in mind that one of the requirements for playful
attitude is an activity with no goal outside itself, we still believe that extrinsic
rewards should not have prevailing role in the applications. Additionally, they can
activate the so called “over justification effect”. It occurs “when an expected
external incentive such as money or prizes decreases a person's intrinsic
motivation to perform a task”92. “According to self-perception theory, people pay
more attention to the external reward for an activity than to the inherent
enjoyment and satisfaction received from the activity itself. The overall effect of
offering a reward for a previously unrewarded activity is a shift to extrinsic
motivation and the undermining of pre-existing intrinsic motivation. Once
rewards are no longer offered, interest in the activity is lost; prior intrinsic
motivation does not return, and extrinsic rewards must be continuously offered as
motivation to sustain the activity.”93 Thus, extrinsic rewards can even undermine
pre-existing intrinsic motivation.

The typical employee motivators are very intensively implemented. The lowest
score is 11.5 points (“empowerment”) out of maximum 15 points! “Praise” has 14
points and the rest motivators - 13 points each. This finding is also an evident of
the adequacy of the proposed theoretical framework.

Among the game player motivators “advancement” has the maximum score of 15
points and is employed in all implementations. “Competition” with 13 points and
“teamwork” with 12 points are also quite common. “Socializing” with 7 points,
“relationship” with 6.5 and “role-playing” with 6 points are also well covered.
The rest of the game motivators – “customization” (3 points), “discovery” (2
92
93
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect
Ibid.
75
points) as well as “mechanics” and “escapism” with 1 point each - are further
behind, but still present. When comparing these results with our propositions,
some overlaps as well as some inconsistences are found. The sub-components of
the Social component (“teamwork”- 12, “socializing” – 7 and “relationship” –
6.5) are indeed quite common, thus our suggestion here was correct. Regarding
“advancement”, we said that it can align to business goals, but we still
underestimated its importance, because this sub-component is our top-performer
with the maximum score of 15 points. About “competition” we said that it has
high relevance, but should be carefully applied, because it can lead to oppression
and castigation. Having a score of 13 points, this sub-component is intensively
implemented in the reality. The question of the borders of healthy competition is
highly dependent on the context of the implementations and requires further
extensive research. “Customization” and “discovery” don’t bring any surprises –
they can align with business goals. As suggested, the sub-component “escapism”
proved being not very appropriate for this concept. It was only one time clearly
employed and namely in case 2 “GamEffective”, where we didn’t find any data
on real implementations. The tasks in this case were described as repetitive and
boring, thus “escapism” might be helpful in such context. The sub-component
“role-playing” brings a surprise by being covered in cases 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 14. We
claimed that it is a bit distanced and thus not really functional, but we didn’t think
about two situations where it can be functional: 1) implementing entire interactive
games; and 2) performing repetitive, dull tasks.
3.2.2.2.
Pattern Matching in the Groupings
Based on the clustering characteristics presented above, we formed the following
groupings94.
3.2.2.2.1. Core Business Activities, Game Elements Integrated into the Everyday
Tasks, High Level of Complexity
The implementations placed in this grouping are most promising and helpful in proving
the viability of the gamification concept within business organizations. Here,
games/game elements are applied on core business activities. Since they create the
94
Case 11. “PropsToYou” – couldn’t be classified, because there was not enough relevant information.
76
primary value stream, managers are usually very conservative when introducing changes.
Tasks are commonly obligatory and there are many regulations on the time/place/way of
performing them. On these grounds, games/game elements with their playful attitude are
often seen as not very appropriative for this context, especially when the gamified
solution is very complex. Thus, in this constellation it is at least expected that
games/game elements will work. However, we found two successful examples among
our sample.
Case 4. “Nitro for Salesforce”
This solution motivates sales professionals by applying methods (contests, leaderboards,
etc.), which are not new for the area, but can be utilized more intensively through
implementing game elements. Big advantage of this application is that sales force data
has already been stored and the activities are already automated. Thus, there is a
structured construct that “Nitro” tops off. This way, the character of the activities is not
changed much and the risk of forced fun and oppression is lower. Many companies
already use Salesforce, which opens a huge field of application. With “Nitro” managers
can monitor performance and manage challenges/rewards and agents are guided to
mastery. Activities are structured to foster flow, but it still depends on the manager/
administrator how the challenges will be designed. All employee motivators and all game
player motivators except “escapism” and “role-playing” are employed.
Case 12. “RedCritter Tracker”
According to the examined data, this solution helps create “better software faster” and
“keeps the team motivated and engaged along the way”. It is suitable for projects where
“what’s next type approach” (agile project management) is needed. Following activities
can be performed on the platform: 1) project management (finding the skilled people for
the job, notifying them, managing project documentation and timing); 2) rewarding
(unlocking of 50 badges, displaying the rewards on a wall of fame, etc.); 3)
communication (dedicating news feeds, sending messages, etc.). The tasks are obligatory,
but still allow some agency. Activities are again structured to foster flow, but managers
have some power to design the challenges. All employee motivators and all game player
motivators
except
“role-play”,
“escapism”,
“mechanics”
and
“discovery”
are
implemented. The solution covers the entire software development process and is quite
innovative.
77
Summarizing the common characteristics within this grouping, we can claim that: 1) the
