GAMIFYING INFORMATION SYSTEMS - A SYNTHESIS OF GAMIFICATION MECHANICS AND … › a02f ›...

Association for Information SystemsAIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

ECIS 2014 Proceedings

GAMIFYING INFORMATION SYSTEMS - ASYNTHESIS OF GAMIFICATIONMECHANICS AND DYNAMICSScott ThiebesUniversity of Cologne, Cologne, Germany, [email protected]

Sebastian LinsUniversity of Cologne, Cologne, Germany, [email protected]

Dirk BastenUniversity of Cologne, Cologne, Germany, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2014

This material is brought to you by the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been acceptedfor inclusion in ECIS 2014 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please [email protected].

Scott Thiebes, Sebastian Lins, and Dirk Basten, 2014, "GAMIFYING INFORMATION SYSTEMS - A SYNTHESIS OFGAMIFICATION MECHANICS AND DYNAMICS", Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS)2014, Tel Aviv, Israel, June 9-11, 2014, ISBN 978-0-9915567-0-0http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2014/proceedings/track01/4

http://aisel.aisnet.org?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Fecis2014%2Fproceedings%2Ftrack01%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2014?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Fecis2014%2Fproceedings%2Ftrack01%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2014?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Fecis2014%2Fproceedings%2Ftrack01%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]%3E

Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014 1

GAMIFYING INFORMATION SYSTEMS –

A SYNTHESIS OF GAMIFICATION

MECHANICS AND DYNAMICS

Complete Research

Thiebes, Scott, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany, [email protected]

Lins, Sebastian, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany, [email protected]

Basten, Dirk, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany, [email protected]

Abstract

Trying to take advantage of the growing passion for games, Gamification is a trending phenomenon

that aims at motivating people by applying elements common to games in different contexts. While first

applications of Gamification exist in finance, health, education and entertainment, utility of Gamifica-

tion in various contexts has not been sufficiently explored. Aiming to understand how Gamification

can be applied to information systems to increase end-user motivation, we performed a systematic

literature review to identify game elements used in Gamification. Our study yields a synthesis of me-

chanics and dynamics in five clusters – system design, challenges, rewards, social influences and user

specifics. While our study reveals that Gamification has potential for motivating information system

end-users, we also discuss the potential risks. Future research should analyse concrete implementa-

tions of Gamification in information systems contexts and investigate related long-term effects. From a

practical perspective, we present Gamification as an innovative approach to enhancing end-user mo-

tivation to utilise information systems and illustrate the various options that can be applied to design

Gamification applications.

Keywords: Gamification, Information Systems, Mechanics & Dynamics, Literature Review.

Gamifying Information Systems


1 Introduction

Games have become a substantial part of daily life (McGonigal, 2011). Trying to take advantage of the

growing passion for games, Gamification (i.e., incorporation of game elements; cf. section 2.2 for a

detailed definition) is a trending phenomenon that aims to motivate people by applying elements

common to games in different contexts (Deterding et al., 2011a). Gamification applications have al-

ready been shown to be effective motivators for users in domains like finance, education and enter-

tainment (Hamari, 2013; Deterding et al., 2011a). Other recent studies demonstrate Gamification’s

behavioural impact in the health sector by addressing issues such as stroke rehabilitation (McNeill et

al., 2012), physical exercise (Hamari and Koivisto, 2013) and scenario-based learning for health pro-

motion (Menezes et al., 2013). Due to its positive influence on people’s motivation to engage in ac-

tion, Gamification is also closely tied to collective intelligence, crowd science and crowdsourcing as

various applications show (Franzoni and Sauermann, 2014; Eickhoff et al., 2012; Vassileva, 2012).

While empirical findings indicate that incorporation of game elements into repetitive and monotone

tasks makes them more fun and enjoyable (Flatla et al., 2011), Gamification helps users to become

more involved with applications (Rapp et al., 2012). Positive aspects notwithstanding, concerns related

to the effects of Gamification are increasingly being raised. Critics say Gamification is a buzzword

that companies use as a mere marketing tool (Chorney, 2013). They also argue that Gamification cuts

down the key motivational factors of games to a number of necessary but ineffective game mechanics,

which are not sufficient to motivate people. Furthermore, Gartner, Inc. (2012) predicts that, by 2014,

80% of the applications using Gamification will fail to meet their expectations due to poor design.

While little research exists concerning how Gamification can be successfully used within intra-

organisational contexts (Hamari, 2013; Fitz-Walter et al., 2012; Huotari and Hamari, 2012; Passos et

al., 2011), trying to foster effective usage of information systems (IS) through the application of Gami-

fication bears high potential to counteract the growing complexity and scope of such systems (Som-

merville et al., 2012). Moreover, considering that future employees will have grown up in a world

where video games are common and available to everyone, using Gamification as means to motivate

them seems reasonable (Burke and Hiltbrand, 2011). Despite first applications, the contexts in which

Gamification may be particularly useful have not yet been identified (Blohm and Leimeister, 2013).

The objective of this study is thus to answer the following research question:

How can Gamification be applied to IS to increase end-user motivation?

We conduct a systematic literature review to identify game elements used in Gamification. We pro-

vide a two-fold contribution. First, we advance the understanding of Gamification by providing a syn-

thesis of previous research in this novel field. Second, we guide future research as well as business

applications towards an effective usage of existing elements, including mechanics and dynamics. The

paper proceeds as follows. In Section 2, we provide the theoretical background pertaining to the rele-

vance of motivated users for IS success and the role of Gamification in this context. Section 3 outlines

the research approach and describes the process of identifying and analysing relevant literature. We

present our results in Section 4 and discuss the findings in Section 5. We conclude our study by draw-

ing general conclusions and providing implications for future research.

