Winning at Gamification
How the implementation of gamification projects should be managed
Anton Flygare Daniel Smirat
Industrial and Management Engineering, master's level 2017
Luleå University of Technology
Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences
Winning at gamification: How the implementation of gamification projects should be managed
FIRST NAME: ANTON & DANIEL LAST NAME: FLYGARE & SMIRAT
PROGRAM: INDUSTRIELL EKONOMI, TCIEA MASTER: INNOVATION & STRATEGISK FÖRETAGSUTVECKLING
CLASS: VT17, TERMIN 10
SUPERVISOR: DAVID RÖNNBERG SJÖDIN
Abstract
The concept of gamification has various areas of applications as a mechanism for creating motivation and engagement to behavioral change. However, there is a gap in current literature regarding guidelines for implementing gamification, leading to uncertainty and approaches of trial-and-error. To address this issue the purpose of this study was to increase understanding of the challenges and success factors when implementing gamification to create empirically validated guidelines in the form of a structured model. Two research questions were formulated: what are the significant challenges and success factors when implementing gamification? And how should managers act when implementing gamification?
To answer the research questions, case studies of 13 ongoing or completed gamification projects was conducted. The data consisted of 20 semi-structured interviews with key individuals, primarily project managers within the selected projects. The data was analyzed through thematic analysis and relevant themes and dimensions were created, forming the back bone of the following structured model.
This study identified four challenges during implementation of gamification relating to complications of stakeholder’s management, lack of end user support, lack of knowledge and understanding and lack of sufficient resources. In contrast, the four identified success factors were relating to favorable organizational environment, high intrinsic motivation, customizable gamification applications and high end-user involvement.
Also, this study resulted in a phase model describing what managerial actions should be taken when implementing gamification in three different phases: design, integration and operation.
The actions in the design phase are: involve end-users early on, upper management involvement and ensuring sufficient resources, in the integration phase: ensure end-user involvement, development of technical platforms and evaluation and adjustment activities, and in the operational phase: create acceptance of end-users, balance individual and team based achievements and fine tune cooperation vs competition. The phase model can be used as a practical tool, explaining how managers in organizations should act on overcoming the significant challenges and utilizing significant success factors, thereby reducing uncertainty and need of trial-and-error when implementing gamification. By offering a phase model as well as insight of significant challenges and success factors, the current weakness of lack of solutions for integration for gamification in organizations is mitigated.
For further studies, extensive single-market or exhaustive research on diverse markets are suggested to find stronger relations and patterns based on the initial work presented in this study. Also, testing the validity of the suggested phase model in actual business settings should be included in future studies.
Keywords: gamification; implementation; challenges; success factors; phase model
Acknowledgements
What you are about to read is the result of a master thesis course at Luleå University of Technology. The thesis was written by Anton Flygare and Daniel Smirat and completes the authors' master's degree in Industrial Engineering and management, focusing on Strategic Work and Business Development. We as authors would like to thank supervisor David Rönnberg Sjödin for his commitment to help us overcome obstacles in the process of writing the thesis. Also, we would like to thank our respondents as well as different mentors for providing us with for their time and assistance. Lastly, we would like to thank the teachers at Lulea University of Technology who has provided us with necessary knowledge during our years of our education, making this thesis possible.
Luleå, June 2017
Anton Flygare & Daniel Smirat
Table of contents
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background ... 1
1.2 Problem discussion ... 2
1.3 Research purpose ... 3
2. Literature review 5 2.1 Gamification ... 5
2.2 Implementing gamification ... 6
2.3 Finding a structured model ... 7
2.4 Challenges when implementing gamification ... 9
2.5 Success factors when implementing gamification ... 10
2.6 Summary of literature review ... 11
3. Method 13 3.1 Research approach ... 13
3.2 Case selection ... 14
3.3 Data collection ... 15
3.4 Analysis method ... 16
3.5 Quality improvement measures ... 17
4. Findings 19 4.1 Understanding challenges and success factors ... 19
4.1.1 Dimension A. Challenges during Implementation ... 22
4.1.2 Dimension B. Success factors during implementation ... 25
4.2 Phase model for implementing gamification ... 30
5. Discussion and conclusions 36 5.1 Theoretical contributions ... 37
5.2 Managerial implications ... 38
5.3 Limitations and future research ... 39
6. References 41
1
1. Introduction
This chapter will introduce the research areas and the background to the problem. The background leads to a problem discussion, followed by the research purpose and the research questions that will guide the research process.
1.1 Background
A 2013 poll on worldwide workforce engagement showed that 63 % of employees worldwide (73 % in Sweden) are not engaged, meaning they lack motivation and are less likely to invest effort in organizational goals or outcomes (Gallup, 2013). In an increasingly competitive world, companies are striving for continuous improvements of their processes and studies show that the topic of employee motivation is frequently discussed as a key lever for competitiveness (Barrus, Costello, Westover, & Beaman, 2016). Furthermore, studies show that the curiosity of technologies that motivate and engage is increasing (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015)
Gamification is an emerging concept that influences motivation by harnessing mechanics and elements traditionally found in digital games and applying them in non–game contexts, for example leaderboards, point systems or badges (Perryer, Celestine, Scott-Ladd, & Leighton, 2016). In recent years’ gamification has drawn the attention of business professionals in diverse areas of application. Even so, gamification is not a new concept with roots in marketing endeavors such as memberships, point cards and rewards, educational structures, notably in grades, degrees and workplace productivity (Nelsson, 2012). The re-emergence of gamification is thought to have risen from several factors, including the currently available personal data tracking, cheaper technology and the popularity of the game medium (Deterding S. , 2012).