activities are structured to foster flow, but managers still have some power to design the
challenges; 2) all employee motivators have been employed; 3) almost all game player
motivators except “role-playing” and “escapism” have been applied as well. One possible
interpretation is that these two sub-components are not appropriate for this constellation.
3.2.2.2.2. Core Business Activities, Game Elements Not Integrated into the
Everyday Tasks, Middle Level of Complexity
Case 15. “CrowdWorx”
This platform helps organizations utilize the knowledge of their employees. It offers quite
innovative approach in managing demand sensing, sales forecasting, etc. The gamified
tasks allow high levels of agency; the activity structure fosters flow; all employee
motivators and “socializing”, “advancement”, “competition” and “teamwork” are employed.
Thus, like the two previous cases, this example is akin to our ideal model of implementing
games/game elements within business organizations.
Case 9. “SAP Collaborative Decision Making”
Here, we observed high levels of agency and fulfilled structural conditions for entering flow.
However, when examining how satisfied users are with the process and outcomes by using the
gamified solution, there was no difference in comparison with the non-gamified solution.
Nevertheless, users liked more the gamified experience. One possible explanation for these
not that promising results might be that they are due to the narrow usage of employee
motivators and the lack of epic meaning. The implemented game-elements are “teamwork”,
“advancement” and “competition”.
3.2.2.2.3. Core Business Activities, Game Elements Not Integrated into the
Everyday Tasks, Low Level of Complexity
Case 3. “Race to 1000 Series”
This application is a simple sales analytics tool, aiming at boosting competition and
tracking performance of sales teams. It allows agency, but it doesn’t foster flow, because
the single users can neither see their personal goals, nor their progress. It has a narrow
field of application, relatively limited effect and serves mainly for visualization.
78
3.2.2.2.4. Combined Business Activities (Core + Supporting), Game Elements
Integrated into the Everyday Tasks, How Level of Complexity
Case 2. “GamEffective”
GamEffective” is a complex platform for call centers, which integrates Sales, Customer
Service and Knowledge Collaboration activities. Game elements are closely related to the
everyday tasks of the employees and low levels of agency were suggested. The first and
the second condition for fostering flow have been fulfilled and the third one highly
depends on the manager. All employee motivators and the most of the game player
motivators are covered. Even “role-playing” and “escapism” are employed to some
extent. As already stated above, these two sub-components might be functional by
gamifing dull and repetitive tasks. However, in these cases the story line and the user
experience should be regularly updated, so that they don’t become boring.
After reviewing the first four groupings, we noticed that a “core batch” of game player
motivators is highly relevant by gamifing core activities. It consists from the subcomponents “advancement”, “competition” and “teamwork”. An “extended core batch”
can also be observed, when “socializing” and “relationship” are added to the “core
batch”. On the other side, by lower levels of agency the sub-elements “role-playing” and
“escapism” can also be functional to some extent.
3.2.2.2.5. Supporting Business Activities, Game Elements Integrated into the
Everyday Tasks, Low Level of Complexity
Case 7. “SAP Vendor Invoicing”
Here, repetitive and highly structured tasks are gamified. Some agency is still proved by
helping other players to solve problems and by managing the amount for charity.
Conditions 1 and 2 are fulfilled, but 3 depends on the expectations of the manager and the
team. All employee motivators and the “extended core batch” of game player motivators
are employed.
79
3.2.2.2.6. Supporting Business Activities, Game Elements Not Integrated into the
Everyday Tasks, Middle Level of Complexity
Case 1. “PlayVox”
This platform is meant to improve employee motivation and talent management at call
centers. In the concrete example with Groupon it was mainly utilized for hiring and
training processes. High levels of agency were provided; structural conditions were
fulfilled; all employee motivators and “extended batch” plus “customization” from the
game player motivators were employed.
Case 13. “SAP Community Recognition Program”
This platform enables online sharing of expertise, content evaluation, collaboration and
recognition. The first structural condition is not really fulfilled and we don’t have enough
information about the third one. All employee motivators and the “core batch” plus the
sub-element “socializing” are covered.
3.2.2.2.7. Supporting Business Activities, Game Elements Not Integrated into the
Everyday Tasks, Low Level of Complexity
Four of the five cases classified here are integral games and not just game elements. The
sub-component “role-play” is intensively employed. In this grouping is also the case of
“Ribbon Hero 2”, where only one employee motivator has been employed.
Case 8. “TrueOffice”
This application is a compliance training based on interactive story. It allows agency and
most probably fosters flow. “Role-playing” and “discovery” have leading role here.
Case 5. “Roadwarrior”
This game trains sales representatives. It allows agency, the activity structure fosters flow
and all employee plus the “extended core batch” and “role-playing” are implemented.
Case 14. “Venture Spirit”
“Venture Spirit” is a game meant to boost innovation management. It employs all
intrinsic employee motivators, as well as the “extended core batch” and “role-playing”
from the game player motivators.
80
Case 6. “Ribbon Hero 2”
As already stated, this application wasn’t exclusively developed for internal usage and
therefore it cannot be considered as a typical case. The only utilized employee motivator
is “trophy”; and the leading game player motivator is “role-playing”.
Case 10. “Your Promptitude”
This simple time recording tool is highly structured, but still allows some agency. Our
concern here is that the activity might be too short for the user to enter flow.
3.2.2.3.
Summarizing the Findings from Pattern Matching & Recommendations
After outlining and explaining 1) the overlaps/inconsistencies between the empirical
observations and the propositions; and 2) the needed adjustments; we will proceed with
our last research objective – summarizing the findings and giving some recommendations
on the relevance of games/game elements within business organizations. By grouping the
cases, following patterns emerged:

