The Key Determinants of Success for Internal Gamification

The Key Determinants of
Success for Internal
Gamification
Koen Philippaerts,Mick Stallaert,&
SebastianDuyvendak
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
Thesis submitted to obtain
the degree of master in management
MASTER IN HET MANAGEMENT
Promoter: Prof. Dr. Croux Christophe
Assistant: Reusens Peter
Academic year 2015-2016

The Key Determinants of
Success for Internal
Gamification
Nowadays, managers face serious tasks, problems and challenges that require a fully engaged workforce.
However, it has been found that only thirty percent of employees around the world are engaged in their job.
Gamification –defined as the use of game elements and game-design techniques in non-game contexts- can
increase engagement by fostering employees’ intrinsic motivation. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to identify
the key determinants for internal gamification to successfully enhance employee engagement. Following a Ground
Theory approach, five semi-structured interviews with gamification experts were analyzed and coded into
categories. Five categories of key determinants that contribute to a successful gamification design emerged: clear
objectives, user-centred approach, context alignment, evolving design and intrinsic motivation. These key
determinants were subsequently assessed by comparing them with the current body of literature on gamification,
resulting in a concise and coherent framework of managerial implications. In addition, this approach allowed to
identify discrepancies between researchers and entrepreneurs regarding their knowledge on gamification.
Koen Philippaerts,Mick Stallaert&
SebastianDuyvedak
Thesis submitted to obtain
the degree of master in management
Promoter: Prof. Dr. Croux Christophe
Assistant: Reusens Peter
Academic year 2015-2016
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
MASTER IN HET MANAGEMENT

I
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our promotor Prof. Christophe Croux and PhD researcher Peter
Reusens for their valuable feedback and guidance through the process of writing our
master thesis.
In addition, we are grateful to Stephen Dale, Maarten Molenaar, Jeroen Van Eeghem,
Mario Herger and Esther Oostrom for sharing their expertise and dedicating their time to
help us complete this research.

II
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................I
General Introduction....................................................................................................4
1 Literature Study.................................................................................................8
1.1 What is gamification? ...............................................................................8
1.1.1 History & Terminology.....................................................................8
1.1.2 Conceptualization of Gamification ....................................................9
1.1.3 Definition breakdown ....................................................................11
1.1.4 Related Terms..............................................................................15
1.2 Theoretical framework of Gamification.....................................................16
1.2.1 Self-determination theory. .............................................................16
1.2.2 Flow theory ..................................................................................18
1.2.3 Goal-setting theory .......................................................................19
2 Methodology ...................................................................................................20
2.1 Research Design ...................................................................................20
2.2 Data collection: semi-structured expert interviews ....................................21
2.2.1 Qualitative data ............................................................................21
2.2.2 Sample of experts.........................................................................21
2.2.3 Procedure ....................................................................................22
2.3 Data Analysis ........................................................................................23
2.4 Comparison between the experts and the current scientific literature .........23
3 Results ...........................................................................................................26
4 Discussion ......................................................................................................29
4.1 Clear objectives .....................................................................................29
4.1.1 Realistic .......................................................................................29
4.1.2 Appropriate: focus on behaviour ....................................................30
4.1.3 Measurable ..................................................................................31
4.2 User centered approach .........................................................................31
4.2.1 Observation of the targeted employees ..........................................32
4.2.2 Developing player profiles .............................................................34
4.3 Context alignment ..................................................................................37
4.3.1 Branch .........................................................................................37
4.3.2 Corporate culture ..........................................................................38
4.4 Evolving design......................................................................................39
4.4.1 Iterative process ...........................................................................39
4.4.2 Long term.....................................................................................39
4.5 Intrinsic Motivation .................................................................................41
4.5.1 Game elements ............................................................................41
4.5.2 Rewards ......................................................................................41
5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................45
5.1 Managerial implications ..........................................................................45
5.2 Discrepancies ........................................................................................47
5.3 Limitations .............................................................................................48
5.4 Recommendations for future research .....................................................49

III
List of figures ............................................................................................................50
List of tables .............................................................................................................51
Sources....................................................................................................................52

4
GeneralIntroduction
As employees have an important impact on a company’s productivity, employee engagement is
considered a critical factor for organizational success (Markos & Sridevi, 2010). High employee
engagement levels cannot only foster the retention of talent and loyalty of customers, but they can also
improve stakeholder value and organizational performance (Lockwood, 2007). Today, managers are
confronted with serious tasks, problems and challenges that require a fully engaged workforce. However,
research from Gallup has pointed out that only thirty percent of employees around the world are engaged
(Zinger, 2014).
Throughout the 20th century enhancing organizational performance by properly structuring and dividing
labour has been one of the main emphases of management theory. However, alongside some
astonishing improvements in science and technology during the last decades of the 20st century, the
nature of people’s jobs has also changed (Pink, 2009). In contemporary society, the demands
organizations place on their employees have clearly evolved. Instead of simply executing tasks,
employees are expected to engage in complex problem solving and to come up with creative ideas. This
increased emphasis on cognitive labour illustrates an evolution from clearly delineated job contents to
much more dynamic jobs. This is especially true in client service organizations, in which employee
engagement and motivation are of crucial importance in driving innovative solutions for the benefit of the
customer (Kumar & Raghavendran, 2015).
Additionally, the needs and desires of the generation entering the labour market today are quite different
from those of the past. The members of the so-called Generation Y differ from previous generations in
their emphasis on independency, self-reliance, entrepreneurial thinking and the need for flexibility
(Martin, 2005). Lockwood (2007) further argues that self-determination and personal development
opportunities have become increasingly important to this generation. At the same time, however, they
also attach great significance to factors such as work-life balance, family, social contacts and personal
fulfillment. Another important evolution is that this new generation of employees is very tech-savvy,
implicating that their view and use of technology is different from those of previous generations (Martin,
2005; Venkatacharya, Rice & Bezueyehu, 2009).
These developments will undoubtedly have a major impact on the workplace of the future. Consequently,
companies will have no choice but to deal with this trend in order to keep their employees engaged
(Vehns, 2014). This implies that traditional views on fostering employee engagement, as well as the
means by which this could be achieved, might have to be revised according to the needs and desires of
the tech-savvy generation that is entering the workforce today. Building the proper circumstances and
environments are therefore crucial in order to foster motivation, innovation and engagement (Vehns,
2014). This is exactly what Dan Pink (2009) stressed in his TED talk regarding employee motivation in

5
the 21st century. He argued that rewards and punishments, or more generally the use of extrinsic
motivators, often do not work as motivators for employees performing contemporary tasks because of
the increased importance of conceptual abilities. This notion, that contingent motivators often do not
work, is one of the most robust findings in social sciences and has also been shown by researchers at
the London School of Economics (Cerasoli, Nicklin & Ford, 2014). Accordingly, Pink (2009) stated the
following:
“Experiments about motivation have shown that as long as the task only involved mechanical
skill: the higher the pay, the higher the performance. However, once the task called for even
rudimentary cognitive skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance. […] In the rubble of
economic collapse, too many organizations are making their decisions about talent and people
based on assumptions that are outdated, unexamined and rooted more in folklore than science.
There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. If we repair this
mismatch, if we bring our notions of motivation in the 21st century, we can strengthen our
businesses. For achieving high performance in 21st century tasks, we need a whole new
approach.”
The notion that reward height and performance are proportionally related - implying that higher rewards
go hand in hand with higher performance - appears to be common in business. However, human
performance is contingent upon more factors than just external rewards. In contrast to a traditional carrot
and stick approach, new approaches, aiming at incentivizing employees by tapping into their intrinsic
motivation, should be investigated. Gamification is a current example of a new approach that potentially
resonates very well with the changes in work and culture previously described. Consequently, the aim of
this thesis is to point out the possibility of gamification to bridge the gap between what science knows
about motivation and what is being practiced in business.
Gamification refers to the use of game elements in non-game contexts in order to enhance user
engagement responsive to intrinsic motivation (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). When designed correctly,
gamification can be very successful in making the workplace more productive by motivating employees
to change behaviours, develop new skills and solve problems (Burke, 2013). An example of how
gamification can be successfully implemented within an organization to enhance engagement and
productivity among employees comes from the global consulting and firm Deloitte. Deloitte’s goal was
to motivate its consultants globally to share valuable expertise on their social intranet. Together with
technology company Badgeville they created WhoWhatWhere, a gamified application that was added to
Deloitte’s internal social messaging platform. This application encouraged every consultant to 'check-
in' when they met with clients, providing information on what they discussed and where the meeting took
place. This application was gamified in that a reward system was implemented whereby consultants
could earn points for each valid check-in. By earning rewards, each consultant could gain status along
a particular expertise path. This path was reflected on a leaderboard, by which employees that checked
in the most, with a topic or client, could gain social currency within the firm. It was this recognition –