2 Theoretical Background

2.1 Importance of user motivation for IS success

Information systems are a key success factor for most organisations (Dedrick et al., 2003; Brynjolfs-

son and Hitt, 2000). Although many organisations make substantial investments into projects aimed at



developing new or adapting existing IS, most of the resulting IS fail to meet their goals (Hsieh and

Wang, 2007). An important factor for the success of these IS is the personal motivation of end-users to

apply the implemented systems (McDaniel, 2011). This inevitably leads to the question of how organi-

sations can motivate potential users to utilise IS. Different approaches trying to explain system ac-

ceptance and usage exist in research, many of them having in common the individuals’ opinions and

perceptions of IS as an important factor for their behaviour (Agarwal and Karahanna, 2000). Moreo-

ver, some argue that so-called intrinsic factors are essential for motivating people effectively and sus-

tainably (Ke et al., 2013). Intrinsic motivation results from a desired behaviour itself, which possesses

an inherent value for an individual (Young, 1993). However, while intrinsic motivation involves form-

ing strong long-term relationships, such effects are difficult to predict. Distinguishing intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation refers to performing an activity for the inherent satisfaction

of the activity itself, while extrinsic motivation, in contrast, refers to the performance of an activity in

order to attain some separable outcome (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation is caused by ex-

ternal rewards, punishments or regulations, such as bonus or promotion. Although it is said to be relia-

ble, the associated desired behaviour often ceases as soon as the external factors are removed. Since

Gamification tries to utilize intrinsic motivational factors, it can be applied in context of IS to offer an

alternative research stream concerning the end-user acceptance of IS (Hamari, 2013).

2.2 Gamification

Gamification is a new concept originating from the digital media domain (Deterding et al., 2011b). It

was first used in 2008, but only gained widespread recognition in the second half of 2010, when it

became a topic of conference presentations and was adopted by the industry. Due to its novelty, thus

far, few attempts have been made to define the term Gamification, which is why we found only two

definitions in literature. Deterding et al. (2011a, p. 10) define Gamification as “[...] the use of game

design elements in non-game contexts” while Huotari and Hamari (2012, p. 19) define it as “a process

of enhancing a service with affordances for gameful experiences in order to support user’s overall

value creation.” Because of its wider use in literature and a broader area of application, we align our

understanding of Gamification with the definition by Deterding et al. (2011a). This paper focuses on

game design elements that are mainly used: game mechanics and game dynamics (henceforth referred

to as M&D) (Zichermann and Cunningham, 2011). Mechanics are functional components of a gami-

fied application and provide various actions, behaviours and control mechanisms to enable user inter-

action (Hunicke et al., 2004). Some of the most common mechanics are, for example, point systems,

leaderboards, levels and challenges (Zichermann and Cunningham, 2011). Dynamics, on the other

hand, determine the individual’s reactions as a response to using the implemented mechanics. These

reactions try to satisfy fundamental needs and desires, including the desire for reward, self-expression,

altruism or competition (Bunchball, Inc, 2010). Thus, correct combinations of M&D creates a motivat-

ing, emotional and entertaining interaction (Neeli, 2012; Bunchball, Inc, 2010). “For example, the

mechanics of card games include shuffling, trick-taking and betting from which dynamics like bluffing

can emerge” (Hunicke et al., 2004, p. 4).

Akin paradigms include pervasive and serious games. While pervasive games expand the borders of

traditional digital games in a spatial, temporal or social manner (Montola et al., 2009), serious games

are full-fledged games for non-entertainment purposes. Instead, Gamification only uses game ele-

ments, like game M&D (Deterding et al., 2011a).

3 Research Approach

We apply a two-step research approach (cf. Figure 1), whereby we first conduct a systematic literature

review to identify relevant publications before analysing the identified publications for the coding of

M&D.



ACM Digital Library

AISel

Emerald Insight

Proquest

EBSCO Host

IEEE Digital Library

300 publications 29 publications

186 M&D

5 Clusters

31 Master-M&D

Keyword search:

“gamif*”

Inclusion/

exclusion

criteria

(1) Systematic Literature Review (2) Data Analysis

ScienceDirect

Figure 1. Two-step research approach for identifying and clustering Gamification M&D.

3.1 Systematic Literature Review

For the identification of papers addressing Gamification, we applied a systematic scientific database

search. This included databases we deemed to be representative as they cover a wide range of journal

articles as well as conference publications, namely, Association for Information Systems Electronic

Library (AISel), Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, EBSCO Host, Emer-

ald Insight, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Xplore Digital Library, Proquest

(ABI/INFORM) and ScienceDirect. To cover a broad set of publications, potentially relevant papers

needed to contain the “gamif*” search string in title, keywords or abstract. We limited our search to

sources published after 2009, since the term “Gamification” did not widely diffuse until the second

half of 2010. Next, analysis on the first results of this search was performed to exclude publications

that did not belong to Gamification. This exclusion yielded in 96 articles. Additionally, 34 articles

were identified through a backward and 41 through forward analysis (Webster and Watson, 2002)

using Google Scholar.

Due to the novelty of Gamification, a restriction to publications in highly ranked magazines, journals

or conferences seemed inappropriate. Therefore, in the second step, two authors separately reviewed

the identified studies in detail and assessed their relevance for this study. To ensure transferability of

our findings to the IS context, we limited our focus to workplace studies only. Empirical studies of

Gamification implementations were included in order to gain insights into potential implementations

of Gamification and to gather information about empirical evaluations of used M&D. After the indi-

vidual classifications were completed, two authors compared and discussed their results. Out of the

171 remaining studies, 29 were declared as relevant for this research according to the criteria listed in

Table 1. These studies are printed in bold in the references.

Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria

Published later than 2009 Published before 2010

Focus on Gamification No direct connection to Gamification (e.g., akin paradigms; cf. section 2.2)

Workplace as study context No workplace context (e.g., education, health, crowd sourcing)

Empirical studies on Gamification Editorials, papers not written in English language

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.



3.2 Data Analysis

Our data analysis is based on the approach by Jeyaraj et al. (2006). As a first step, we carefully read

and analysed all relevant studies to identify the considered or applied M&D of Gamification. Further-

more, we declared a name and a description for each identified M&D based on the information pro-

vided in the literature source. In order to uniformly code the influence of the M&D on the motivation

in qualitative and quantitative studies, we adapted the coding scheme by Jeyaraj et al. (2006), which

assigned three possible values to the influence: ‘+’, ‘-’ or ‘o’. The following rules were adopted for

coding the presumed influence of the M&D on the motivation. A positive influence of a mechanic or

dynamic on the motivation was coded as a ‘+’, if an empirical confirmation was given or the authors

strongly argued that a positive influence was exerted. Equally, a negative influence of mechanics or

dynamics on the motivation was coded as a ‘-’, if an empirical confirmation was given or the authors

strongly argued that a negative influence was exerted. Otherwise, no influence of mechanics or dy-

namics on the motivation was coded as a ‘o’, if no empirical confirmation was given in the source or

the authors strongly argued against the existence of an influence on the motivation. To aggregate the

identified M&D, we also adopted the method of Lacity et al. (2010). A list of so-called Master-

Mechanics and -Dynamics (Master-M&D) was created. A Master-M&D is an aggregation of similar

M&D consisting of a name and a description. If possible, an identified M&D was assigned to a Mas-

ter-M&D, otherwise a new Master-M&D was added to the list. Having completed the review, we fi-

nalised the Master-M&D list, whereby all assignments were checked for correctness. We were able to

identify 186 M&D in total, of which 84 were empirically confirmed to exert influence on motivation.