The findings coming from the grouping “Core business activities, Game elements
integrated into the everyday tasks, High level of complexity” are our strongest
evidence for demonstrating the viability of the enterprise concept within business
organizations. The two presented cases match with the proposed ideal model.
Following points proved to be relevant for this constellation: 1) game elements
and not integrated games; 2) employment of all typical employee motivators and a
wide variety of game player motivators; 3) avoidance of “escapism” and “roleplaying”.

Case 15 “CrowdWorx” also has high significance by proving the viability of the
concept, because it is very akin to the ideal model and it concerns core business
activities with high levels of complexity. The relevant elements for this
constellation are similar to the described above.

The “core batch” (“advancement”, “competition” and “teamwork”) and the
“extended core batch” (“socializing”, “relationship” +”core batch”) are intensively
employed and respectively highly relevant in all groupings except “Supporting
business activities, Game elements not integrated into the everyday tasks, Low
level of complexity”. In the latter, leading role has the “role-playing” motivator.
81

The cluster “Supporting business activities, Game elements not integrated into the
everyday tasks, Low level of complexity” represents high levels of voluntariness
and is closely akin to both – 1) the proposed ideal model for implementing
games/game elements within business organizations; and 2) a regular game. On
these grounds, it is not surprising that the implementation of integrated games
(and not just game-elements) and the sub-component “role-playing” are very
relevant for this constellation.