6
being viewed as an expert in certain topics- that motivated participation among the consultants. The
results showed that -by responding to status, expertise and reputation- this gamified system was an
effective tool to enhance collaboration and knowledge sharing within Deloitte. Furthermore, the achieve d
engagement led to improved expertise between Deloitte’s consultants globally, a reduced turnover and
a better alignment between the organization and its employees (Badgeville, 2015).
Today, the cases for using gamification are numerous and growing. For example, SAP uses games to
educate its employees on sustainability; Unilever applies them to training; Hays deploys them to hire
recruiters; and Khan Academy uses it for online education (Zinger, 2014). This broad field of application
enables gamification to support a wide range of goals and to generate many different forms of benefits.
On the other hand, however, this wide range of applicability can cause a lot of difficulties in designing
and implementing gamification. Estimates show that more than 70% of Global 2000 organizations would
have employed gamification techniques by 2014. However, the same research noted that many of those
projects would fail because of poor design (Gartner, 2014). Many important variables such as business
objectives, employee characteristics and other factors regarding context should be taken carefully into
consideration when designing gamification. It is the interplay between these context variables and a
gamification design that determines whether the desired outcome is accomplished or not. This led us to
pose the following research question:
R.Q. 1: What are the key determinants of a gamification design that succeeds in motivating
employees?
Although the number of papers published on gamification is growing, it still remains a relatively new and
unexplored area (Hamari, Koivisto & Sarsa, 2014). Apart from academic research, much of the
information about gamification can be found on the Internet where many entrepreneurs, consultants and
experts share their insights regarding gamification. However, many important insights might not be
publicly shared because entrepreneurs (especially large consulting firms) enjoy a competitive advantage
by keeping their information private. This potential information asymmetry between entrepreneurs and
the research community regarding gamification led us to pose our second research question:
R.Q. 2: Is there a gap between whatsciences know about successfully implementing gamification
and how entrepreneurs are implementing gamification?
In order to answer these research questions this thesis is structured as follows: the first section of this
thesis will provide a clear picture of what gamification is by illustrating its history, definition, related
concepts and theoretical foundations. The previously mentioned example of how Deloitte practiced
gamification will be used here in order to clarify the mentioned concepts. Next, following a Grounded
Theory approach, gathered information from semi-structured interviews with seasoned entrepreneurs
will be interpreted and aggregated in order to capture their view on the key determinants of success
regarding gamification. These insights will then be assessed by comparing them with the current body

7
of literature on gamification. Subsequently, the best and most relevant insights from both perspectives
will be aggregated into a concise and coherent framework in order to answer our first research question.
Doing so enables us to also answer our second research question, which illustrates why this approach
was chosen.

8
1 LiteratureStudy
1.1 What is gamification?
1.1.1 History & Terminology
Although gamification is rather new as a business concept, the foundations on which it is built have a
long history. The use of play to motivate people, enhance learning or change behaviour is something
that has been applied in numerous contexts- from marketing to education to health- and has been proven
successful many times (Kietzmann, McCarty, Pitt, Plangger & Robson, 2015). The fact that these
insights have been around for quite some time now is well illustrated by the following quote from Mary
Poppins, dating from 1964:
"In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun. You find the fun and snap! The job's
a game." (Mary Poppins, 1964)
In the past decades, there were several developments that helped to lay the groundwork for today's
gamification. The first of them was a stream of academic research in the 1980's that explored the
potential of video games for learning. Dr. Thomas W. Malone (1981) for example was one of the first to
find that games, with elements of challenge and curiosity, could motivate children to learn. Since then,
a number of researchers have conducted similar work and provided more evidence that video games
encode powerful knowledge creation and learning mechanisms that relate to all of the existing research
about how people learn (Werbach & Hunter, 2012).
A second movement that fostered the concept of gamification was the Serious Games initiative in 2002.
This association was founded by Ben Sawyer and David Rejeski and promoted the use of games for
serious purposes (Sawyer & Rejeski, 2002). Serious games can be defined as “any form of interactive
computer-based game software for one or multiple players to be used on any platform and that has been
developed with the intention to be more than entertainment” (Cody, Ritterfeld, & Vorderer, 2009). It
helped bring together communities in the private, military and academia sector that were using games
and simulations for non-game purposes, such as training (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). A similar set of
initiatives was the Games for Change movement, in 2011, that focused on using games to create social
impact (Ramos, 2011). Although these initiatives, involving Serious Games, differ from today's
gamification they contributed to its development and contemporary understanding.
A third, more recent phenomenon is the advent of social media and mobile and web-based technologies.
This development has changed how people and organizations share, co-create and tweak their
experiences (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011). An important consequence of this
is that firms these days can generate and request enormous amounts of data about people's behaviour

9
and opinions. These insights are of great importance for designing effective gamified experiences at
scale, which subsequently can render new data (Kietzmann, McCarthy, Pitt, Plangger & Robson, 2015).
The actual term 'gamification' first appeared in 2003 and was coined by Nick Pelling, a British computer
programmer who wanted to promote the gamification of consumer products (Kamasheva, Maksimova,
Valeev & Yagudin, 2015). A few years later Bret Terrill (2008) described 'Game-ification' for the first
time in a blog post. As indicated by the graph below, however, it was not until 2010 that the term became
widespread (Google Trends, 2016).
1.1.2 Conceptualization of Gamification
As the concept became more and more popular, the need for a proper definition grew. Both consultancy
firms and academics started to define gamification, albeit often differing in terminology and emphasis.
It appears that definitions that have risen out of professional contexts, coined by consultants and
managers, tend to be more practically focused on client benefits (Esther Oostrom, 2014). Gabe
Zichermann (2011), business owner and one of gamification's earliest and most passionate supporters,
for instance defines it as:
“the process of using game thinking and game mechanics to solve problems and engage
users”
Bunchball (2010), a company that offers engagement technology powered by gamification, describes it
extensively on its website as:
“the process of taking something that already exists – a website, an enterprise application, an
online community – and integrating game mechanics into it to motivate participation,
engagement, and loyalty....it takes the data-driven techniques that game designers use to
engage players, and applies them to non-game experiences to motivate actions that add value
to your business.”
Figure 1: Use of the term gamification (Google Trends)

10
Both definitions are similar in that they stress the process of using game mechanics as a means to attain
engagement among users. Zichermann’s (2011) definition seems rather broad and unspecific, which is
not necessarily a bad thing considering the various ways and contexts in which gamification can be
implemented. Nevertheless, by neglecting context as a whole, it could be argued that this definition
could be applied to actual gaming contexts. However, in our opinion gamification should be clearly
distinguished from actual games. Bunchball (2010) on the other hand seems to specify gamification’s
purpose as motivating actions that add value to your business. As opposed to Zichermann’s description,
Bunchball may be too narrow in its focus since gamification’s reach extends beyond merely business
contexts. Moreover, by mentioning “a website, an enterprise application, an online community”,
Bunchball tends to imply that gamification’s character and practice is inherently digital. However, in our
opinion the use of gamification should not be limited to digital designs.
In academic literature, the number of definitions and the difference between them seem less prominent.
The first definition that appeared in academic context was introduced by Deterding et al. (2011), who
described gamification as:
"the use of game design elements in non-game contexts"
This definition was later adopted by Werbach & Hunter (2012), who presented it slightly different:
"the use of game elements and game-design techniques in non-game contexts"
An alternative effort to define gamification in academic context was made by Huotari and Hamari (2011).
They have opted to approach gamification from a service marketing perspective and define it as follows:
"service packaging where a core service is enhanced by a rules-based service system that
provides feedback and interaction mechanisms to the user with an aim to facilitate and support
the users’ overall value creation.”
This definition differs from those of Deterding and Werbach in several ways (Deterding et al., 2011).
First, by centralizing a 'rule-based service system', the definition seems applicable to almost every
interactive system, thereby extending beyond what can be considered a game or a gamified system.
Moreover, Huotari and Hamari (2011) tend to describe gamification from a service perspective while
focusing on creating an experience but ignoring the actual methods to do so (Deterding et al., 2011).
To this day, it seems that there is no universally accepted definition. Gamification can therefore be
regarded as a 'cumbersome' word that doesn't capture the phenomenon in every aspect (Werbach &
Hunter, 2012). Nevertheless, there are some general components that keep showing up in the literature
on gamification. In our opinion, Werbach’s definition seems to clearly state these fundamental
components and will therefore be the working definition throughout this thesis.