The rapid development of gamification has also caught the eye of researchers and publications related to the concept has gone from 50 in 2011, to 750 in 2016. This interest is driven by the high potential of gamification to motivate users, such as employees or customers, to perform certain activities (Dicheva, Dichev, Agre, & Angelova, 2014).
Gamification is proven in generating positive outcome for organizations. Since deploying a gamified sales platform that deploys game mechanics (for example real time progression charts) to motivate best practice sales behaviors, the manufacturing company Glenroy experienced 295% increase in sales activity, 275% increase in qualification quality and 200%
2
increase in proposal quality (Yareah, 2015). Thus, it is not surprising that the gamification market is expected to grow substantially in the coming years. Analysts estimate a global market growth of gamification of close to 700% in a period of five years, going from USD 1.65 Billion in 2015 to USD 11.10 Billion by 2020 (Marketsandmarkets, 2016).
Even though interest is growing, existing research in the field of gamification is quite preliminary (Pedreira, Garcia, Brisaboa, & Piattini, 2015). Besides having an underdeveloped theoretical foundation in general, gamification also lack standardized guidelines for application (Seaborn & Fels, 2015). Also, researchers have acknowledged that there is a lack of guidelines and solutions for integration of gamification in the organization (Pedreira, Garcia, Brisaboa, & Piattini, 2015) and a system that is not integrated properly faces challenges providing sustainable improvement results (Pedreira, Garcia, Brisaboa, & Piattini, 2015).
1.2 Problem discussion
The concept of gamification has various areas of applications as a mechanism for creating motivation and engagement to behavioural change (Perryer, Celestine, Scott-Ladd, &
Leighton, 2016). Indeed, in an increasingly competitive world organizations must strive to find new ways to increase their competitive advantage. For this purpose, gamification could add value for organizations by motivating their employees and customers into performing certain activities.
Realizing the potential of gamification requires that it is ultimately implemented and used by end-users. However, gamification lack standardized guidelines for application (Seaborn &
Fels, 2015) and solutions for integration in the organization (Pedreira, Garcia, Brisaboa, &
Piattini, 2015). The lack of focus spent on trying to understand implementation of gamification and guidelines for integration leaves a gap in current literature, thereby making it an important research areas to consider. Also, the current lack of knowledge of critical aspects of implementing gamification is apparent when looking at the general difficulty of implementing new technology. Studies show that the fail rate of implementing major technological changes, even in mature research areas, is nearly 50% (Aiman-Smith & Green, 2002; Baer & Frese, 2003; Repenning & Sterman, 2002) which makes for a potentially problematic situation. Therefore, it is likely that an increased understanding of critical aspects of the implementation of gamification would decrease uncertainty, which could lead to more successful projects involving the concept. Further, many organizations see gamification as a
3
new technology because it is an emerging concept. At the same time, studies show that organizations fail to recognize the expected benefits of new technology and a key challenge is generally not the new technology itself, but rather implementation failure (Klein & Knight, 2005).
We argue that there is a need for an increased understanding of challenges and success factors of the implementation of gamification in organizations and guidelines how to act for several reasons. First, a better understanding of significant challenges and success factors when implementation gamification could act as a base for guidelines of a structured model for implementation in organizations. As of today, gamification lack standardized guidelines for application (Seaborn & Fels, 2015) and solutions for integration in the organization (Pedreira, Garcia, Brisaboa, & Piattini, 2015), potentially forcing organizations to use trial–and–error approaches. Second, reports show that employee motivation is low (Gallup, 2013) and research show that gamification can increase motivation (Dicheva, Dichev, Agre, &
Angelova, 2014). This means that more knowledge of gamification implementation would be helpful for the increased number organizations interested in the concept. This opinion is shared by researchers as we are already seeing increased interest of technologies that engage and increase motivation (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015). Third, the research area of what gamification is and how it works is explored to a further extent, leaving the relatively less understood area of implementation of gamification with potentially valuable insight for further exploration. For example, researchers have previously studied what gamification is (Seaborn & Fels, 2015) and discussed whether it works (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014), but not challenges or success factors when implementing.
1.3 Research purpose
By trying to narrow the identified gap in literature regarding significant challenges and success factors and how organizations should act when implementing gamification, valuable insight could be shared to the academia and the growing number of organizations wishing to exploit the concept. Hence, the purpose of this thesis is to identify the significant challenges and success factors when implementing gamification and create guidelines in form of a structured model for implementation in the organization.
Challenges and success factors can also be described as factors that possibly either hinder or facilitate an implementation of gamification. Identifying success factors and challenges ensures the use of gamification as a strategic competitive tool for development through
4
increased motivation and engagement for intended recipients. Further, by unveiling the significant challenges and success factors, structured guidelines for implementation in the organization would be made possible.