The other case, when “role-playing” and “escapism” are functional, is by dull and
repetitive core activities with low levels of agency. Then, the user-experience
should be updated regularly, so that it doesn’t get boring, thus loses its effect.
82
Chapter 4
Conclusion
Recognizing the growing importance of technology, changing the way human beings
interact and engage nowadays, and the need to constantly transform business
organizations while keeping employees highly motivated, some opinion leaders have
appointed enterprise gamification one of the top trends for the coming years. Motivated
from the claimed potential benefits of the concept and the lack of theoretical and
empirical prove, we constructed a framework helping to scientifically approach the topic
and develop an understanding of its applicability.
In the theoretical considerations we accomplished our first two research objectives by 1)
proving that the concepts of “work” and “play” are substantially compatible; and 2)
marking what has to be considered when applying games/game elements within business
organizations. Firstly, we reviewed two precursors of the enterprise gamification concept,
which helped us develop an intuition how to approach the topic and gave us awareness of
possible pitfalls. The Soviet precursor, aiming at increasing productivity, while not
relying on capitalist motivators, proved to have bigger overlap with our research object
and thus gave us a valuable lesson: while productivity has been indeed improved by
implementing game scenarios, metrics and incentives, these measures lead to overall
coercion, oppression and castigation of those who have failed to live up with the high
expectations. The lesson we learned from the American precursor was that while fun and
playful elements can boost individual and organizational performance, out of control
competitive fun has serious negative repercussions. Thus, our conclusion was that
introducing fun and playful/game elements into the workplace might give rise to
perceived coercion and oppression, which can lead to serious negative repercussions.
Our second main step in the section with the theoretical considerations was to focus on
proving whether the concepts “work” and “play” are substantially compatible. Here, we
explained that the traditional view of “work” as antithetical to “play” is contextual
embedded and thus, not transcendentally valid. Then, we studied how with the evolution
of management studies the “work” and “play” dichotomy broke and some “playbour”hybrid forms emerged. While the boundaries between “work” and “play” have become
83
quite blurry, we figured out that distinguishing between these two experiences is mainly a
matter of personal perception. Then, we claimed that playful attitude requires a high
degree of voluntariness, agency and no goal outside itself. On these grounds, we
concluded that applying fun and game elements into the workplace is a powerful tool for
improving employee performance and satisfaction, but if there is not enough room for
voluntariness and agency, it can also lead to serious negative repercussions.
The next main step was to define an ideal model business organizations should strive for,
when applying games/game elements into the workplace. We introduced the concept of
“flow”, which helped us to reveal the layer beyond the artificial distinction between
“work” and “play”, by analysing a mental state of the individual, which can be observed
by activities commonly classified as both. This state of mind (“individual operates at full
capacity”, “feels complete and energized focus in an activity and high levels of
enjoyment and fulfilment”) marked the case, when the implementation of game principles
and techniques into the workplace is not only appropriate, but even requirable. On these
grounds, in the empirical research part of the paper we analysed whether the conditions
for entering flow have been fulfilled in the gamified initiatives.
Our third research objective was to examine the available implementations of the
concept. This way, we wanted to prove how the constructed framework matches to the
reality, in order to deliver comprehensive and credible results. Based on the intuition
developed from the theoretical considerations we formulated propositions and analytic
scheme, which guided the data collection and analysis. After applying the analytic
scheme on fifteen accessible cases, a wide variety of possible objectives, areas of
application, complexity, levels of voluntariness, etc. has been observed and described.
Although the examined diverse constructs had different roles, importance and relevance,
they generally proved being viable in various real-life enterprise contexts. Nevertheless,
the question as to how efficient they are, and how to optimally apply them, remained
open for further research.
Our fourth research objective was to explain overlaps and/or inconsistences between the
empirical results and the proposed theoretical framework and to prove whether any
adjustments are needed. In order to accomplish this, we first compared the findings from
the single case studies with the propositions. The most important findings are as follows:

Proposition 1
 Although the empirical research revealed a wide variety of viable work
constellations with implemented games/game elements, we cannot pretend that
84
we proved that every task can be gamified. Nevertheless, no data was found
indicating that this statement is wrong.
 Without pretending for hard and rapid conclusions, we claim that there are
some concentrations of games/game elements usage in trainings, sales related
activities, project management, employee rewarding and recognition programs
and knowledge collaboration. Gamified solutions were clearly observed also in
hiring, customer service, vendor invoicing, collaborative decision making,
time recording and innovation management.

Proposition 2
The second proposition stated that gamified activities can be closely tied to the
everyday tasks of the employees, but should allow some agency. The empirical
research confirmed this statement revealing that in the most cases gamified
activities allow some agency.

Proposition 3
According to the third proposition, the gamified activities provide 1) clear
proximal goals; 2) immediate feedback about the progress been made; and 3)
dynamic balance between skills and challenges. Indeed, in the majority of the
cases activities have a structure fostering flow or at least not obstructing it.