11
1.1.3 Definition breakdown
Gamification: the use of game elements and game-design techniques in non-game contexts
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012).
In order to incorporate Werbach's definition of gamification, one must have a proper understanding of
the three main aspects out of which it consists: game elements, game-design techniques and non-game
contexts. Hence, each of these three main aspects will be discussed respectively in the following section.
A. Game Elements
Game elements are used to encourage the player to engage with the game and are therefore the key
concepts of gamification (Reeves, 2014). Werbach (2012) states that game elements can be perceived
as a toolkit for building a game. In a game of checkers, for instance, the game elements include 'the
pieces, the notion of capturing pieces by jumping and turning a piece that reaches the last row of the
board into a king' (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). It is important to notice that gamification is not about
building a full-fledged game (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). Gamification differs from regular entertainment
and Serious Games in that it merely uses some elements of games and embeds them in activities that
are not themselves games (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled & Nacke, 2011). In the case of Deloitte’s
WhoWhatWhere application for example, the game elements include the possibility to ‘check-in’, the
points that could be earned and the leaderboard that allowed players to be recognized as experts.
Deloitte’s example proves that it is possible to engage employees by implementing only some parts of
games without actually creating one. Because it operates at the level of elements, gamification appears
to be a far more flexible approach for tackling real life business problems than the use of actual games
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012).
B. Game Design Techniques
The second part of the definition, game design techniques, refers to the way in which the game elements
are combined to create an overall gamified experience that is larger than the sum of these parts
(Werbach, 2012). This implies that gamification goes further than merely applying some game elements,
such as a point system, within an organization in order to tackle a business problem. Imagine giving
each employee some points whenever they successfully perform a certain task. In this case it seems
likely that employees would soon be bored with accumulating points and eventually would abandon the
gamified system. After all, there seems no ‘point’ in gaining points without a specific goal or purpose.
Hence, in order to truly engage players, a game designer should use proper techniques to combine
several elements into a meaningful and challenging experience. Indeed, game design techniques are
those aspects of games that make them fun, challenging and addicting (Werbach, 2012). In Deloitte’s
case for example, the point system was designed to structure each consultant’s progress along a
particular expertise path with multiple levels. By structuring the progress into different expertise levels

12
with increasing difficulty, this design stayed challenging and succeeded in keeping the consultants
engaged.
These game design techniques are not limited to game-based technology and vary strongly in levels of
abstraction. Deterding et al. (2011), for example, found that five levels of game design techniques can
be distinguished. Interface design patterns, such as badges and leaderboards; game design mechanics,
such as time constraints and limited resources; game design principles and heuristics, such as enduring
play and clear goals; game models, for example challenge, fantasy or curiosity; and game design
methods, such as playtesting and play-centric design (Deterding et al., 2011). Like with game elements,
the use of game design techniques in gamification is not intended to create a full game but rather to
borrow some techniques from the whole game-ecology in order to reach a specific goal that extends
beyond the purpose of gaming itself (Deterding et al., 2011). Knowing how to use game-design
techniques to integrate certain game elements in a meaningful way can be seen as a difficult process
that requires trial and error. As Werbach (2012) points out correctly, there are no standard formulas or
step-by-step instructions for using game design techniques:
"Game design is a bit of science, a bit of art, and a lot of hard-won experience... just like strategic
leadership, managing a team, or creating a killer marketing campaign."
C. Non-Game Contexts
The third aspect of the definition, non-game contexts, refers to the fact that gamification operates in real
life situations that are not themselves games (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). This component clearly sets
gamification apart from the game universe but at the same time does not specify the context in which it
should function. The acknowledgement of motivation as an important driver of human behaviour has led
to the potential of gamification as a solution for very diverse behavioural problems. Deterding et al. (2011)
share this view and suggest that gamification should not be limited to specific usage contexts, purposes
or scenarios. They argue that there is no clear advantage in doing so and simultaneously refer to the
ambiguity of the discourse on Serious Games that authors initially tied to the specific goal of education
and learning. Indeed, gamification can be found in diverse areas such as sustainability, health and
wellness, personal development, finance, education and training, innovation management, employee
performance or customer engagement (Burke, 2013; Groh, 2012)
However, it is possible to identify three broad non-game contexts in which gamification can be applied,
i.e., external, behaviour change and internal (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). These non-game contexts are
by no means intended to limit the use of gamification to a specific context; they merely provide a relevant
frame of reference in order to distinguish examples of gamification according to their target group.
First, external gamification focuses on stakeholders outside the organization itself, particularly customers
or prospective customers. In this context, gamification is typically steered by marketing objectives and

13
functions as a tool for improving the relationships between the business and its customers. Common
objectives for external gamification involve increased engagement, stronger loyalty and eventually higher
profits (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). As Werbach (2012) points out:
"gamification adds a richer toolkit to understand and stimulate customer motivation".
A second non-game context for using gamification is to incite behaviour-change among a population or
in a society. In general, behaviour-change gamification involves encouraging people to perform new
habits that can produce desirable societal outcomes. Examples of these outcomes include better
financial decisions, lower medical expenses or less obesity in a society (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). In
other words, this is using gamification to motivate people to better themselves and their surroundings.
For this reason, behaviour-change gamification is often implemented or supported by governments and
non-profit organizations. However, these programs can also serve private benefits. A San Francisco-
based start-up named Keas for example, attempts to promote employee health and wellness in
enterprises and incorporates health related quizzes into a team-based game that includes levels,
strategy and a leaderboard. By turning health and wellness into a game-like experience, the company
succeeds in enhancing healthy behaviour among employees. Apart from the societal advantages of
better health, companies that have used Keas’ gamified application also reported to have experienced
private benefits for the company itself. For example, their employees developed a more positive attitude
towards their employers and said they felt more productive at work (Werbach & Hunter, 2012).
Apart from external and behaviour-change gamification, internal gamification is the final non-game
context in which game elements and game design techniques can be applied. Internal gamification refers
to the implementation of a gamified system within an organization. This form is also known as enterprise
gamification, although its effectiveness is not limited to large enterprises (Werbach & Hunter, 2012).
Organizations, regardless of size or structure, can use gamification internally in order to improve
business results by way of engaging their own employees. By applying gamified systems within the
existing structure, a company can improve productivity, encourage innovation and enhance camaraderie
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012). There are two attributes that set internal gamification apart from other types.
First, the players that engage in the gamified experience are already members of a defined community
i.e. the company. This implies that they share similar frames of references within the organization such
as status and the corporate culture. The second characteristic of internal gamification is directly
connected with the first and implies that "the motivational dynamics of gamification must interact with the
firm’s existing management and reward structures” (Werbach & Hunter, 2012).
Internal gamification usually targets employees in order to increase their engagement or to make
business processes more efficient. Research by Saks (2006) has shown that high levels of employee
engagement can have impactful implications for managers. Increased employee engagement has for
example been associated with organizational commitment and organizational citizenship, which in turn
could reduce employee’s intentions to quit (Saks, 2006). Moreover, increased employee engageme nt

14
could lead to higher levels of customer satisfaction (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). The latter is
especially relevant in service industries according to the concept of the service-profit-chain, which links
employee satisfaction to higher levels of productivity, increased customer loyalty and profitability (Sasser,
Schlesinger & Heskett, 1997). These findings support the notion that it is in the interest of managers to
enhance employee engagement through internal gamification.
Additional support for the managerial relevance of internal gamification can be found in a study
performed by El-Khuffash (2012). The goal of this study was to create a database of relevant gamification
examples and categorize them according to industry, desired outcome, target group, primary problem
solved, etc. Figure 2 below provides convincing support to the notion that the value of internal
gamification has been picked up in the entrepreneurial community, where 82% of gamified systems
focused on this aspect. Additionally, figure 3 clearly supports the possibility of internal gamification to
enhance employee engagement.
Figure 3: Primary problem solved by different industries (El-Khuffash, 2012)
Figure 2: Desired outcomes by different industries (El-Khuffash, 2012)