It has to be noted that, out of these empirically confirmed M&D, 31 had a weak empirical confirma-

tion, that is, only a small sample size was used in the quantitative studies, which limited transferability

of the reported findings. Furthermore, a positive influence on motivation was coded 172 times, no

influence was coded 14 times and negative influence was not found. Figure 2 illustrates the top five

coded M&D. These 186 M&D were then matched to 31 Master-M&D (all Master-M&D with their

descriptions are listed in Appendix A).

Figure 2. Top five coded M&D (times each M&D has been identified).

4 Findings

Following our identification of the Master-M&D, we grouped them into the five clusters: System De-

sign, Challenges, Rewards, Social Influences and User Specifics. Grouping was performed with regard

to the meaning of each Master-M&D, as well as the means employed in motivating users and eliciting

certain behaviours. Table 2 summarises the clusters and coding, while Figure 3 illustrates the number

of identified M&D and number of times each of these M&D was coded.



Cluster Definition

System

Design

Master-M&D describing how a gamified application has to be designed and developed to motivate

a user. A typical example is the use of feedback mechanisms.

Challenges Master-M&D attempting to motivate users by providing challenges. In addition, all Master-M&D

were assigned to this cluster, which support the development or accomplishment of challenges,

such as the formulation of clear goals.

Rewards Master-M&D aiming to motivate the users by providing rewards (e.g., point systems or the award-

ing of badges) after certain actions were successfully taken.

Social

Influences

Master-M&D aiming to motivate users or a group of users by social dynamics and influences, such

as altruism, competition, gaining status or user high scores.

User

Specifics

Master-M&D motivating users by directly influencing the individual personality by, for example,

promoting self-expression.

Table 2. Clusters of Master-M&D.

Figure 3. Number of identified M&D (a) and numbers of times each is coded for each cluster (b).

4.1 System Design

With respect to the design of gamified IS, one of the most important mechanics that has to be consid-

ered is feedback mechanisms. Feedback should be immediate and motivating, especially after an ac-

tion was completed (Wang and Sun, 2011; Groh, 2012). Additionally, the user should be informed

about doing something wrong, and be allowed to undo false actions (Sweetser and Wyeth, 2005). A

simple example of an IS feedback mechanism is the use of progress bars, which indicate the progress

of filling in a form and inform the user about any false inputs (Huotari and Hamari, 2012). Progress

bars can create a feeling of achieving something, just by performing several actions (Burke and Hilt-

brand, 2011). It has to be noted that every feedback mechanism has to be evaluated in the working

context, such as the use of sounds and music as feedback. This kind of feedback is not appropriate for

every working environment, such as open space offices, but may be useful in noisy production areas

(Korn, 2012).

Furthermore, reminders of user’s past behaviour, for instance, a history of actions, can be helpful and

may ease future work (Liu et al., 2011). One of the next M&D identified in the context of system de-

sign is ‘meaning’, in a sense that the user believes that the work will produce something meaningful

(Gnauk et al., 2012). A creation of meaning for users may be realised by directly showing how their

actions influence the success of the organisation. Thus, gamified IS should support easy, enjoyable or

exciting interaction concepts by, for example, employing an attractive user interface with stimulating



visuals (Gnauk et al., 2012). The design may visually resemble existing games, like Tetris (Korn,

2012), or use fantasy elements to make the experience more emotionally appealing to users (Li et al.,

2012). However, the use of such concepts may be limited because of the complexity of IS and the need

to ensure that the work is approached seriously.

4.2 Challenges

Another aspect of creating gamified IS relates to implementing challenges. Challenging tasks in IS

guide users by providing missions and rewarding them after successful completion (Bunchball, Inc,

2010). They give users a feeling that they are working towards a goal and support structuring tasks

(Korn, 2012; Bunchball, Inc, 2010). To create challenging working environments, clear goals have to

be defined and presented (Passos et al., 2011). The formulation of clear goals leads to enhanced user

performance, for instance, by being satisfied after fulfilling a set goal (Bandura, 1993). In addition,

increased satisfaction positively influences the performance on future tasks with similar goals.

Another way of creating challenges is using time pressure. This, however, might not be appropriate

when the focus is on ensuring the quality of work. Furthermore, the concept of ‘flow’ is often de-

scribed in relation with goals and challenges. It refers to a state where the challenges that users face

nearly perfectly meet their skills (Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi, 2001). In this state, the user is

neither bored nor overstrained. Combining the concept of flow and the identified mechanic ‘progres-

sive disclosure’ – which describes the adjustment of task difficulties based upon the increasing skills

of users (Li et al., 2012) – gamified IS should provide challenges that automatically adjust their degree

of difficulty so that a state of flow is guaranteed. The use of challenges in IS may be limited because

of a high number of monotone and standard tasks. Nonetheless, challenges can be used, for example,

to motivate users to explore the IS in detail, to show unknown or new functions and features, as well

as to demonstrate new ways of solving problems.

4.3 Rewards

Most Gamification applications make use of point systems (Zichermann and Cunningham, 2011).

Point systems reward users by adding a certain number of points to the user’s account for completed

actions or combinations of these (Burke and Hiltbrand, 2011). They motivate users because of their

cumulative nature, which drives users to remain active (Burke and Hiltbrand, 2011; Smith, 2011). For

a successful implementation of point systems in IS, transparency related to the purpose of a point sys-

tem in general and the manner in which points are awarded must be guaranteed (Nicholson, 2012).

Furthermore, transparent point systems should be considered when gamifying IS because they form a

foundation for many other mechanics, such as achievements, in addition to being easy to implement

and integrate into existing systems.