Proposition 4
The forth proposition claims that gamified activities employ motivators typical for
both roles performed by the users (“employee” and “game player”). The analyzed
data (see the overview in the excel table) gave proof of this statement and revealed
some additional patterns:
 On the contrary of our assumption, extrinsic rewards (points, badges/trophies)
proved to be widely utilized by implementing games/game elements into the
workplace. We admit that they can be applied for drawing the attention of the
users to the gamified activity, thus as some kind of “enticement”. However,
bearing in mind that one of the requirements for playful attitude is an activity
with no goal outside itself, we still believe that extrinsic rewards should not
have prevailing role in the applications. Additionally, they can activate the so
called “over justification effect”, when extrinsic rewards undermine preexisting intrinsic motivation.
 All typical employee motivators are very intensively implemented.
 All typical game player motivators are more or less presented in the cases.
85
 The sub-component “advancement” proved to be highly relevant by being
employed in all examined cases.
 The sub-components “advancement”, “competition” and “teamwork” form a
“core batch” which is intensively implemented in almost all cases.
 The elements of the “extended core batch” (“socializing”, “relationship” plus
the “core batch”) also proved to be well covered in the gamified applications.
 The sub-elements “mechanics” and “escapism” proved to be at least relevant
in this context.
 The sub-component “competition” is intensively utilized in the real-life
implementations. However, our recommendation is to apply it very carefully,
because it can lead to perceived oppression and castigation. Setting the borders
of healthy competition requires future research.
 The importance of the sub-component “role-playing” was underestimated. We
claimed that it is a bit distanced and thus not really functional, but we didn’t
think about two situations where it can be functional: 1) implementing entire
interactive games; and 2) performing repetitive, dull tasks.
 The sub-components “customization” and “discovery” align with business
goals, but doesn’t have very high relevance.
Our last step by analyzing the empirical data was to conduct cross-case patter matching.
This technique revealed additional patterns and strengthen the validity of some findings:

Our strongest evidence for demonstrating the viability of the gamification concept
within business organizations came from three cases, where core business
activities with high levels of complexity were gamified. The implementations are
closely akin to the proposed ideal model. Following points proved to be relevant
for these constellations: 1) game elements and not integrated games; 2)
employment of all typical employee motivators and a wide variety of game player
motivators; 3) avoidance of “escapism” and “role-playing”.

The “core batch” and the “extended core batch” proved to be highly relevant for
all work constellations except “Supporting business activities, Game elements not
integrated into the everyday tasks, Low level of complexity”.

The cases classified in the constellation “Supporting business activities, Game
elements not integrated into the everyday tasks, Low level of complexity” also
proved to be very closely akin to the ideal model. The data revealed that 1)
86
integral games and not game elements; and 2) the sub-component “role-playing”
are very relevant for this work constellation.