15
As pointed out in the introduction of this thesis, we aim to investigate the possibility of gamification to
bridge the gap between what science knows and what business does. Having indicated the potential of
gamification to enhance employee’s motivation and engagement, this thesis will therefore focus on
determining the key success factors for internal gamification.
1.1.4 Related Terms
Ever since gamification made its entrance into academic and professional context, a lot of confusion and
critique about the term has emerged (Deterding et al., 2011). This controversy is fostered by a lot of
concepts that are seemingly related but can greatly differ in meaning and implementation. Besides
explaining what gamification is, it seems therefore equally important to point out what gamification is not.
What should be clear by now is that gamification is not about video games, the game industry or virtual
worlds. It is not about advergames or edutainment nor is it about the Internet or digital business
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012). There are, however, some concepts in which the distinction from gamification
is less clear.
One concept that can be easily confused with gamification is that of Serious Games. As mentioned
before, Serious Games can be defined as "any form of interactive computer-based game software for
one or multiple players to be used on any platform and that has been developed with the intention to be
more than entertainment" (Cody et al., 2009). As the military, for example, uses games to train their
soldiers by simulating the battlefield, businesses can also use games as training tools for corporate
situations or for hiring new employees. Food chain Domino’s for example, developed a game called
Pizza Hero that challenged players to virtually compose and cook pizzas (El-Khuffash, 2014). Players
that scored the highest, in terms of accuracy and speed, were directed to apply to work at Domino’s
(Zichermann & Linder, 2013). Although Domino’s pizza game, like gamification, opts to solve a real-life
business problem (hiring employees), this is an example of a Serious Game and it should therefore be
distinguished from gamification. The difference lies in the fact that Pizza Hero is a full-fledged game
whereas gamification only involves certain game elements and game design techniques. Moreover, the
definition of Serious Games stresses the use of computer-based game software. Gamification, on the
other hand, should not be limited to digital contexts alone.
Another concept that gained attention since the previous decade and seems related to gamification is
Game-based Learning. Game-based Learning can be thought of as a sub-branch of Serious Games
and sets learning outcomes as its primary goal (Corti, 2006). Corti (2006) stresses that Game-based
Learning can be a useful tool to develop new skills and knowledge in business context. By simulating
an environment, system or role-play scenario, employees can experience something that might be too
costly or risky in the real world (Corti, 2006). However, Game-based Learning differs from gamification
in that it operates in a safe environment and has no impact on reality, whereas gamification is designed
to have immediate effects on it (Vehns, 2014).

16
1.2 Theoretical framework of Gamification
This section investigates how individual game elements can enhance or inhibit motivation of individuals
in organizations. Researchers have found empirical evidence for the rise of motivation and performance
due to gamification applications. However, other researchers found a detrimental effect of gamification
on motivation and performance (Hanus & Fox, 2015). These findings could indicate that managers
should be careful when applying game mechanisms and game dynamics. Therefore, it could be argued
that practitioners need a more profound theoretical background on the psychological mechanisms and
dynamics of individual game elements to attain the desired outcomes of their organization. Few
researchers have experimentally investigated the relationship between individual game elements and
motivational outcomes (Mekler, Brühlmann, Tuch, & Opwis, 2015). However, three theories can offer a
foundation for understanding the motivational benefits of gamification: the self-determination theory, goal
setting theory and flow theory.
1.2.1 Self-determination theory.
One theory that provides insight in the different kinds of motivation that people are driven by is the Self-
determination theory. Ryan and Deci (2000) argue that motivation “concerns energy, direction,
persistence and equifinality” and leads to a higher performance of individuals. In 1999, Deci, Koestner,
and Ryan found a negative effect of certain types of rewards (e.g. financial rewards or verbal feedback)
on people's motivation. This study led to the development of a new theoretical framework on motivation:
the self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Ryan et al. (2012) described self-determination as an
authentic form of self-regulation in line with the true self. The Self-determination theory proposes three
needs that should be fulfilled to attain intrinsic motivation that leads to personal growth and well-being:
perceived competence, perceived autonomy and perceived relatedness (Deterding, 2014; Pe-Than,
Goh, & Lee, 2014).
Some researchers have treated motivation as a dual concept: intrinsic motivation versus extrinsic
motivation. However, motivation should be viewed on a continuum. Gagné and Deci (2005) differentiated
between three main types of motivation: amotivation, extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation. Table
1 offers an overview of the different types of motivation according to Gagné and Deci (2005).
Table 1: Different types of motivation (Wikimedia Commons; Gagné and Deci, 2005)
Motivation Type
Intrinsic Motivation Extrinsic Motivation Amotivation

17
Motivation Source
Internal source of
motivation: motivated
for reasons such as
interest, enjoyment,
pleasure and
satisfaction.
External source of
motivation: motivated for
reasons such as to gain
a reward or avoid
punishment.
Absence of
motivation: not
motivated to engage
in or continue goal
directed behavior due
to lack of motivation.
Motivated Behaviour
Example
Writing a thesis out of
curiosity and
willingness to learn
Writing a thesis just
because he or she needs
points to finish a master
program
Not motivated to write
a thesis
The most extreme form, “intrinsic motivation”, occurs when employees engage in a game solely because
of the enjoyable nature of the game. In addition, people could be motivated by extrinsic and intrinsic
elements at the same time. To illustrate this with an example: a student might be highly motivated to
finish his or her thesis out of curiosity and willingness to learn (intrinsic). However, at the same time, this
student might also be motivated by the fear of having to sacrifice his summer vacation (extrinsic). This
example indicates that extrinsic motivation refers to performing behaviours as a consequence of a
separable outcome, whereas intrinsic motivation refers to performing an activity because of the
interesting or enjoyable nature of the activity (Mekler et al., 2015). Therefore, intrinsic motivation can be
defined as “the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s
capabilities, to explore and to learn” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70). Mekler et al. (2015) argued that both
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation could enhance the performance and engagement of individuals and
groups. However, only intrinsic motivation led to psychological well-being, enhanced creativity and an
increase in the quality of effort of individuals (Mekler et al., 2015).
Ryan et al. (2006) argued that playing games is enjoyable and intrinsically satisfying. Internal
gamification uses both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators to guide actions and behaviours of employees
(Lander et al., 2015). To capture the relation between the self-determination theory and gamification we
investigate how competence, autonomy and relatedness are related to game elements.
Need for Competence. Competence can be defined as developing skills over time. However, it is the
perceived competence that is important in evaluating gamification. Providing the player with real-time
feedback such as points, levels and progression paths allows him to track and thus perceive his
progression. When game elements offer useful information regarding the performance of players they
will contribute to a higher sense of perceived competence (Przybylski, Rigby, & Ryan, 2010). However,

18
it is important to emphasize that game elements that provide feedback should not become stand-alone
goals, but rather play a supporting role in fulfilling an intrinsic need for competence. If the latter is
satisfied, employees should then be capable of guiding their future actions based on this received
feedback, possibly resulting in higher performance.
Need for Autonomy. Researchers argued that perceived competence is closely linked to the need for
autonomy as players want to be in the driving seat while progressing in the game. Implementing game
elements that hand out rewards as informational feedback (rather than to control behaviour) and provide
non-controlling instructions could therefore increase perceived autonomy (Ryan et al., 2006). Besides a
sense of autonomy within a gamified system itself, players also want to control when, how and how long
to play without any external social or material pressures (Deterding et al., 2011). Consequently, allowing
the player to make their own choices and to incorporate their personal preferences could lead to higher
user engagement and thus to more highly motivated employees.
Need for Relatedness. The third intrinsic motivator is the longing for relatedness with others. When
people commonly participate in a system that attaches meaning to their actions, they will also share a
common frame of reference and will therefore feel related to each other (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Regarding
internal gamification, it should be mentioned that employees are already part of the same community,
i.e. the company. This implies that a certain amount of relatedness among employees already exists
within an enterprise, which could further be nurtured by the proper use of game elements. Enabling
employees to socially interact, to share their achievements or their progression path, are examples of
how gamification could tap into this intrinsic need for relatedness.
1.2.2 Flow theory
Another theoretical concept that seems relevant within the context of gamification is 'flow'. In an attempt
to explain the psychological determinants of happiness, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) proposed a theory of
motivation based on the phenomenon of 'flow'. Csikszentmohalyi (1990) states that people who are
highly motivated can reach a 'state of flow', which he defines as follows:
“the state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to
matter; the experience itself is so enjoyable that people will do it even at great cost, for the
sheer sake of doing it” (p.4)
In flow theory, nine conditions that can foster a state of flow are presented. Each of these nine-conditions
can be explained by and linked to gamification (Csikszentmohalyi, 1990). First, “challenge-skill balance”
refers to the level of difficulty in a game. The challenges in a game should be set at the individual skill
level of employees. This means that it could become frustrating for employees when they do not succeed
in the game while trying hard. Secondly, “action-awareness merging” means that employees in a flow
state report that they perceive the situation as spontaneous. Thirdly, one of the most important

19
dimensions is to have clear goals. This will be further discussed in the goal setting theory. Fourthly,
concentration on the task seems crucial, as irrelevant information cannot disturb the flow state. This
implies that game design is crucial as it should keep the focus on the specific goals of the organization.
Fifthly, employees should have a sense of control in the game. As mentioned before, free choices and
personal preferences lead to higher user engagement. Sixth, when people attain a state of flow, a total
absorption in the activity itself occurs. The loss of self-consciousness is a consequence as employees
are not concentrated on evaluating themselves or others. Seventh, when employees experience flow,
the perception of time changes. Time seems to fly due to the enjoyment of the task. Eight, the autotelic
experience means that the experience is rewarding in itself. Finally, offering clear feedback is crucial to
guide future actions.
1.2.3 Goal-setting theory
The final theory that applies well to the motivational dynamics of gamification is the goal setting theory
by Latham & Locke. The goal setting theory argues that setting goals is motivating as it focuses attention
on goals and leads to increasing effort and persistence (Latham & Locke, 1991). Locke and Latham
(2002) found that motivation was most likely to raise when specific and difficult but attainable goals were
proposed. According to Landers and Callan (2011) gamification contains three forms of goals: badges,
levels and progress bars. More specifically, the relationship between goals and performance could be
determined by four moderators: goal commitment, feedback, task complexity and situational constraints
(Locke & Latham, 2006). These four moderators could offer a deeper insight into why gamification could
enhance the motivation of employees (Landers & Landers, 2015). First, goal commitment means that
employees should be committed to the proposed goals. How do employees become committed to
specific goals in gamification applications? Most games use points, levels and leaderboards and the
overall game design to motivate employees to play. Secondly, feedback moderates the relation between
goals and performance. The goal setting theory argues that achieving badges (goals) should be
accompanied by some sort of feedback to maximize the chance of good performance. Thirdly, task
complexity implies that goals should be difficult but attainable. Finally, situational constraints are
elements that influence goal completion.