The results of fulfilling the research purpose will be developed to a model that facilitates future projects by providing key insights of the process. The practical relevance to managers of organizations of this model roots from enabling them to exploit insight from previous gamification projects, using the information to minimize potential obstacles and misgivings along the way. The theoretical contribution of this model would be to increase understanding of significant challenges and success factors when implementing gamification as well as models for implementation in the organization. Two research questions are formulated to cover all aspects of the research purpose:
RQ1: What are the significant challenges and success factors when implementing gamification?
RQ2: How should the implementation of gamification be managed?
5
2. Literature review
In this thesis, the concept of gamification, the phenomenon of implementation, structured models and challenges and success factors in relation to implementation will be studied.
Therefore, a theoretical foundation of these areas is required to answer the research questions.
This chapter will include descriptive theory of gamification, theory of implementation as well as previously known challenges and success factors in relation to implementation.
2.1 Gamification
The term of gamification is inconsistently used and a standard definition is not yet agreed upon. Also, gamification faces an underdeveloped theoretical foundation and it lacks standardized guidelines for application (Seaborn & Fels, 2015). To avoid confusion, the definition of gamification used in this thesis is "the application of characteristics from digital games into non-gaming context”, the same as stated by researchers in 2016 (Perryer, Celestine, Scott-Ladd, & Leighton, 2016)
To grasp the practical implications of gamification it is important to understand game elements and game mechanics, which are its components. Researchers categorize game elements into mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics, where mechanics define the way games convert inputs into output (Zicherman & Cunningham, 2011). A list of examples of game elements for gamification is given in Table 1.
Table 1 – Game element terminology (Seaborn & Fels, 2015)
Term Definition Alternatives
Points Numerical units indicating progress Experience points, score Badges Visual icons signifying achievements Trophies
Leaderboards Display of ranks for comparison Rankings, Scoreboard Progression Milestones indicating progress Levelling, level up Levels Increasingly difficult environments Stage, area world Rewards Tangible, desirable items Incentives, prizes, gifts
In gamification, motivation is a key concept because it drives the users to perform certain tasks or assignments. The concept of motivation is described: “Motivation is a theoretical construct used to explain behavior and it gives reasons for people's actions, desires, and needs” (Elliot & Covington, 2001). Motivation can be defined as “one's direction to behavior, or what causes a person to want to repeat a behavior and vice versa” (Elliot & Covington, 2001). Motivation can be further divided into intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, which differ in terms of where motivation stems from. Intrinsic motivation reflects the natural human
6
propensity to learn and assimilate (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation can either reflect external control or true self-regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Some researchers define gamification as technologies that attempts to specifically promote intrinsic motivations toward various activities (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015).
2.2 Implementing gamification
If new technology such as gamification is supposed to add value to the organization, it must be implemented. Implementation is when the users of the gamification system used it in the past week or month, (Klein & Knight, 2005). Further, if the organization use the system in a consistent and committed matter, the organization has excelled at implementation (Klein &
Knight, 2005). However, early stages of gamification system design are also important to consider as it affects initial user reception and it is therefore included in the scope of this thesis.
The current research spent on trying to understand the implementation of gamification is considered weak when compared to that of understanding what the concept is and what it does. For example, gamification is often incorporated as an independent tool (usually developed ad-hoc for a specific purpose) and the lack of guidelines and solutions for integrating gamification with the organizations tool ecosystem is considered a weakness in current research (Pedreira, Garcia, Brisaboa, & Piattini, 2015). Also, current research on gamification lack standardized guidelines for application (Seaborn & Fels, 2015). Because most organizations spend significant effort building their work methodology and supporting tools, a gamification system that is not integrated properly faces challenges providing sustainable improvement results (Pedreira, Garcia, Brisaboa, & Piattini, 2015).
The fact that there are gaps in current literature of critical aspects of implementing gamification becomes problematic when viewing the difficulty of implementing new technology. Even in more mature research areas than gamification, observers estimate that nearly 50% or more of attempts to implement major technological and administrative changes fail (Aiman-Smith & Green, 2002; Baer & Frese, 2003; Repenning & Sterman, 2002). Also, when it comes to new technologies in general, many organizations fail to recognize the expected benefits of innovations and a key challenge is generally not innovation failure, but rather implementation failure (Klein & Knight, 2005).
7
2.3 Finding a structured model
The process of trying to understand how organizations manage the implementation of gamification in different phases calls for the use of a structured model. No models from previous studies with a perfect conformity were found, which means that a phase model for implementation of gamification must be formed, preferably with inspiration from mature research areas.
Generic models in project management is suitable as a starting point because implementing gamification is a project. For example, Stage-Gate XPress which is (scaled down version of the widely-used Stage-Gate model) a “product to market” model for minor projects consisting of three stages: discovery, scope & business case, execute: development & test & launch (Cooper, 2014). Every stage has a corresponding gate where an assessment of the situation is carried out followed by a decision and the model describes the whole life cycle from product to market, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Stage-Gate XPress, figure adapted from: (Cooper, 2014)
An advantageous benefit of Stage-Gate XPress lies in the gates, the idea to stop and assess the situation at certain points and take preferred course of action given specific context settings.
However, due to the rather unexplored area of gamification, taking actions during each phase instead of afterwards could possibly prevent potential issues before they occur.