The “sub-component” proved to be quite relevant by gamifing dull and repetitive
core activities with low levels of agency. In this case, our recommendation is to
regularly update the user-experience, so that it doesn’t lose its effect.
In conclusion, we claim that the gamification concept is applicable within business
organizations, but when implementing it the above summarized contextual specifics
should be taken into consideration. A suggested next step for gaining more
comprehensive knowledge on enterprise gamification is conducting extensive research on
one concrete implementation and examining whether the involved individuals experience
flow, productivity increases, etc.
87
References
Andersen, N.A. (2009) Power at Play: The Relationships between
Play, Work and Governance.
Andersen, N.A. (2012) Hybrid Forms of Governance: Self-suspension of Power
Barsoux, J. L. (1993) Funny Business: Humour. Management and Business Culture
Bartle, R. (1996) Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs
Bolton, S. and M. Houlihan (2009) Are we having fun yet? A consideration of workplace
fun and engagement
Burke, P. (1995) The invention of leisure in early modern Europe
Burke, M. and T. Hiltbrand (2011) How gamication will change business intelligence.
Business Intelligence Journal, vol.16
Connor, S. (2005) Playstations. Or, playing in earnest
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997) Finding Flow
Csikszentmihalyi, M. and J. Nakamura (2002) The Concept of Flow
Deal, T. and A. Kennedy (1999) The New Corporate Cultures
Deal, T. and Key, M.K. (1998) Corporate Celebration: Play, Purpose, and Profit at
Work
De Peuter, G. and N. Dyer-Witheford (2005) A playful multitude? Mobilising and
counter-mobilising immaterial game labour
Deterding, S. , D. Dixon, R. Khaled and L. Nacke (2011) From Game Design Elements to
Gamefulness: Defining “Gamification”
Dibbell, J. (2006) Play money: Or, how I quit my day job and made millions trading
virtual loot
Dibbell, J. (2007) The life of the Chinese gold farmer
Fisher, M. (2009) Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?
Fleming, P. (2009) Authenticity and the Cultural Politics of Work: New Forms of
Informal Control. Oxford University Press
Fleming, P. and A. Sturdy (2011) “Being yourself” in the electronic
sweatshop: New forms of normative control
Fluegge, E.R. (2008) Who Put the Fun in Functional? Fun at Work and its Effects on Job
Performance. PhD thesis, University of Florida
Goffman, E. (1956) The presentation of self in everyday life
88
Goggin, J. (2011) Playbour, farming and leisure. Ephemera, vol.11
Golafshani, N. (2003) Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research
Greenwich, C. (2001) Fun and Gains: Motivate and Energize Staff with Workplace
Games, Contests and Activities
Gregerman, A. (2000) Lessons from the Sandbox: Using the 13 Gifts of Childhood To
Rediscover the Keys to Business Success
Hemsath, D. and L. Yerkes (1997) 301 Ways To Have Fun At Work
Huizinga, J. (1938/1955) Homo ludens: A study of the play element in culture
Herger, M. (2012) Gamification Facts & Figures. Enterprise-Gamification.com
Kavanagh, D. (2011) Work and play in management studies. Ephemera, vol.11
Kücklich, J. (2005) Precarious playbour: Modders in the digital games industry
Kuß, A. and M. Eisend (2010), „Marktforschung. Grundlagen der Datenerhebung und
Datenanalyse“
Lazzarato, M. (1996) Immaterial labour
Lenin, V.I. (1917/1964) How to organise competition? Collected Works, Volume 26
Mead, G. and C. Morris (1934/1974) Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a
social behaviorist
Nelson, M. (2012) Soviet and American Precursors to the Gamification of Work. Center
for Computer Games Research ITU Copenhagen
Postigo, H. (2003) From pong to planet quake: Post industrial transitions from leisure to
work
Radoff, J. (2011) Game On: Energize Your Business with Social Media Games
Redman, T. and B. P. Mathews (2002) Managing services: Should we be having fun? The
Service Industries Journal, vol. 22
Reeves, B. and J. L. Read (2009) Total Engagement
Rehn, A. (2008) Are we having fun yet? — glumness, unintentional humor, and
bullshitting in the identity-work of management and organization scholars
Simmel, G. and E.C. Hughes (1910/1949) The sociology of sociability. The American
Journal of Sociology, vol.55
Stalin, J.V. (1929/1954) Emulation and labour enthusiasm of the masses. Works, Volume
12
Stuart, K. (2010) 3D games enter a new generation. The Observer
Takahashi, D. (2010) Gamification gets its own conference
Tapscott, D. (2008) Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World
89
Taylor, F.W. (1911/2010) The principles of scientific management
Twain, M. (1876) The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
Weber, M. (1930/2002) The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism
Wilensky, H.L. (1960) Work, careers, and social integration
Yee, N. (2005) Motivations of Play in MMORPGs
Yee, N. (2006) Motivations for Play in Online Games
Yin, R. K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods
Zemtsov, I. (1991) Socialist competition, Encyclopedia of Soviet Life
90
Figures
Figure 1: Gamification Market Forecast by M2 Research
Figure 2: Gamification Vendor Survey 2011 – Vertical Market Segments
Figure 3: Building Bridges by Weeding Mistakes
91
Figure 4: Skill & Challenge Levels, Csikszentmihalyi, M (1997)
Figure 5: Bartle’s Interest Graph
Figure 6: Yee’s Components & Subcomponents
92
Tables
Table 1: Extrinsic Motivators and Employee Motivators (P4a)
Case
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Total
Extrinsic Morivators
Badges/
Points
Trophy
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
Praise
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
14
1
9
P4a: Employee Motivators
Empower Sense of
Respect Recognition
ment
Belonging
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
13
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
13
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
13
1
1
1
1
1
11.5
Table 2: Game Player Motivators (P4b)
Case
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Total
P4b: Game player Motivators
Socializing Relationship Teamwork Advancement Mechanics Competition Discovery Customi(S)
(S)
(S)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(I)
zation (I)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
0.5
6.5
1
1
1
1
1
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
93
1
1
1
1
13
RoleEscapism
playing (I) (I)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
6
1