In the past, achievements and badges were used as alternative forms of rewarding users. In the context

of the present study, achievements are defined as a reward for completing a clear and desirable goal

(Liu et al., 2011). In contrast, badges consist of optional rewards and goals whose fulfilment is stored

outside the scope of core activities (Hamari, 2013). Some badges may be designed as hidden and are

only awarded by surprise when some special actions were taken (Domínguez et al., 2013). In addition

to being surprised with an award, the users might be motivated to continue exploration of IS features

in order to discover these hidden badges. By rewarding users, for instance, with badges, dynamics of

ownership may develop. This concept represents a positive, sustained connection to an entity, for in-

stance, a badge with visual representation leading to a feeling of shared ownership (Burke and Hilt-

brand, 2011). Users may be motivated to sustain or expand their ownership, which leads to increased

work performance. An example of ownership in IS may be a badge that is awarded because a certain

level of work quality is achieved, and may be lost if the level of quality decreases. Achievements,

badges and point systems can be further combined with the M&D bonus. The bonus dynamic relies on



bonuses as a reward for having completed a series of challenges or tasks (Burke and Hiltbrand, 2011).

In games, bonuses typically take the form of funny bonus levels or additional game functions. To ap-

ply bonuses in gamified IS, they must fit to the underlying reward system. For instance, bonus points

can be rewarded after successful completion of a special task or achievement (Fernandes et al., 2012).

Moreover, bonus mini games may be awarded in IS, after a completion of a series of tiring tasks, aim-

ing to re-establish concentration and motivation.

4.4 Social Influences

Social influences are an important aspect of gamified systems. The most important (i.e., most often

coded) mechanics of this category are ‘leaderboards’. In the context of Gamification, leaderboards are

used to track and display action progress (Bunchball, Inc, 2010). Leaderboards usually motivate users

for two reasons. First, they make one’s personal performance visible and present it to others, thus

demonstrating one’s capabilities. Second, they promote competition among participating users, which

is sustained through regular leaderboard updates (Depura and Garg, 2012; Burke and Hiltbrand, 2011).

In the IS context, the application of leaderboards may be suitable because existing organisational

structures can be used to foster competition (Yates and Wootton, 2012). For example, leaderboards

can be developed for individual employees, teams, organisational units or different locations. In gen-

eral, competition as a game dynamic may positively influence motivation of some users. However, as

competition may not be appropriate in a working environment, shadowing may be implemented in-

stead. Shadowing is derived from racing games and describes a method where users can compete

against their own records (Korn et al., 2012).

Furthermore, most humans have a desire for status, reputation and fame (Bunchball, Inc, 2010). These

desires can be satisfied by humans performing certain actions by themselves, thus increasing users’

motivation to engage in these actions (Deterding, 2012; Vassileva, 2012). In particular, completion of

achievements and personal level-ups (cf. section 4.5) may support satisfaction of these desires. The

opposite social dynamic of competition is collaboration. This game dynamic rallies people to work

together to solve problems and overcome challenges (Burke and Hiltbrand, 2011). Gamified IS that

support collaboration may improve problem solving processes, facilitate synergy effects and increase

motivation. To strengthen relationships in collaborative teams, dynamic altruism may emerge when

supported, for instance by enabling virtual gift giving (Nakajima and Lehdonvirta, 2013). When eval-

uating collaboration in a gamified IS, the so-called ‘social facilitation’ dynamic should be considered

(Hamari and Koivisto, 2013). It describes an effect where individual users achieve better results at

simple tasks when working in a group or being in company of other individuals (Zajonc, 1965).

4.5 User Specifics

The most important mechanic aspect in this cluster is ‘user levels’. In video games, user levels docu-

ment the players’ abilities and progress (Gnauk et al., 2012). However, they may be easily transferred

to more serious areas, such as Gamification in the IS context. They can, for example, express expertise

or skill maturity levels of an employee in certain fields. This can also be used to support knowledge

management, by enabling an electronic catalogue of employee skills (Garud and Kumaraswamy, 2005;

Lindvall and Rus, 2003), thus offering a possibility to easily evaluate knowledge acquisition and dis-

semination. The user level mechanic may also be used to define goals and support progressive disclo-

sure by, for example, changing the difficulty and offering new challenging goals after the user reaches

a new level (Burke and Hiltbrand, 2011). Furthermore, enabling users to move to a higher level may

lead to a desire to earn reputation or status by reaching high levels, thus leading to an increased moti-

vation (Bunchball, Inc, 2010).

Another identified dynamic in this category is ‘self-expression’, which results from having a desire to

express autonomy, identity or originality, or to mark one's personality as unique (Bunchball, Inc,



2010). While enabling self-expression leads to increased participation and engagement, it may be dif-

ficult to realise in the IS context. Possible use cases include offering the possibility to write work-

related articles (Bista et al., 2012), or to implement a billboard to foster communication. Another way

to enable self-expression is to implement the mechanic ‘virtual character’, which uses a virtual avatar

to represent the employee. This mechanic can also be used to support the social dynamic of sharing

virtual goods for characters, or to represent a certain user level.

5 Discussion

Our systematic review of extant literature on Gamification yielded five clusters of 31 Master-M&D

that can be applied to gamify IS. With this paper, we provide an overview of the various design op-

tions pertaining to Gamification. Although we identified a positive influence of most M&D on the

motivation of employees, an arbitrary selection and application of Gamification M&D is not expedi-

ent. We believe that expedient designs need to consider all M&D clusters identified in our review,

namely System Design, Challenges, Rewards, Social Influences and User Specifics (cf. Table 2). Our

findings suggest that presence of many interdependencies enables and amplifies the effectiveness of

Gamification in the IS domain.

Moreover, attention should be paid to the setting to which Gamification is applied (Blohm and Lei-

meister, 2013). In general, Gamification is not suitable for every context and not every M&D can be

effectively applied to each setting (Hamari, 2013). It is thus essential to fully understand the context

before developing a Gamification design (Rapp et al., 2012). Two further aspects to be considered are

employees’ affinity for games and the novelty of the IS in which Gamification is applied (Hamari,

2013). Employees’ affinity for (video) games is crucial for Gamification effectiveness and may vary

among employee groups, especially concerning different generations of employees. We therefore be-

lieve that a workspace with mostly young employees would be the most promising environment for

successfully applying Gamification, as older employees’ affinity to digital games might not be suffi-

cient (cf. also McGonigal (2011)). Moreover, Gamification should predominantly be applied to newly

developed IS. The application of Gamification to existing IS bears the risk of employees rejecting the

new gamified aspects due to their habits and the effort required for initial trainings.