Other models can prove useful, for example the model that describes the co-creation process of product service solutions which consists of three distinct phases: requirement definition, customization & integration and implementation & operation (Rönnberg Sjödin, Parida, &
Wincent, 2016), as illustrated in Figure 2.
8
Figure 2 – The co-creation phases of product service solutions (Rönnberg Sjödin, Parida, & Wincent, 2016)
During the first phase, the customer and provider work together toward identifying problems and finds agreement of expectations of each actor. The second phase included activities of negotiation and combination of components into a customized solution. The third phase included activities related to execution, continuous fine tuning and optimization.
The Stage-Gate XPress and the co-creation phases of product service solutions each consist of similar activities and number of phases, from start to finish. Therefore, including the same activities and phases in the new phase model is a reasonable starting point for the creation of a phase model suitable for this thesis.
By combining the previously described models and making small adjustments, sufficient information is available to form the outlines of a suitable model. The element of stages from Stage-Gate XPress could be used as an indicator to take action. Further, the activities in the phases from the co-creation phases of product service solutions align with the process of implementing gamification. However, the names of the phases can be given shortened and simplified names. For example, early design of the gamification system in the first phase affects the on-going implementation, making design a suitable name. Integration could be used for the second phase, note that the second phase should include initial use of the gamification system due to the emphasis of implementation in this thesis. The third phase of gamification can be considered a continuous operational phase, or simply operation. A structured model suitable for this thesis consisting with actions (not yet explored) is illustrated in Figure 3.
9
Figure 3 – Structured model of the process of implementing gamification in organizations with actions during each phase
2.4 Challenges when implementing gamification
Unfortunately, no systematic studies of challenges regarding implementation of gamification were found. This makes previous research of general challenges of implementation of technology, as well as closely related areas of gamification, a good starting point to consider.
A prerequisite for organizations to achieve the intended benefits of new technology is described by researchers as the challenge to create a strong climate for innovation implementation and good innovation-values fit (Klein & Sorra, 1996). The climate for implementation refers to targeted users shared summary perceptions of the extent to which their use of the technology is rewarded, expected and supported within the organization (Klein & Sorra, 1996). Innovation-values fit describes the extent to which targeted users perceive that the use of the innovation will foster the fulfillment of their values (Klein &
Sorra, 1996). Innovation-values fit is good when targeted users regard the technology as highly congruent with their high-intensity values (Klein & Sorra, 1996).
Research on resistance to technology implementation suggests that group resistance vary during implementation (Lapointe & Rivard, 2005). In early stages, the emergence process of implementation is a combination of individual behaviors, in later stages the emergence process can be described as the convergence of individual behaviors (Lapointe & Rivard, 2005). When a system is introduced, users first focus on the interplay between features and individual and/or organizational conditions (Lapointe & Rivard, 2005). Then, they make projections of the consequences of its use and if they are considered threatening, resistance behavior will result (Lapointe & Rivard, 2005). Currently, no studies were found that offer a dynamic view whether the challenges of gamification implementation vary during different
10
stages. Although, using the initial three phased model could prove the validity of these studies in the context of gamification implementation.
Closely related areas of gamification could provide valuable insight. For example, the challenges of implementing digital game-based learning (DGBL) has been examined (Sera &
Wheeler, 2017). Three major challenges for implementing DGBL were identified; financial because programming an engaging game can be costly, cultural because a negative climate for innovation implementation is hampering, and technological because adequate instructional technology that support training is required (Sera & Wheeler, 2017). However, no research support the fact that these challenges are true when it comes to gamification.
2.5 Success factors when implementing gamification
As in the case of challenges when implementing gamification, no systematic studies of success factors regarding implementation of gamification were found. Also, this makes previous research of general success factors of implementation of technology, as well as closely related areas of gamification, a good starting point to consider.
Critical organizational characteristics that enhance the chances of a successful implementation of innovation in general include a positive climate for implementation, management support for innovation, available financial resources and learning capabilities (Klein & Knight, 2005).
Research on advanced computerized manufacturing technology suggests that resource availability and management support for technology implementation stimulate excellent implementation practices and a strong climate for implementation (Klein, Sorra, & Conn, 2001). This in turn foster implementation effectiveness – consistent and committed use (Klein, Sorra, & Conn, 2001).
Research effort has previously been spent on what to look for when it comes to user acceptance of new technology. Perceived usefulness and ease of use are fundamental determinants as shown by the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989), which is illustrated in Figure 4. TAM posits that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of technology are major determinants of its usage.
11
Figure 4 – Technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989)
Research of success factors when implementing enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems have previously been conducted, which are programs that provide integrated software handling corporate functions (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004). Because gamification is often used through digital media such as a computer based program, similarities of the two can be found. The success factors found when implementing ERP include top management support, a strong business justification for the project, training of employees’ project communication, properly defined roles for all employees including chief information officers and functional managers and user involvement (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004).
2.6 Summary of literature review
The definition of gamification used in this thesis is “the application of characteristics from digital games into non-gaming context”. In this thesis, the implementation of gamification is viewed upon as a process that stretches from initial design to continued, consistent and committed use of the system. There might be differences in challenges and success factors in different phases of implementation which lead to the forming of a structured phase model. As no suitable previous phase models of implementation were found, inspiration was drawn from existing models from other research areas in the forming process.