20
2 Methodology
The purpose of this research is to determine key success factors by comparing relevant information from
gamification experts to the current scientific literature. Five semi-structured interview were performed
and analyzed. By applying the principles and guidelines of the Grounded Theory (Corbin & Strauss,
1990), five main categories were determined that could impact the successful implementation of
gamification. Finally, these categories and relevant concepts were compared with the current scientific
literature. The used methods allowed the researchers to point out gaps between what science knows on
gamification and how businesses implement gamification.
2.1 Research Design
The research design of this thesis is built upon the Grounded Theory (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). This
theory offers a framework for qualitative research that provides enlightenment of gamification in a realistic
and grounded manner (Field & Morse, 1985). More specifically, Grounded Theory starts with a bottom-
up exploration and research on a social or psychological phenomenon instead of investigating a theory.
It has been argued that Grounded Theory is especially useful when investigating a relatively new concept
such as gamification. The purpose of our research is to describe and theoretically explain the topic at
hand by investigating a set of related concepts and categories in a qualitative manner (Corbin & Strauss,
1990). The Grounded Theory can be applied to different forms of qualitative methods. In this research,
5 semi-structured interviews with experts were performed toprovide an accurate answer to the previously
proposed research questions.
The Grounded Theory proposes two key principles that guide the data collection and analysis. First, it
argues that all social phenomena are continuously changing. This point of view is reflected in the
research methods in which changing processes can directly influence the collected data. Secondly, it
argues that the choices people make are neither strictly deterministic nor nondeterministic. This implies
that people are able to make choices based on their perceptions. To summarize these principles, the
Grounded Theory proposes an interactionist perspective in which actors respond to a changing
environment and the consequences of their actions (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).
As mentioned before, the interactionist perspective is reflected in the procedures for the qualitative data
collection and data analysis. First, the phase of data collection is interrelated to the data analysis. This
means that early analysis of data can guide the selection of future data collection. In this research,
concepts or information gained in early interviews with experts could be used to gain more specific
information from the following interviews with experts. In general, it allows a more natural way of gaining
in-depth knowledge or information on gamification. In addition, this procedure allows us to deal with new
and salient information and allows for the important information of experts to be used as soon as it is

21
perceived. The second guideline of the Grounded Theory concerns the major units of analysis: concepts
on gamification. According to Corbin and Strauss (1990), the combination of incidents, events and
activities that were mentioned by experts could be labeled as different concepts. These concepts on
gamification gain importance in this research when different experts state their importance. In a third
phase, these concepts can be grouped in more abstract categories. These categories can finally lead to
the development of a theory or theoretical substantiated argument on gamification.
2.2 Data collection: semi-structured expert interviews
2.2.1 Qualitative data
This research uses semi-structured expert interviews as the main source of qualitative data. Researchers
have reported advantages related to both semi-structured interviews and expert interviews (Bogner,
Menz, & Littig, 2009). First, a semi-structured interview allows experts to propose and discuss new
concepts (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). This is vital in light of the Grounded Theory approach:
researchers learn and develop concepts and categories based on (new) arguments of practitioners and
experts. Secondly, semi-structured interviews offer the researchers a framework for the interviews at
hand. This is important because of the comparability and reliability between different researchers.
2.2.2 Sample of experts
Selecting the right experts is vital in the Grounded Theory approach as they are valuable qualitative
sources that possess privileged knowledge and information on gamification. The content and meaning
of the term “expert” has been discussed by many researchers (Dexter, 1970; Meuser & Nagel, 1991).
This research defines “experts” in line with Meuser and Nagel (1991): “an individual who engages in the
development or implementation regarding to a specific topic”. It has been argued that expert knowledge
consists of three dimensions (Meuser & Nagel, 1991). First, technical knowledge refers to specific and
detailed information on a specific topic. In our research, the first dimension refers to experts with profound
theoretical knowledge on gamification. The second dimension consists of the in-depth awareness of
routines or “process knowledge” that an expert is involved in. To this dimension belong experts who have
implemented or used gamification in organizations. Lastly, explanatory knowledge consists of the
understandings of rules and beliefs. Most of the experts in this research belong to more than one of the
dimensions of expert knowledge.
One of the most important criteria for selecting experts was that he or she had a clear connection with
internal gamification. This means that the expert was either involved in the design, implementation or
controlling phase of a gamified application in an organization or that the expert had an in depth
knowledge of internal gamification. All participants were found on the Internet based on the relevance of

22
their professional work and were contacted by mail. Table 2 offers an overview and description of the
selected experts in this research.
Table 2: Description of the selectedexperts (Linkedin)
EXPERT FUNCTION EXPERTISE ON GAMIFICATION DIMENSION
OF EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE
Mario
Herger
CEO at
Enterprise
Garage
Consultancy
Wrote two books on gamification: "Enterprise Gamification -
Engaging people by letting them have fun". His second
book, "Gamification at Work - Designing Engaging Business
Software", is the first book about gamification in enterprises.
Technical
and process
knowledge
Maarten
Molenaar
Senior
Game
Designer at
Frisse
Blikken/Conf
erence
Speaker
At Frisseblikken, Maarten is a game designer who comes up
with game-based solutions for organizations with modern
challenges. He beliefs that the power of gamification can be
used to support employees in their jobs, create change
within organizations, engage customers with your company
or can be a proper tool in any other situation in which
engagement or behavior change plays a role. In a previous
job, Maarten was lead gamification & service designer at
Rabobank Netherlands.
Technical
and process
knowledge
Esther
Oostroom
Manager
Work and
Media at
Aegon
Nederland
In 2014 Esther wrote a thesis on gamification: 'Gamification:
the engagement game'. With this thesis she won the
Andreas Award for Innovation in Corporate Communication.
In addition, she developed and introduced
Speeljetoekomst.nu in 2012. This digital platform used
Gamification in order to motivate people to learn about their
financial futures. In 2013 this online platform was rewarded
with two Red Dot awards: Best of Best in interaction design
and the Grand Prix in communication design.
Technical
and process
knowledge
Jeroen
Van
Eeghem
Operation
Manager at
Vision
Deloitte
Jeroen develops and implements gamification applications
in different organizations with a main focus on learning
applications.
Process
knowledge
Steve Dale Owner/Foun
der of
Collabor8no
w Ltd
Steve Dale published two articles on gamification:
“Gamification: Making work fun, or making fun of work?” and
“Gamification: Managing Information”. In addition, He’s
working on Knowledge Management and Information
Management, but focussed on the relation between people
(users), technology and business processes.
Technical
and process
knowledge
2.2.3 Procedure
The semi-structured expert interviews were performed by the three researchers. All the interviews were
performed on Skype in English or Dutch and were based on a specific list of topics on gamification. The