Organisations might counteract the predicted trend of Gamification failure due to poor design (Gart-

ner, Inc, 2012) by using systematic approaches. One systematic approach to designing the IS Gamifi-

cation is proposed by Neeli (2012). This three-step approach first requires assessing the main purpose

of the task to be gamified. The second step deals with the identification of the underlying objectives

for the different employees involved in this task (cf. Aparicio et al., 2012). Such objectives can, for

instance, be derived from analysing users’ past behaviours (Blohm and Leimeister, 2013). Finally,

M&D are selected to increase employee motivation towards reaching the underlying objectives. In the

process of selecting M&D, interdependencies should be considered. An example of interdependency is

a ranking list (Burke and Hiltbrand, 2011), which is usually implemented along with a point system

(Zichermann and Cunningham, 2011; Bunchball, Inc, 2010). On the other hand, adequate combina-

tions of award systems can yield synergetic effects. Thus, a systematic and expedient approach might

lead to a higher success rate of Gamification in IS contexts.

Furthermore, organisations can implement mechanics on different levels (Neeli, 2012). Mechanics can

be superficially implemented and independent from underlying activities. For instance, when using a

point system, each user could receive a specific number of points for each successfully completed

task. By intensifying the coherence between Gamification and tasks, mechanics are integrated into

work activities. The stronger dependency between the task and the related mechanics can be exempli-

fied by linking the number of points to the quality of the task performed. In extreme cases, a task

could be fully embedded in a mechanic. As an example, activities might consist of several missions.



While we believe that integration of M&D is an adequate approach to effective Gamification, it is

important to note that the implementation is not solely determined by the organisation itself (Nichol-

son, 2012). Employees utilising the IS need to be considered as well. If possible, employees should be

involved in the design of Gamification. Without coordinating employee needs, activities to be sup-

ported and the work context, Gamification is likely to fail.

While we did not identify direct negative consequences of implementing M&D (cf. section 3.2), we

are aware of potential risks that need to be considered when making a decision about the application of

Gamification. We discuss major risks identified during our analysis (cf. Table 3) below; nonetheless,

future research on this topic is required.

Risk Description Reference

Task quality Quality of tasks may suffer if gamified elements distract from the

main purpose of activities.

Blohm and Leimeister

(2013)

Cheating the

system

If underlying rules are not clearly defined, it enables cheating,

which can lead to rejection of implemented game elements by other

employees.

Zichermann and Cunning-

ham (2011), Reeves and

Read (2009)

Privacy Monitoring and surveillance based on data collected on both the

activity performed and the employee performing the activity are

likely to breech privacy rights.

Reeves and Read (2009)

Declining

effects

Can occur once the novelty of Gamification has worn off as, for

instance, challenges might gradually be perceived as too simple.

Nakajima and Lehdonvirta

(2013), Burke and Hilt-

brand (2011)

Table 3. Gamification risks.

One of the identified risks associated with Gamification relates to the quality of tasks, which may suf-

fer when gamified elements distract users from the main purpose of activities (Blohm and Leimeister,

2013). Losses in productivity may be another consequence of such distraction. Consequently, adequate

level of Gamification must be carefully considered. Moreover, it is likely that productivity declines

when employees feel a disadvantage due to other employees cheating the system to easily gain re-

wards (Zichermann and Cunningham, 2011; Reeves and Read, 2009). In the worst cases, not clearly

defined rules allow for cheating, which can lead to rejection by other employees. Thus, to prevent

cheating, Gamification requires both clear rules and controls (Poltrock et al., 2012; Rapp et al., 2012;

Reeves and Read, 2009).

In addition, privacy issues need to be considered. Gamification offers new ways of electronic monitor-

ing and surveillance (Reeves and Read, 2009). In gamified applications, data can be collected for both

the activity performed and the employee performing the activity (e.g., IS usage, individual perfor-

mance). Through such monitoring, employee privacy and personal rights are more likely to be harmed.

Likewise, publication of the gathered data may lead to other negative consequences. For example,

disseminating data concerning challenges (e.g., failures or slow progress) can lead to decreases in mo-

tivation or may undermine the relationships between employer and colleagues (Reeves and Read,

2009). These issues can be avoided through the differentiation between private and public data (Burke

and Hiltbrand, 2011). In addition, employees should be given the choice whether or not to publish

private data (Reeves and Read, 2009). Furthermore, Gamification bears the risk that employees per-

ceive a high level of organisational control (Nicholson, 2012; Yates and Wootton, 2012), which can

result in feelings of loss of autonomy and reduced self-control (Reeves and Read, 2009). To counteract

this process, individual data should only be used in an aggregated form (Nicholson, 2012; Yates and

Wootton, 2012). Otherwise, Gamification’s positive effects on employee motivation may be under-

mined by threats of trust towards the employing organisation.



Implementing Gamification should not only be about a meaningful design of game elements into work

activities, but also incorporate the long-term perspective and organisational strategic objectives. Oth-

erwise, an organisation might not be prepared for the risk of declining positive effects over time,

which might occur once the novelty of Gamification has worn off (Nakajima and Lehdonvirta, 2013).

Employee skills will likely improve due to challenges accomplished (Passos et al., 2011), which might

consequently be perceived as too simple and require adaptations and changes of M&D to ensure con-

tinued Gamification benefits. This, however, may require additional expenditure (e.g. for higher chal-

lenges) over time. Another concern is the decrease of satisfaction due to continuous rewards of gami-

fied elements in case of successful task accomplishments (Burke and Hiltbrand, 2011). Moreover, one

has to consider the consequences of removing gamified elements. For example, when these elements

are removed from an IS, employee performance may decline below the level prior to introduction of

Gamification (Nicholson, 2012; Poltrock et al., 2012). Consequently, complete removal of gamified

elements should be carefully considered. Alternatively, a new gamified system can be implemented to

keep motivation high (Poltrock et al., 2012). This approach, however, might require continuous in-

vestments (Zichermann and Cunningham, 2011).