No studies with a systematic approach of the area of challenges and success factors regarding implementation of gamification were found. However, results of existing research examined in the literature review could act as a guide and starting point on what to look for in the continued research effort of this thesis. The different challenges and success factors as identified in the literature review are summarized in Table 2.
12
Table 2 - Summary of the identified challenges and success factors as previously recognized by other researchers
Challenges Success factors
Creating a strong climate for innovation (Klein
& Sorra, 1996)
Good innovation-values fit (Klein & Sorra, 1996)
Group resistance differs in different stages, initially individual and later convergence (Lapointe & Rivard, 2005)
Sufficient financial commitment (Sera &
Wheeler, 2017)
Cultural barriers (Sera & Wheeler, 2017)
Technological barriers (Sera & Wheeler, 2017)
Positive climate (Klein & Knight, 2005)
Management support, (Amoako-Gyampah &
Salam, 2004; Klein & Knight, 2005)
Available financial resources (Klein & Knight, 2005)
Learning capabilities (Klein & Knight, 2005)
Perceived usefulness and ease of use (Davis, 1989)
A strong business justification for the project (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004)
Training of employees (Amoako-Gyampah &
Salam, 2004)
Project communication (Amoako-Gyampah &
Salam, 2004)
Properly defined roles for all employees including chief information officers and functional managers (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004)
User involvement (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004)
The literature review will act as a guide in answering the research questions and for the continued research effort of this thesis. A summary of the relation between the literature review and the research questions is given in Table 3.
Table 3 – Summary of the relation of the literature review and the research questions Research question Section 2.1 Section 2.2 Section 2.3 Section 2.4 Section 2.5
RQ1
RQ2
13
3. Method
In this chapter, the research method is presented and its purpose motivated. This research method includes research purpose, approach, strategy, sample selection and data collection as well as the analysis and the quality of the research. Table 4 visualizes the decisions made for the methodology.
Table 4 - Summary of method approaches
Section Method approach Research
purpose
Explorative purpose to increase understanding of critical aspects when implementing gamification.
Research approach
Qualitative and inductive research approach.
Research strategy
Case studies of 13 different projects implementing gamification solutions.
Sample selection
Non-probability purposive sampling.
Data collection
20 interviews with project managers and other relevant stakeholders within the projects.
Data analysis
Thematic data analysis with six phases to produce relevant codes, themes and dimensions for fulfilling the research purpose.
3.1 Research approach
The researched area is a relatively new academic field and not clearly defined. Hence, an exploratory research was preferred, since this methodology contributed to find new insights and facts regarding gamification and its potential and barriers to be implemented in various settings (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016). An exploratory research was preferred given the limited amount of previous data concerning gamification implementation, as it provides new insights and facts (Saunders et al., 2016). Moreover, since the data in this research was partly based upon respondents’ opinions and reviews through both explorative and in–depth interviews, the research consequently is considered to have a qualitative research approach (Saunders et al., 2016).
This research resulted in theoretical conclusions and managerial proposals regarding the implementation of gamification. Since current literature does not provide sufficient input in the research area, conducting the research as an inductive case study is preferred (Saunders et al., 2016).
In this research, case study was used as a research strategy, as case studies provide in–depth inquiry into the research field (Yin, 2014). Also, case studies generate insights and empirical descriptions, which are crucial to develop a theoretical implication (Eisenhardt & Graebner 2007; Yin 2014; Saunders et al., 2016). However, the choice of conducting a case study could
14
imply that the results cannot be generalized to sectors not yet examined (Dierckx de Casterlé, Gastmans, Bryon, & Denier, 2012).
3.2 Case selection
To gain insight and collect sufficient data to answer the research questions, a sample of gamification implementation project cases was examined. After searching for completed and ongoing gamification projects, the areas of Manufacturing and Process Industry, Education, Sales and Marketing were the most common areas of current gamification implementation.
The cases were identified through search queries of gamification related projects using search engines, combined with suggestions from individuals with previous experience of the concept.
The projects were chosen based on criteria such as having a stated relation to gamification, but also depending on degree of transparency, accessibility and availability. The examined projects are illustrated in Table 5.
Table 5 - The examined projects from which data was collected through semi-structured interviews
Nr Project name Description & purpose End–users
Manufacturing and Process Industry 1 Industrial potential of
gamification
Finding the future potential of gamification in an engineering company
Industrial operators and maintenance staff
2 Gamification in the control room
Gamification of processes and data made available for everyone to see to provide increased feedback and visualization of data
Industrial operators and maintenance staff
3 Interactive safety education
Applying gamification in situational learning to provide increased safety
Operators in mining operations
Education
4 Sandbox video game as a learning tool
Using a sandbox video game as a learning tool in
lower-grade school to increase reading capabilities Students in schools
5 Visualizing learning progress
A gamified application which incorporated different
badges to enable visualization of learning progress Students in schools 6 Gamification of
university course
A gamified bonus-system in higher education to
increase pass-through and learning motivation Students in schools
7 Active school
transports
A gamified system of active school transportation intended for lower-grade students to motivate students to actively transport themselves to school
Young students and their parents 8 Student engagement
platform
Enabling users to give instant feedback to the principal
to increase engagement Students in schools
9 Gamified learning
Gamified learning experience where focus is set on instant feedback and visualization to increase engagement and motivation
Students in schools Sales
10 Service support learning system
A system for shared learning for employees at a first line-support to make knowledge sharing easier and more visualized
First-line support of parent company 11 Motivational program
for staff
Using gamification to replace a traditional bonus system to engage employees and making sure they
Staff of parent company
15
focus on desirable goals Marketing
12 Gamification of customer relations
Using gamification by increasing awareness of what is offered to attract more customers
Customers of local businesses
13
Loyalty platform for increased customer retention
Using gamification to collect user data Customers and visitors of resorts
3.3 Data collection
The main data collection strategy for this thesis was individual interviews. However, in some cases group–interviews were conducted because of organizational demands and time constraints. The researchers saw little benefit of changing the structure of the questionnaire, therefore the same was used for both group- and individual interviews.