23
duration of all interviews was between 35 and 60 minutes. The recordings of each interview were
transcribed literally. All experts allowed us to use the gathered data for our research objectives.
2.3 Data Analysis
In this research, expert interviews were coded in line with the procedures proposed by the Grounded
Theory (Corbin, & Strauss, 1990). Three forms of coding were applied:
1. Open coding
2. Axial coding
3. Selective coding
First, open coding refers to the interpretive and analytic breakdown of received data. Incidents, events
and activities were labeled separately between interviewers and compared. The discussion between the
three interviewers led to the development of conceptual labels. For example, “feedback” and
“organizational culture” were two concepts that could label some incidents, events and activities in the
first interviews. In addition, categories of concepts were developed. For example, “organizational culture”
seemed to belong to the category “context alignment” of gamification applications within organizations.
One of the advantages of the Grounded Theory is that these concepts and categories become the basis
for new and in depth observations in following expert interviews. The phase of open coding can be
perceived as descriptive. It supports the researchers to become more aware of the different dimensions
of the research topic. Another advantage of open coding is that subjective and bias is limited as the three
researchers constantly discussed and compared categories and concepts (Corbin, & Strauss, 1990).
Secondly, the process of axial coding refers to the process of further developing categories. More
specific, axial coding led, in this research, to hierarchical relationships between groups of concepts. This
enabled the development of five main categories and many subcategories. These categories were at
any moment verified or adapted based on new information or data received through continued expert
interviews.
Finally, selective coding refers to the development of a “core” category that relates to all categories and
subcategories (Corbin, & Strauss, 1990). In addition, relationships between the major categories were
investigated and described.
2.4 Comparison between the experts and the current scientific literature
In a next phase, the core categories and concepts mentioned by the experts were compared to the
current scientific literature. Despite the fact that gamification is still trendy and often unknown, the

24
academic interest keeps growing. However, it could be argued that a large amount of scientific articles
is describing the phenomenon rather than investigating it. The comparison between what experts and
the scientific literature knows on successfully implementing gamification is valuable for both managers
and future scientific research. This method allowed identifying gaps between what sciences know on
gamification and what business practices. Table 3 gives an overview of the concepts that were
mentioned in by the experts in the semi-structured interviews.

25
Table 3: Overview of the main categories and concepts mentioned in the expert interviews
Interviews*
Categories & Concepts 1 2 3 4 5
1. Clear Objective
Realistic    
Appropriate     
Focus on behavior  
Measurable    
2. User Centered Approach
Observation of the users    
Employee differences    
3. Context alignment
Supportive environment     
Branch   
Corporate culture    
4. Evolving design
Iterative process    
Long term    
5. Intrinsic motivation
Game elements     
Extrinsic rewards     
Intrinsic rewards    
* 1= Esther Oostrom
2= Jeroen Van Eeghem
3= Steve Dale
4= Maarten Molenaar
5= Mario Herger

26
3 Results
This section explores the key determinants of a successful gamification design. In this regard,
participants were asked about their experience in designing and implementing gamified systems. The
posed questions gauged the expert’s successes and failures with gamification, as well as the potential
influence of several context variables such as business environment, corporate culture and employee
traits.
Table 4: Clear objectives and associatedconcepts
Associated concepts Explanation
Realistic Pitfalls: overoptimistic due to novelty; biased
success criteria
Focus on behavior Gamification = solution? Focus on human
(machine) interaction
Measurable Measure target behaviour: source of data;
metrics for success
Every expert stressed the importance of setting clear objectives before starting a gamification project.
Table 4 indicates the related concepts that emerged from the interviews. Two participants emphasized
that these objectives should be realistic and deemed optimism and bias among managers important
reasons for an unsuccessful gamification design (Herger, & Dale, 2016). Another important insight
coming from the interviews was that gamification is no cure-all solution but that it is only suited for
problems that involve behaviour. Hence, the objectives should specifically target those behaviours that
the gamified system intends to modify. Finally, most of the experts considered the measurability of the
objectives a preliminary requirement of a successful gamification design (Herger, Oostrom, & Molenaar,
2016).
Table 5: User-centeredapproach and associatedconcepts
Observation of the users Know your players, draw profiles
Employee differences Traits; demographics (age, gender)
Another key determinant of successful gamification design is that it should be user-centered. Every
expert mentioned that a gamification designer should follow a user-centered approach in order to

27
succeed. As table 5 indicates, two concepts regarding user-centered approach could be defined. It
appears that each gamification design begins with a thorough understanding of its future users; the
employees. Mario Herger (2016) for instance said: “know your audience, knowing your players is the
most important thing in designing gamification”. The participants agreed unanimously that observation
of the users within the organizational context is essential to reach such an understanding. The use of
‘prefab’ gamification systems that are not tailored to the firm’s employees was even considered one of
the main risks of implementing gamification. According to the experts, the main goal of observation is to
reveal the differences between the employees. The participants mentioned two clusters of differences -
traits and demographics- that should both be taken into account when designing a gamified system.
Table 6: Context alignment and associated concepts
Supportive environment Gamification as part of an integrated strategy
Branch Competitiveness
Corporate culture Fear of being exposed, conservative mindset
The third category that was detected in almost every expert’s answer is context alignment. The majority
of the experts expressed that a gamification design can only be effective if it is well aligned with the
context in which it is implemented. Table 6 provides an overview of the different concepts that emerged
with regard to context: supporting environment, branch and corporate culture. According to the experts,
gamification has to be supported by the larger business environment. Furthermore, two participants
mentioned that the corporate culture of an organization plays a significant role in determining whether
gamification is a proper solution. Finally, three experts stated that a gamification design should take into
account the characteristics of the firm’s branch.
Table 7: Evolving design and associatedconcepts
Iterative process Trial-error; adapt design based on data
measurement
Long Term Risk of being gamed; stay meaningful
The fourth major category that emerged from the expert’s answers is evolving design. Almost every
participant stated that a gamification design should be constantly evolving in order to succeed in the long

28
run. Table 7 provides two concepts that are related to an evolving design. The experts mentioned that
gamification should stay meaningful in order to generate actual behavioural change among its users in
the long run. Two participants even warned that a static game design risks ending up being gamed by
its users. Finally, the iterative nature of the designing process and the crucial function of data were also
acknowledged by several experts.
Table 8: Intrinsic motivation and associated concepts
Game elements
Extrinsic rewards Points, badges, feedback
Intrinsic rewards Recognition, autonomy, fun, meaningful
choices, mastery, fun
Finally, all of the participants stated that a successful gamification design is one that intrinsically
motivates employees. Table 8 indicates which game elements were discussed in the interviews with
regard to intrinsic motivation. To achieve intrinsic motivation, the gamification design should consist of
game elements that trigger the players to engage in the desired behaviour. The game elements that
were discussed the most were rewards, of which two sorts emerged; extrinsic rewards and intrinsic
rewards. Most of the experts agreed that the ultimate success of gamification flows from the presence
of intrinsically rewarding experiences. In this regard, three out of five participants mentioned a sense of
autonomy, recognition and fun as successful intrinsic rewards. In addition, two out of five participants
stated that being able to make meaningful choices is also an essential intrinsic motivator. In respect to
extrinsic rewards on the other hand, the expert’s opinions seemed rather divided. Most participants
stated that extrinsic rewards, such as points and badges, could trigger intrinsic motivation among
employees in the short run. In the long run however, these extrinsic rewards should always be supported
by and combined with intrinsically rewarding experiences.

29
4 Discussion
This section will discuss the results in light of the academic literature in order to provide a coherent
framework for successful gamification. The comparison of the results with academic literature will also
enable us to reveal potential discrepancies between the knowledge in professional and academic context
regarding gamification. The figure below provides a visual overview of the results previously described.
4.1 Clear objectives
When designing a gamified system, it seems crucial to start with clear objectives. According to the
experts, defining the purpose and desired outcome serves as guidance for how to design and implement
gamification and is therefore crucial to its success. The experts’ views regarding clear objectives
appears to be in line with the academic literature. Werbach (2012) for instance, states that each gamified
system should have specific performance goals, such as improving employee engagement and
productivity. According to the experts, clear objectives should be realistic, measurable and focus on
behaviour in order to be successfully translated into an effective gamification design.
4.1.1 Realistic
First, the experts argued that unrealistic goals are one of the main explanations for an unsuccessful
gamification project. It appears that the success of gamification corresponds, to a great extent, to what
is expected beforehand. As with every other management technique, gamification is no magic, cure-all
Figure 4: Key determinants of a successfulgamification design