6 Conclusion

Based on the analysis we provided in this work, organisations need to recognise that Gamification is

more than a buzzword and requires meaningful designs in order to successfully integrate Gamification

into IS. The ultimate goal of Gamification should therefore be to make tasks enjoyable for the em-

ployees, as a means of fostering their intrinsic motivation towards the tasks. Our study is a first step in

that direction, since we explain Gamification M&D that can be applied in the IS context.

Our main contribution is the synthesis of Gamification M&D. The clustering identifies the main as-

pects that should be considered when applying or evaluating Gamification approaches. Since our focus

is on the IS domain, we transfer Gamification to a new context. As broadly illustrated in our results,

Gamification has a great potential to motivate IS end-users, which might lead to increased productivi-

ty. As discussed in the previous section, however, it is equally important to consider the potential risks

of Gamification. A systematic analysis of these risks should be one of the next steps on the agenda of

future Gamification research. In addition, we recognise significant potential in analysing concrete

implementations of Gamification in IS contexts. As pointed out above, Gamification might show the

greatest benefits when implemented in newly designed IS. As such, in-depth case studies should be

conducted in order to foster theory development. Long-term effects of Gamification are worth being

researched as well, especially when considering the decreasing positive effects of Gamification over

time (cf. section 5). Empirical investigations should also focus on corroborating the identified influ-

ences as well as analysing the interdependent effects of Gamification M&D.

Within this study, we present Gamification as an innovative approach to fostering the end-user moti-

vation to utilise IS. Accordingly, we provide a means to increase the acceptance of technology, espe-

cially when considering future generations of IS end-users, who have a high affinity to video games.

In addition to the general motivation to use Gamification in organisation contexts, we illustrate the

various options to design Gamification applications. Our clusters of Master-M&D should be of partic-

ular interest since they show the comprehensive potential to motivate employees in general, and IS

end-users in particular, through the application of Gamification. Finally, our discussion of risks related

to the application of Gamification provides insights into the Gamification’s limitations. Organisations

should not see Gamification as a ‘magic bullet’ for end-user motivation, but as a means that has to be

carefully and deliberately integrated into organisational structures to support a motivational culture.



Appendix A – Gamification’s Master-M&D

Name (# coded) Description

System Design

Feedback (12) Immediate feedback is used to keep the player aware of his progress or failures in real-

time (Passos et al., 2011).

Audible feedback (4) Implementing sound effects and / or background music (Li et al., 2012).

Reminder (1) Reminder of past behaviour of the user, e.g., a history of actions (Liu et al., 2011).

Meaning (5) “[…] For meaningful gamification, it is important to take into consideration the back-

ground that the user brings to the activity and the organizational context into which the

specific activity is placed. […] The game elements need to come out of aspects of the

underlying activity that are meaningful to the user” (Nicholson, 2012, pp. 2-5).

Interaction

concepts (4)

“This includes an attractive user interface with stimulating visuals and exciting interac-

tion concepts, as well as a high degree of usability” (Gnauk et al., 2012, p. 105).

Visually resembling

existing games (3)

Creating a visual design, which is very similar to existing games. For example, design-

ing the system similar to the well-known Tetris game (Korn, 2012, p. 315).

Fantasy (4) "Fantasy evokes images of objects or situations that aren’t actually present. This can

make the experience more emotionally appealing to users” (Li et al., 2012, p. 105).

Challenges

Goals (23) Goals of the underlying activity should be adapted as challenges for the user (Passos et

al., 2011).

Time pressure (5) Creating time pressure on activities, e.g., through counters or hourglasses (Li et al.,

2012).

Progressive disclo-

sure (6)

“A game helps players to continuously increase their skills by progressive disclosure of

both knowledge and challenge […]. This will help ensure that the challenges in the

game match the player’s skill levels […]” (Li et al., 2012, pp. 105).

Rewards

Ownership (4) "The ownership dynamic represents a positive, sustained connection to an entity that

leads to a feeling of shared ownership" (Burke and Hiltbrand, 2011, p. 14).

Achievement (18) A reward for completing a clear and desirable goal (Liu et al., 2011).

Point system (15) Point systems reward users for completing actions, whereby a numeric value is added to

their overall point total (Burke and Hiltbrand, 2011).

Badges (10) “Badges consist of optional rewards and goals whose fulfilment is stored outside the

scope of the core activities of a service” (Hamari, 2013, p. 2).

Bonus (6) Bonuses are rewarded for having completed a series of challenges or core functions

(Burke and Hiltbrand, 2011).



Loss aversion (1) Loss aversion is a game mechanic that influences user behaviour not by a reward, but by

not instituting punishment when the targeted goal is not achieved (Liu et al., 2011).

Social Influences

Status (6) “Most humans have a need for status, recognition, fame, prestige, attention and, ulti-

mately, the esteem and respect of others” (Bunchball, Inc, 2010, p. 10). “[…] Status can

be earned by the user in isolation, by performing certain actions” (Vassileva, 2012, p.

183).

Collaboration (6) "The community collaboration game dynamic rallies an entire community to work to-

gether to solve a riddle, resolve a problem, or overcome a challenge” (Burke and Hilt-

brand, 2011, p. 13).

Reputation (4) "Reputation is based on the opinion of other users about the user or her contribution”

(Vassileva, 2012, p. 4183).

Competition (5) Competitions enable users to challenge each other (Bunchball, Inc, 2010).

Envy (1) This dynamic is based on the user’s desire to have what others have (Burke and Hilt-

brand, 2011).

Shadowing (2) Shadowing describes a method where users attempt to improve their previous records

(Korn et al., 2012).

Social facilitation (7) Describes an effect where individual users achieve better results at simple tasks in the

presence of other people or when working in groups (Zajonc, 1965).

Conforming behav-

iour (4)

“Conforming behavior is the desire not to act against group consensus, colloquially

known as peer pressure” (Nakajima and Lehdonvirta, 2013, p. 117).

Leaderboards (8) “[...] Leaderboards are used to track and display desired actions, using competition to

drive valuable behaviour” (Bunchball, Inc, 2010, p. 10).

Altruism (3) In this context, altruism refers to virtual gift giving with the aim of strengthening the

relationships between users (Nakajima and Lehdonvirta, 2013).

Virtual goods (2) Virtual goods are non-physical, intangible objects that can be purchased or traded

(Bunchball, Inc, 2010).

User Specifics

User levels (7) “Levels indicate the proficiency of the player in the overall gaming experience over time

[...]” (Gnauk et al., 2012, pp. 104-105).