The subject for the interviews was derived from gamification and focused on several aspects of implementing gamification in practice, including barriers and challenges with gamification.
The respondents in the interviews were mainly people with key roles in the gamification projects and some of the respondents were interviewed multiple times, depending on their relevance for the thesis. However, other individuals of interest such as end–users were also interviewed to validate data and broaden the data basis. The initial ambition was to primarily conduct face–to–face interviews but video–chat and telephone interviews due to time and accessibility constraints were also conducted.
All interviews were recorded; in case any details were missed. During the interview, potentially interesting statements for the research were cited simultaneously. In total, the collected data consisted of 20 interviews of an average duration of 50.25 minutes, for a total duration of 1005 minutes.
16
Table 6 – Description of the interviews
Project Respondent Date Role in project Duration
(min)
Active school transports R1 2017-02-14 Project manager 60
Gamification of university course R2 2017-02-14 Developer 40 Service support learning system R3 2017-02-20 Project manager 92 Visualizing learning progress R4 2017-02-21 Concept developer 49 Gamification in the control room R5 2017-02-22 Project manager 47 Sandbox video game as a learning tool R6 2017-02-23 Project manager 45 Interactive safety education R7 2017-02-28 Project manager 57 Motivational program for staff R8 2017-03-02 Sales manager 65 Gamification of customer relations R9 2017-03-02 Project manager 40 Industrial potential of gamification R10 2017-03-07 Project manager 38 Loyalty platform for increased customer
retention
R11 2017-03-10 Strategic developer 58
Student engagement platform R12 2017-03-16 Project manager 40 Active school transports R13 & R14 2017-03-21 End–users 60 Active school transports R1 & R15 2017-03-23 Project managers 47 Gamification of customer relations R16 2017-04-06 Project manager 55
Gamified learning R17 2017-04-13 Lead developer 76
Interactive safety education R18 & R19 2017-04-25 End–users 30 Interactive safety education R7 2017-04-27 Project manager 26 Gamification of university course R20 2017-04-28 End–user 35 Gamification of university course R21 2017-05-03 End–user 45
3.4 Analysis method
In parallel with the data collection from the interviews, the gathered data was analyzed simultaneously. Following each interview, the researchers immediately read and discussed the answers from the respondents and compared their perception of the data.
The analysis method had a thematic approach, a preferred approach when aiming for flexibility regarding determining common nominators, themes and trends in the concept of gamification (Dierckx de Casterlé et al., 2012). These themes were derived from both conceptual codes and relationship codes. In addition, thematic analysis method enabled flexibility in analyzing qualitative data, particularly when the qualitative data were rich and
17
complex as in the case with the diverse projects that have been examined in this research (Dierckx de Casterlé et al., 2012).
A common approach when conducting thematic analysis includes the six phases presented by (Braun & Clarke, 2006), an approach subsequently chosen for this research. While conducting the theme analysis method, the researcher iteratively ensured that the gathered data could contribute to fulfill the research purpose. In phase 1, the gathered empiric data gathered through interviews was recorded and transcribed to facilitate the process with coding and reviewing relevant data for fulfilling the research purpose. Furthermore, the phases of 2-5 consisted of the initial coding of the empiric data to provide interesting codes which was repeated across the entire data set. These codes were further sorted into relevant themes. To make sure that the identified themes were relevant, they were formulated and refined in such a manner that they contributed to answer the research questions. A profound analysis of each individual theme was written supported with a description of the relationship to the other themes and how the themes altogether form the overall context. In the final phase, the report was produced which included an analysis and description of the gathered data.
3.5 Quality improvement measures
To ensure the improvement of the research quality, the researchers applied the four criteria credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. These criteria are discussed and presented as crucial for ensuring high research quality (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Shenton, 2004; Amis & Silk, 2008). Further, since the research approach is qualitative, these criteria have been reviewed to be suitable for this study.
To ensure the credibility of this research, sufficient time has been invested to obtain relevant results and conclusions and therefore to achieve the goal of the research. To find relevant gamification projects for examination, significant effort was put in findings projects prior to the data gathering. Furthermore, the purpose of the interview and the research and declaring for the respondents that they have been anonymized in the compilation of the empiric data was done. Prior to the empirical data collection, the researchers immersed in the research topic and gathered sufficient knowledge to form relevant interview–questions and interesting projects for the case study. The researchers utilized the concept of triangulation through sampling of data regarding gamification from both empiric interviews and secondary data sources as documents and articles from newspapers, journals, and business and magazines.