30
solution. In Steve Dale’s (2016) experience, the novelty of gamification is accompanied with a certain
naivety among managers about its potential, which may often result in unrealistic expectations. By being
overly optimistic while neglecting gamification’s complexity, managers may fail to implement gamification
effectively.
The interviews seem to provide evidence for another negative consequence of setting overoptimistic
goals. Because the success of a gamified project is evaluated in light of predetermined objec tives,
unrealistic goals may lead managers to misguidedly consider gamification unsuccessful, causing them
to abandon the system too soon. This may, in part, be an explanation for the great percentage of failed
gamification projects described in academic literature. Research by Gartner (2014) for example,
suggests that 80 percent of current gamified applications will fail to meet business objectives. Expert
Mario Herger (2016) however, nuances these numbers by recognizing the relative nature of success as
follows:
“So and what does it mean successful or not successful? If you are going for changing
engagement with 500 percent, then you will probably fail. So make a realistic prediction.”
The two pitfalls described above seem to stress the importance of being realistic when determining the
objectives of a gamification within an organization. It might therefore be advisable to managers not to
be misguided by the “bells and whistles” of gamification but instead to consult research in order to set
realistic business objectives.
4.1.2 Appropriate: focus on behaviour
An important insight that most of the experts shared is that gamification is not suited for every problem
or challenge. Mario Herger (2016) states that gamification is only appropriate for problems that involve
some sort of behaviour:
“Every problem where human interaction or human-machine interaction happens is a potential
candidate for gamification”.
By clearly defining the problem, a game designer can therefore quickly determine whether gamification
is an appropriate solution. If the identified problem involves behaviour and gamification is found to be a
suitable solution, the objectives should clearly include all of the behaviours the gamified system intends
to modify.
This behavioural focus of gamification appears to be well reflected in academic research. Leeson
(2013), for example, suggests that when designing gamification the objectives should focus on the
behaviours you want your employees to adopt. Researchers from the Incentive Research Foundation
(IRF) confirm this view and state that each objective consists of many specific behaviours that all should
be understood and specified in order for gamification to be designed appropriately. If your objective is to

31
increase productivity for example, a game designer should list in detail all of the different behaviours that
employees engage in to improve their productivity, such as education or using new tools (Welbourn &
Schlachter, 2014). Furthermore, these target behaviours need to be specific and concrete and should
promote the predetermined business objectives, although this relationship could be indirect (Werbach &
Hunter, 2012).
4.1.3 Measurable
Finally, most of the experts argued that, in order to maximize the success of a gamification project,
objectives should be measurable.
“A game designer should only set objectives that are measurable.” (Esther Oostrom, 2016)
Being able to measure the targeted behaviours among employees enables managers to learn how
employees interact with the system. As Oostrom (2016) mentioned, this data provides a valuable source
of information that managers can use to assess the success of a gamification design and identify possible
areas for improvement.
The academic literature confirms this view and deems the measurability of objectives a key determinant
for a successful gamification design. Werbach & Hunter (2012), for instance, state that objectives should
be accompanied with certain metrics of success that allow managers to translate behaviours into
quantifiable results. These numbers may or may not be transparent to the players and are used to
generate feedback. Furthermore, Davey et al. (2015) argued that organizations should define
measurable key performance indicators (KPI's) in order to measure the return on investment of the
gamified application. The key performance indicators of internal gamification consist of the engagement
of employees and the efficiency of business processes. By defining measurable objectives, gamification
designers can build in frequent and more efficient measurements to analyze how engaged their
employees are at a specific moment. In addition, this data may also be used to determine whether
employees are obeying the rules within the gamified system (Robson et al., 2015).
4.2 User centered approach
When clear goals and objectives are determined, managers and game designers should start to know
their audience before designing the game. One of the experts, Maarten Molenaar (2016), argued that
not adapting the game to the target group was the most important reason that gamification failed in
organizations. This section shows that a user centered approach is vital because of both demographic
differences and differences in traits among employees. More specifically, time and resources should be
invested to analyze the targeted audience before designing a gamified application. Palmer, Lunceford
and Patton (2011) defined the goal of observing employees as follows:

32
“The goal is not to “game” or manipulate your target audiences, but rather to mesh behavioural
science with social technologies to increase the interaction and engagement with audiences. ”
(p. 67)
At the end, two models that categorize employees in different player types are discussed based on the
experiences of experts in real organizational settings.
4.2.1 Observation of the targeted employees
Employees experience gamified applications differently because they react differently towards rewards,
competition, challenges and social interactions. Whereas some employees may thrive on receiving
points and competition with others, other players may become demotivated because they like to
collaborate in a team and interact with others. The meaningfulness of an internal game is thus determined
by the adaptation to the targeted employees. Observing employees will result in a design strategy
concerning questions such as: what game elements will be implemented? How long will it be applied?
What kinds of rewards are suitable for the employees? Both the experts and scientific literature stressed
the importance of “knowing your audience”. However, they differed in the way player profiles were
developed.
According to the experts, many organizations use non-adapted, “prefabricated” games that do not
succeed. These applications fail because employees differ in what motivates and demotivates them, in
how they experience the game and in what makes them happy. For example, Steve Dale argued that
managers “have to recognize that there are different people and what intrigues one type of person may
not intrigue the other”. Similar to the experts, previous scientific research found that employees interact
in different manners and for different reasons with gamification applications (Hamari et al., 2014).
Another advantage of observing employees is that this process renders data that provides valuable
insights. As the interviews pointed out, data plays a key role in the user-centered approach that
gamification should implement. It seems that people analytics find their way in organizations. In “the new
organization: different by design”, Deloitte described people analytics as follows:
“the use of people-related data to improve and inform all types of management, business, and
HR decisions throughout the company” (p. 87)
The key of people analytics is that managers can make better decisions by “listening” more profoundly
to employees through the use of data. Managers can use data to understand how individual employees
and teams behave in the organization. In addition, the gamified application can be adapted through the
analysis of the engagement of different age groups or gender. For example, when older employees are
less engaged, game designers could adapt communication to this group or develop challenges that are
more relevant to this group.

33
In the following section, three aspects that could influence the experience of employees are discussed:
age, gender and team versus individual.
A. Gender
Steve Dale (2016) noticed that women like gamification techniques more than men. According to Esther
Oostrom (2016), gender differences can be brought back to differences in motivations. Whereas men
are more likely to be motivated by external factors, women are more likely to be intrinsically motivated.
In addition, Oostrom noticed that women are looking for more social motivators like appreciation and
acknowledgment in their work. Similarly, researchers have found that women report greater social
benefits when using gamified applications (Koivisto &Hamari, 2014). Thus the experts and scientific
literature seems to agree that organizations need to consider gender differences when designing
gamified applications. Specifically, women like to overcome challenges by working together and by
interacting. The experts and the literature argue that men could benefit from competitive elements like
leaderboards, point, badges and different levels.
B. Age
Some researchers argued that people of different ages might like computer or video games equally.
More specific, 67 percent of American households play digital games (Miller, 2012). Do these results
indicate that the age of employees within an organizational setting should not be taken into account when
developing an internal gamification design?
The experts did not find any significant demographic differences in terms of age. For example, Esther
Oostrom (2016) argued that age does not necessarily impact the game experience when clear goals are
clearly stated and when the game is meaningful. Therefore, all ages can benefit from gamified solutions.
In contrast to the experts, the scientific literature did find a major influence of age on the gamified
experience. For instance, Koivisto et al. (2014) found that the ease of use declined with older employees.
Similarly, researchers argued that whereas young employees are familiar with gamification concepts,
older employees would perhaps need additional information and guidance (Sims, 2015). This perspective
is in line with Macdonald (2014) who argued that age groups would feel left behind when they lack
modern game literacy or game experience. Moreover, Macdonald claimed that it could lead to low morale
and low engagement in the future (Macdonald, 2014). However, the experts in our research argued that
the scientific research seems to focus only on the digital application of gamification. However, older
employees should not necessary lag behind when gamified applications are not digital.
C. Teams vs. individuals
One of the experts argued that the collective experience of teams could be important in the creation of a
game. The competition between different departments can stimulate teams positively. Again, this is
dependent on the context of the organization. In line with the experts, researchers found a significant

34
difference between an individual or team targeted gamification design. For example, one organization
changed from individual competition to team-level competition within the game because of the low
engagement of individuals. After this change, the engagement and participation in the game rose from
five percent to ninety percent (Korolov, 2012).
4.2.2 Developing player profiles
Previously, it was argued that managers and game designers should “know their audience”. More
specific, they need to consider differences between employees in motivations caused by gender, age or
team versus individual effects. However, it seems unrealistic that managers and game designers can
adapt games to the individual level of every employee. For this reason, groups of players can be
segmented into broader player types or player profiles based on their motivations, player styles and
preferences in games (Deterding et al., 2011). In this regard, the experts in our research mentioned the
player types of Bartle and those created by Amy Jo Kim. In this section, a clear gap could be noticed
between what science knows and what business does concerning gamification's player types.
One of the most recognized models on player types in the current scientific literature has been created
by Richard Bartle (1996). He differentiated between 4 player types based on the direction of their
pleasure (action versus interaction) and players’ orientation (player orientated versus world orientated):
achievers, explorers, socializers and killers. In his article “Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Player who
suit MUDs”, Bartle compares these player types to symbols of playing cards. Figure 5 illustrates the
different player types and comparison with the symbols of playing cards.
Achievers “Diamonds” Bartle (1996) argued that achievers enjoy a game when they concur challenging
goals. More specific, achievers are focused on rising levels by gathering points
in the game. Achievers are looking for action and are focused on their individual
development in the game. They are proud with the formal status in a game
(Bartle, 1996). Applied to gamification, achievers benefit from well-developed
levels, challenges and feedback.
Explorers “Spades” Explorers seek for information on the mechanisms of the game itself. Bartle
(1996) argues that they interact intensely with the game by trying to find
interesting features and by figuring out how the game works. Players of this type
becomes proud when they achieve an 'expert status' within the game and usually
have a lot of knowledge on different features. Managers and game designers
can adapt a gamified solution to explorers by focusing on different progression
paths and a variety of possible meaningful choices as this stimulates explorers
in their game experience.