Ideological

incentives (1)

“[...] Ideological incentives is the notion of influencing user behavior through influenc-

ing their attitudes and values, in other words, educating the user on a deeper level. The

ideological incentive makes it possible to motivate the user by himself” (Nakajima and

Lehdonvirta, 2013, p. 11).

Virtual character (4) A virtual character (i.e. an avatar) represents the employee (Passos et al., 2011).

Self-expression (5) Self-expression results from having a desire to express autonomy, identity or originality,

or to mark one's personality as unique (Bunchball, Inc, 2010).

Table 4. Identified Master-M&D.



References References printed in bold are the ones that are relevant according to the criteria listed in Table 1.

Agarwal, R. and Karahanna, E. (2000). Time Flies When You're Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption

and Beliefs about Information Technology Usage. MIS Quarterly, 24 (4), 665–694.

Aparicio, A.F., Vela, F.L.G., Sánchez, J.L.G. and Montes, J.L.I. (2012). Analysis and Application

of Gamification. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Interacción Persona-

Ordenador, p. 1, ACM, New York, USA.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning. Educational

psychologist, 28 (2), 117–148.

Bista, S.K., Nepal, S. and Paris, C. (2012). Engagement and Cooperation in Social Networks: Do

Benefits and Rewards Help? In Proceedings of the IEEE 11th International Conference on

Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications, p. 1405, IEEE, Piscataway,

USA.

Blohm, I. and Leimeister, J.M. (2013). Gamification. Design of IT-Based Enhancing Services for Mo-

tivational Support and Behavioral Change. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 5 (4),

275–278.

Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitt, L.M. (2000). Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organization-

al Transformation and Business Performance. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14 (4), 23–

48.

Bunchball, Inc (2010). Gamification 101: An Introduction to the Use of Game Dynamics to In-

fluence Behavior (White Paper). Bunchball Inc.

Burke, M. and Hiltbrand, T. (2011). How Gamification Will Change Business Intelligence. Busi-

ness Intelligence Journal, 16 (2), 8–16.

Chorney, A.I. (2013). Taking the Game Out of Gamification. Dalhousie Journal of Interdiscipli-

nary Management, 8 (1), 1–14.

Dedrick, J., Gurbaxani, V. and Kraemer, K.L. (2003). Information Technology and Economic Perfor-

mance: A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence. ACM Computing Surveys, 35 (1), 1‐28.

Depura, K. and Garg, M. (2012). Application of Online Gamification to New Hire Onboarding.

2012 Third International Conference on Services in Emerging Markets, 153–156.

Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: Designing for Motivation. interactions, 19 (4), 14–17.

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L. (2011). From Game Design Elements to

Gamefulness: Defining "Gamification". In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic

MindTrek Conference Envisioning Future Media Environments, p. 9, ACM, New York, USA.

Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L. and Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Toward a Definition. In CHI

2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings, p. 1, ACM, New York, USA.

Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C. and Mar-

tínez-Herráiz, J.-J. (2013). Gamifying Learning Experiences: Practical Implications and Out-

comes. Computers & Education, 63, 380–392.

Eickhoff, C., Harris, C.G., de Vries, A.P. and Srinivasan, P. (2012) Quality through Flow and Immer-

sion: Gamifying Crowdsourced Relevance Assessments. Proceedings of the 35th International

ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, p 871, Portland,

Oregon.

Fernandes, J., Duarte, D., Ribeiro, C., Farinha, C., Madeiras Pereira, J. and da Silva, M.M.

(2012). iThink: A Game-Based Approach Towards Improving Collaboration and Participa-

tion in Requirement Elicitation. Procedia Computer Science, 15 (15), 66–77.

Fitz-Walter, Z., Tjondronegoro, D. and Wyeth, P. (2012). A Gamified Mobile Application for Engag-

ing New Students at University Orientation. In Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-

Human Interaction Conference, p. 138, ACM, New York, USA.



Flatla, D.R., Gutwin, C., Nacke, L., Bateman, S. and Mandryk, R.L. (2011). Calibration Games:

Making Calibration Tasks Enjoyable by Adding Motivating Game Elements. In Proceedings

of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, p. 403,

ACM, New York, USA.

Franzoni, C. and Sauermann, H. (2014) Crowd Science: The Organization of Scientific Research in

Open Collaborative Projects. Research Policy, 43 (1), 1–20.

Gartner, Inc (2012). Gartner Says by 2014, 80 Percent of Current Gamified Applications Will Fail to

Meet Business Objectives Primarily Due to Poor Design (Press Release). Gartner Inc., Stamford,

Connecticut, USA.

Garud, R. and Kumaraswamy, A. (2005). Vicious and Virtous Circles in the Management of

Knowledge: The Case of Infosys Technologies. MIS Quarterly, 29 (1), 9–33.

Gnauk, B., Dannecker, L. and Hahmann, M. (2012). Leveraging Gamification in Demand Dis-

patch Systems. In Proceedings of the 2012 Joint EDBT/ICDT Workshops, p. 103, ACM, New

York, USA.

Groh, F. (2012). Gamification: State of the Art Definition and Utilization. Ulm University, Ulm.

Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming Homo Economicus Into Homo Ludens: A Field Experiment on

Gamification in a Utilitarian Peer-to-Peer Trading Service. Electronic Commerce Research

and Applications, 12 (4), 236–245.

Hamari, J. and Koivisto, J. (2013). Social Motivations to Use Gamification: An Empirical Study

of Gamifying Exercise. In Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Sys-

tems, p. 1, ECIS, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Hsieh, P.-A.J.J. and Wang, W. (2007). Explaining employees' Extended Use of complex information

systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 16 (3), 216–227.

Hunicke, R., Leblanc, M. and Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and

Game Research. In Proceedings of the Challenges in Games AI Workshop, Nineteenth National

Conference of Artificial Intelligence, p. 1, AAAI, San Jose, USA.

Huotari, K. and Hamari, J. (2012). Defining Gamification: A Service Marketing Perspective. In

Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference, p. 17, ACM, New

York, USA.

Jeyaraj, A., Rottman, J.W. and Lacity, M.C. (2006). A Review of the Predictors, Linkages, and Biases

in IT Innovation Adoption Research. Journal of Information Technology, 21 (1), 1–23.