Even though the term gamification is relatively new, the researchers aimed to primarily search
18
for published articles from recognized scientific journals. However, conference documents and less academic sources were used if found relevant and trustworthy.
Since the topic of the research is to identify barriers and success factors during the implementation of gamification in four different sectors, identifying general conclusions that could be classified to different contexts is preferred to increase the transferability of the thesis.
The concept of dependability has been considered through thoroughly describing the method as well as how the analysis and interpretation led to the findings and the conclusions.
Moreover, the effectiveness of the research was evaluated through review of opponents on four different seminars. To ensure the confirmability of the research, triangulation was used as earlier described to reduce the effect of the researchers’ bias and preconceptions.
19
4. Findings
In this chapter, the findings addressing the research questions will be presented and discussed based on the data structure, containing two overarching dimensions: Challenges during implementation and Success factors during implementation. The findings in 4.1 will answer RQ1 and the findings in 4.2 will answer RQ2 and together they fulfill the research purpose by the forming of a structured model.
4.1 Understanding challenges and success factors
The challenges during implementation depends on four main factors, complications of stakeholder’s management, lack of end–user support, lack of knowledge and understanding of gamification and further, the lack of necessary resources to implement gamification. Second, the success factors during implementation depends in turn on four main factors; favorable organizational conditions, high intrinsic motivation, customizable gamification applications, and high end–user involvement. Figure 5 summarizes the most frequent challenges and success factors during implementing gamification, which are categorized under the first–order codes.
20
Table 7 – Identified challenges, success factors and outcome of the examined gamification projects.
Project Key challenges Success factors Outcome
Industrial potential of gamification
– System design – Not prioritized
– User involvement – Organizational involvement – Internal support
– Creation of a concept to motivate operators to move more frequently
– Increased user involvement Gamification in the
control room
– Lack of user engagement – Low level of organizational
support
– High technical competence – High level of understanding
of gamification
– Increased sense of cohesion among employees
– Increased level of engagement of employees
Interactive safety education
– Not prioritized
– Low level of organizational support
– Organizational curiosity – High level of understanding
of gamification
– Increased safety awareness –
Sandbox video game as a learning tool
– System design – Lack of knowledge – Difficulties in integrating
gamification with digital systems
– User involvement – High technical competence
– Day-to-day tasks have become more exciting
– Increased motivation of its users
Visualizing learning progress
– Lack of knowledge – Low level of organizational
support
– Low understanding of the potential of gamification
– Organizational curiosity – Long-term planning – User involvement – High technical competence
– Facilitated a sense of calmness in the workplace
– Increased sense of cohesion among users
Gamification of university course
– Time constraints – Lack of user engagement – System design
– High technical competence – Individual-based platform
– Increased level of engagement – Studying physics was more
enjoyable Active school
transports
– Lack of user engagement – Ethical challenges – Not prioritized – Time constraints
– Lack of stakeholder support
– User involvement – Team based platform – Empowerment for end–users – Cooperation and competition
– Increased percentage of active transports
– Increased level of focus among users
Student engagement platform
– Lack of user engagement – Long-term planning – High level of understanding
of gamification
– Added system for instant feedback
Gamified learning – Cost constraints
– Limited previous literature in Swedish
– User recognition of game mechanics
– Added joy to the process of learning
Service support learning system
– Not prioritized – Cost constraints – System design – Lack of knowledge – To high expectations – Low level of organizational
support
– Efficient measurement – Limited end–user commitment
– Organizational curiosity – Long-term planning – User involvement – High technical competence
– Added meaningfulness to day- to-day tasks
– Employees became better at performing assigned tasks
Motivational program for staff
– Not prioritized – Cost constraints – Lack of knowledge
– High level of understanding of gamification
– End–user involvement
– More loyal end customers – Increased motivation of staff Gamification of
customer relations
– System design – Lack of knowledge – Low level of organizational
support
– Long-term planning – High level of technical
competence
– The project was never commercialized
Loyalty platform for increased customer retention
– System design – End–user involvement
– High level of technical competence
– Team-based platform – Individual-based platform
– Made customers enjoy their experience to a higher extent – Created prerequisites to map customer information more efficiently
21
First–order codes Aggregate dimensions Second–order themes
Lack of end–user support
Lack of knowledge and understanding Complications of stakeholder’s
management
Lack of internal and external organizational support
Too many actors involved
Limited end–user commitment
Resistance to new solutions among end–users
Dimension A.
Challenges during implementation
Low knowledge of the concept of gamification
Difficulties in integrating gamification with digital systems
Low understanding of the potential of gamification
To high expectations
Lack of sufficient resources
Lack of financial resources
Time constraints
Inadequate system designs and platforms
Customizable gamification applications High intrinsic motivation
High end–user involvement
End–user understanding of the potential of gamification
End–user involvement
in developing
gamification solutions
Both individual–based competitions and team–
based achievements
Cooperation and
competition
Dimension B.