Ke, W., Tan, C.-H., Sia, C.-L. and Wei, K.-K. (2013). Inducing Intrinsic Motivation to Explore the

Enterprise System: The Supremacy of Organizational Levers. Journal of Management Information

Systems, 29 (3), 257–290.

Korn, O. (2012). Industrial Playgrounds: How Gamification Helps to Enrich Work for Elderly

or Impaired Persons in Production. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on

Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, p. 313, ACM, New York, USA.

Korn, O., Schmidt, A. and Hörz, T. (2012). Assistive Systems in Production Environments: Ex-

ploring Motion Recognition and Gamification. In Proceedings of the 5th International Con-

ference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, p. 1, ACM, New York,

USA.

Lacity, M.C., Khan, S., Yan, A. and Willcocks, L.P. (2010). A Review of the IT Outsourcing Empiri-

cal Literature and Future Research Directions. Journal of Information Technology, 25 (4), 395–

433.

Li, W., Grossman, T. and Fitzmaurice, G. (2012). GamiCAD: A Gamified Tutorial System for

First Time Autocad Users. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on User In-

terface Software and Technology, p. 103, ACM, New York, USA.

Lindvall, M. and Rus, I. (2003). Knowledge Management for Software Organizations. In Managing

Software Engineering Knowledge (Aurum, A.; Jeffery, R.; Wohlin, C.; Handzic, M. Eds.), p. 73,

Springer, Berlin and New York.



Liu, Y., Alexandrova, T. and Nakajima, T. (2011). Gamifying Intelligent Environments. In Pro-

ceedings of the 2011 International ACM Workshop on Ubiquitous Meta User Interfaces, p. 7,

ACM, New York, USA.

McDaniel, L. (2011). A Comparison of the Impact of Acceptance and Support on the Motivation to

Use Information Systems. Business Renaissance Quarterly, 6 (3), 50–75.

McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is Broken. Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the

World. Penguin Press, New York, USA.

McNeill, M.D.J., Charles, D.K., Burke, J.W., Crosbie, J.H. and McDonough, S.M. (2012) Evaluating

User Experiences in Rehabilitation Games. Journal of Assistive Technologies, 6 (3), 173–181.

Menezes J. Jr, Gusmão, C. and Machiavelli, J. (2013) A Proposal of Mobile System to Support Sce-

nario-based Learning for Health Promotion. Procedia Technology, 9, 1142–1148.

Montola, M., Stenros, J. and Waern, A. (2009). Pervasive Games. Theory and Design. Elsevier Sci-

ence & Technology, Burlington, USA.

Nakajima, T. and Lehdonvirta, V. (2013). Designing Motivation Using Persuasive Ambient Mir-

rors. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17 (1), 107–126.

Nakamura, J. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2001). The Concept of Flow. In Handbook of Positive Psy-

chology (Snyder, C.R.; Lopez, S.J. Eds.), p. 89, Oxford University Press, New York, New York,

USA.

Neeli, B.K. (2012). A Method to Engage Employees Using Gamification in BPO Industry. In

Third International Conference on Services in Emerging Markets, p. 142, IEEE, Los Alami-

tos, USA.

Nicholson, S. (2012). A User-Centered Theoretical Framework for Meaningful Gamification. In

Games+Learning+Society 8.0, p. 1, ETC Press, Pittsburgh, USA.

Passos, E.B., Medeiros, D.B., Neto, P.A.S. and Clua, E.W.G. (2011). Turning Real-World Soft-

ware Development into a Game. In 2011 Brazilian Symposium on Games and Digital Enter-

tainment, p. 260, IEEE, Los Alamitos, USA.

Poltrock, S., Simone, C., Grudin, J., Mark, G., Riedl, J., Thom, J., Millen, D. and DiMicco, J.

(2012). Removing Gamification From an Enterprise SNS. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012

Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, p. 1067, ACM, New York, USA.

Rapp, A., Marcengo, A., Console, L. and Simeoni, R. (2012). Playing in the Wild: Enhancing

User Engagement in Field Evaluation Methods. In Proceedings of the 16th International Ac-

ademic MindTrek Conference, p. 227, ACM, New York, USA.

Reeves, B. and Read, J.L. (2009). Total Engagement. Using Games and Virtual Worlds to Change the

Way People Work and Businesses Compete. 1st Edition. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston,

USA.

Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motiva-

tion, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist (55), 68‐78.

Smith, R. (2011). The Future of Work is Play: Global Shifts Suggest Rise in Productivity Games.

In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Games Innovation Conference, p. 40, IEEE,

Piscataway, USA.

Sommerville, I., Cliff, D., Calinescu, R., Keen, J., Kelly, T., Kwiatkowska, M., Mcdermid, J. and

Paige, R. (2012). Large-Scale Complex IT Systems. Communications of the ACM, 55 (7), 71–77.

Sweetser, P. and Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: A Model for Evaluating Player Enjoyment in Games.

ACM Computers in Entertainment, 3 (3), 1–24.

Vassileva, J. (2012). Motivating Participation in Social Computing Applications: A User Model-

ing Perspective. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22 (1-2), 177–201.

Wang, H. and Sun, C.-T. (2011). Game Reward Systems: Gaming Experiences and Social Meanings.

In Think Design Play: The Fifth International Conference of the Digital Research Association, p. 1,

DiGRA/Utrecht School of the Arts, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Webster, J. and Watson, R.T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Litera-

ture Review. MIS Quarterly, 26 (2), xiii–xxiii.



Yates, K. and Wootton, A. (2012). Engaging Employees in Their Benefits Through FUN AND

GAMES. Benefits Magazine, 5 (49), 22–26.

Young, R. de (1993). Changing Behavior and Making it Stick. The Conceptualization and Manage-

ment of Conservation Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 25 (3), 485‐505.

Zajonc, R.B. (1965). Social Facilitation. A Solution Suggested for an Old Unresolved social Psycho-

logical Problem. Science, 149 (3681), 269–274.

Zichermann, G. and Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by Design: Implementing Game Mechanics

in Web and Mobile Apps. 1st Edition. O'Reilly Media, Sebastopol, USA.

GAMIFYING INFORMATION SYSTEMS - A SYNTHESIS OF GAMIFICATION MECHANICS AND … › a02f ›...

Documents

Transcript of GAMIFYING INFORMATION SYSTEMS - A SYNTHESIS OF GAMIFICATION MECHANICS AND … › a02f ›...