Success factors during implementation
Limited project duration
for long–term
behavioral change
Empowerment for end–
users
Creating favorable organizational
conditions
Internal organizational support
High level of
competence
Organizational curiosity
First–order codes Second–order themes
Figure 5 – Data coding structure
22
4.1.1 Dimension A. Challenges during Implementation
The first dimension is constructed to reflect the findings of the challenges during implementation. This dimension is derived from identified challenges and barriers from the examined gamification projects. Minor challenges that have occurred in individual projects have either been disregarded or merged with similar challenges, to obtain broader and recurring results. Four relevant second–order themes have been developed from eleven first–
order codes.
Complications of stakeholder’s management. The first theme regarding the challenges during implementation is managing the stakeholders, both internally and externally, to implement gamification. Internal stakeholders refer to upper management and other stakeholders with in the organization, while external stakeholders refer to actors involved from outside the organization. In this case, the stakeholders, constituted a barrier for implementing gamification, as explained by the project manager of “Active school transports”:
“The stakeholders were an obstacle. One could assume that the stakeholders should have been more involved. Moreover, cooperation between and within the stakeholders is important and effective. It is crucial with real enthusiasts.”
In addition, different actors in several of the examined gamification projects were perceived as obstacles since each actor had its own interest and view of how gamification could be utilized. The project manager of “Gamification of customer relations”, which was one of few projects in this research that did not achieve its goals of being commercialized, underlined that this was one reason to why the project failed:
“We did not manage to make the various actors to be connected together and understand each other, i.e., the academia and the enterprises. The commercial part does not understand what gamification is. There were 150 members in the association, to obtain information regarding opening hours and stuff from all the members was time–consuming.”
Lack of end–user support. The second theme is developed from the challenges perceived by the respondents regarding the lack of support from end–users, which is traced to the non–
involvement of the end–users in the development and design of the gamification system. This was one of the reasons for why specific gamification projects failed, which is discussed by the project manager of a “Service support learning system”:
23
“One example of the reasons behind a failed project is that I never met the end–users in that project. It tuned out at the launch of [of the gamification system] that their image of what was supposed to be delivered was different from their managers.”
The analysis showed that resistance to gamification is more likely to occur among end–users, rather than among the managers in organizations. The project manager of “Industrial potential of gamification stated”: “Further down in the organization, people tend to be more sceptical.
You cannot change our job, gamification is just a game.” This is related to the theme “End–
user involvement”, which shows that the end–users have a key role for making the implementation of gamification successful.
Lack of knowledge and understanding. The third theme root from several individuals with key roles in the examined projects that witnessed that the stakeholders lacked knowledge and understanding of gamification, which created additional barriers for continuing with the gamification projects. For example, the project manager of “Gamification in the control room” remarked:
“It was a struggle sometimes, it was a mixed group. The group consisted of individuals with very different knowledge, but above all very different skills.”
Considering gamification being a relatively new phenomenon, certain lack of knowledge and understanding of gamification is expected. This was also addressed by the project manager of the service support leaning system, who underlined that the lack of knowledge of individuals is a challenge:
“Gamification is a tool, depending on who implements it, it can be really bad or really good... if a mechanic is good or bad at fixing your car depends not on the wrench but on the person's skill.”
The findings point out that knowledge of the concept of gamification alone is not enough to develop a successful gamification solution. Technical competence is equally important to provide sustainable results, especially when it comes to integrating classical gamification elements on a digital platform. This was discussed by the project manager of “Visualizing learning progress”:
“[A challenge] … to integrate the gamification part with the technical solution… I cannot tell why this was the case, however, the developer of the technical solution may not have been synchronized with the end–users, that were supposed to work with the solution.”
24
Regarding the lack of understanding of gamification, managers of projects in various projects struggled to convince individuals within the organization of the potential of gamification to motivate and engage. There is a belief that gamification is somewhat short–lived and will not last in the long run, as witnessed by the concept developer of “Visualizing learning progress”:
“A barrier was that some people think gamification is a trend that will end. They are wrong.”
In addition, different actors’ false expectations of the outcome were also a key challenge. This was confirmed by the project manager of the “Service support learning system”, who stated:
“Organizations have too high expectations on gamification… There is a desire to find a simple solution to the difficult issues, these solutions can be risky. The project took a turn, and the outcome was not as it was originally intended. It is highly exploratively to work with gamification.”
Lack of sufficient resources. The fourth theme regarding the challenges during implementation gamification is the lack of crucial resources such as available staff and financial resources. The lack of resources is interrelated with the stakeholder’s lack of knowledge and understanding of gamification, undermining their incentives to support the projects. The project manager of a “Service support learning system”, confirms the issue with lack of financial resources:
“Usually, companies allocate to low budget and underestimates the cost. A suitable gamification solution must cost.”
Further, implementation gamification requires sufficient invested time, both to learn the concept and to adjust it along the way. This issue was discussed by the developer of
“Gamification of University course”:
“The only problem for me is finding the time to do it [updating the gamification system]. I, who developed the system, has been developed as I learned along the journey route.”
Furthermore, regarding technical resources, challenges associated with developing a functioning gamification system or platform occurred in several of the examined projects.
Since gamification is driven by rapid technological development and digitalization, gamification systems must integrate both gamification elements such as points, leaderboards,