35
Socializers“Hearts” The socializers find pleasure in a game by interacting with other players. The
game is perceived as a means to interact with other people. Socializers benefit
from gamified applications that allow them to interact and achieve goals in group.
Bartle (1996) argues that socializers become proud of the friendship and
contacts they build while playing the game. When developing a gamified
application for socializers, there should be many opportunities to interact and
meet other players.
Killers “Clubs” Bartle (1996) found that killers are thrilled by action and defeating others.
Applied to gamification, these players seek a competitive game environment
with leaderboards and competitive challenges. Killers take pride in gaining a
strong reputation in the game.
Another important model concerning player types was developed by Amy Jo Kim (2010). Kim (2010)
adapted Bartle’s model to a gamification context instead of to the MUDs game. Kim argued that four
“social engagement verbs”, presented in figure 6, could capture differences between players: compete,
collaborate, explore and express (Kim, 2010). First, "compete" is similar to the achiever player type of
Bartle and refers to people who are motivated to reach goals and rise levels when competing to others.
Secondly, "collaborate" category includes players that are motivated by collective activities as they lead
to situations in which people can win together (Kim, 2010). This verb is similar to the socializer player
type of Bartle. Thirdly and identical to the explorer player type of Bartle, the "explore" category refers to
players who thrive on having information access and knowledge (Kim, 2010). Finally, "express" refers to
the self-expression of players. Kim (2010) argues that some players are motivated by expressing
themselves and by being creative.
Figure 5: Bartle’s player types (Bartle, 1996)

36
Both the player types from Bartle (1996) and the social engagement verbs of Kim (2010) provide a
framework that could be used to deal with large differences in motivation and pleasure between
employees. However, the experts in this research were not convinced by the simplification of both
models. It seems that practitioners use more detailed models to analyze player types.
Maarten Molenaar (2016), for example, argues that gamified applications are too often designed based
on one of the player types of Bartle or Kim. When Molenaar (2016) creates player types, however, he
takes four other aspects into account. First, he recognizes the importance of demographic
characteristics, such as the age of employees, their gender and their education. Secondly, Molenaar
(2016) tries to find out what motivates individuals in the group. Thirdly, triggers that could stimulate and
engage the players are determined. Finally, Molenaar (2016) tries to find out the triggers that lead
employees to quit with the gamified applications. Based on those four main questions, he tries to create
player profiles that can lead to the design of a gamified solution. Similarly, Mario Herger (2016) argued
that the player types of Bartle are too simplistic. Herger argues that only 1 percent of employees could
be categorized as “killers”. In addition, competition has an adverse effect on what we want to achieve
when using gamification. Mario Herger argues that while Bartle has two dimensions, he uses more than
twelve dimensions to create player profiles.
To conclude, the experts argued that the existing models on player types might be too simplistic and that
practitioners in business settings can use more sophisticated ways to determine player types and player
profiles within an organization. It can be argued that managers and game designers should invest time
and resources into observing the targeted employees, determining the main differences and creating
Figure 6: Kim’s social engagement verbs (Kim, 2012)

37
player profiles based on data gathered from the observation. For example, Mario Herger sits together
with employees for approximately two weeks to determine their profile and then adapts the gamified
system to the different player types that emerged.
4.3 Context alignment
Another topic mentioned by the experts was the alignment of gamification with the organization. For
example, Steve Dale argued that points, awards and badges can only work when they are strategically
aligned with other business objectives and procedures. Similarly, other experts mentioned the
importance of a supportive environment. The scientific literature agrees that the organizational context
might be a vital antecedent for successfully implementing gamification (Hamari et al., 2014). For
example, gamification can only succeed when the game design is strategically aligned with the present
information systems and business workflows. Mario Herger (2016) stated that gamification should only
be considered a suitable solution for behavioral problems. In this regard, Maarten Molenaar (2016) added
that it is quite difficult to sustainably change human behavior because people tend to relapse into their
habits. He further mentioned that changing behaviors in the long run will almost always fail when the
context, in which the gamified project is embedded, is not supportive.
“Imagine you want to motivate your employees to use the stairs more often. You can design a
whole gamified system around this activity by rewarding employees for doing so. However, it is
equally important to create a supportive environment. For example, you can promote the
importance of daily exercise by handing out information and make the elevator a little bit slower”.
(Maarten Molenaar)
More specifically, rewards that are attached to gamification should be aligned with the current
compensation and benefits strategies within an organization. Otherwise, rewards could distort the
intended context (Deterding, Björk, Nacke, Dixon, & Lawley, 2013). However, when managers are aware
of the impact that the organizational context could have on a gamified application, they can take this into
account when designing the application (Richards, Thompson, & Graham, 2014).
4.3.1 Branch
With regard to branch, our experts did not perceive significant differences. Mario Herger (2016), for
example, countered the belief that employees in sales are more competitive. Furthermore, Steve Dale
(2016) argued that gamification could work in different branches and industries. The fact that the success
of gamification was not considered dependent on the branch or industry in which the firm operates does
not seem surprising. When combining a user-centered approach while at the same time aligning the

38
gamified design with the organizational context, gamification could be successful in every organizational
context. Accordingly, Mario Herger (2016) stated the success or failure of a gamification project only
depends on how well the system is designed.
4.3.2 Corporate culture
Although, as mentioned above, the success or failure of a gamification project seems more depended
on its design then on the context in which it operates, some experts recognized that some organizational
cultures will be more suitable for gamification then others. Steve Dale (2016), for instance, argued that
some organizational cultures are more appropriate for testing gamified applications, whereas other
cultures might be more resistant to experimenting with gamified systems. In addition, it was argued that
some cultures could inhibit employees from engaging in gamified application due to an overemphasis on
control and standardization. Similarly, researchers found that large organizations are often risk averted,
leading to low levels of innovation and creativity (Kumar et al., 2015). Accordingly, Esther Oostrom (2016)
argued that gamification can be difficult in a more traditional and hierarchical organization. Oostrom
further added that the organizational culture should be carefully assessed to determine whether or not
an organization is ready to implement gamification. Regarding the success of gamified application in the
long term, the literature suggests that culture could have an important influence. For example, Denning
(2011) claimed that:
“new processes like gamification may appear to make progress for a while, but eventually the
interlocking elements of the organizational culture take over and the change is inexorably
drawn back into the existing organizational culture.”
This statement resonates very well with the previous statement from Maarten Molenaar who indicated
that behavioral change should be supported by the entire environment, including the prevailing coporate
culture, in which gamification is implemented. Although many respondents indicated that some
organizational cultures might be more willing to experiment with gamification, none of the respondents
specifically described the characteristics of such cultures. Research by Warmelink (2011) on the
characteristics of playful organizations did specify some crucial elements that foster the application of
innovative ideas such as gamification. According to Warmelink (2011), organizations that value the
principles of equivalence and meritocracy, i.e. offering employees equal opportunities for growth and
social recognition, could be considered a more appropriate environment for gamification. These values
align with game elements that also apply the value of meritocracy by immediately affording players with
points for doing something well and subsequently communicate the points to all other players.

39
4.4 Evolving design
According to the experts, a gamification design should keep evolving in order to have positive effects.
As Stephen Dale pointed out: “if you keep things exactly the same, it isn’t a game. So you have to
continually evolve and change the strategy”. It appears that designing a gamified system should be
considered an on-going process rather than a one-time job that is finished after implementation. The
experts stressed that gamification should change in order to stay meaningful to its users, especially in
the long run. As the following quote points out, this view accords with academic research:
“Once the gamified experience is under way, managers must remember that in order for the
experience to remain engaging to any player type, as well as for the experience to continue to
meet organizational goals, adjusting and transitioning the experience is key” (Robson et al.,
2015).
4.4.1 Iterative process
Many participants mentioned the iterative character of a gamification designing process. Maarten
Molenaar (2016) states that each gamification project involves certain assumptions that should be tested
as soon and as frequently as possible. As mentioned before, the data that results from the employees
participating in the gamified experience serves as an extremely valuable indicator of the project’s
efficacy. By constantly analyzing this data, managers can determine what is working or not, make
adjustments, formulate new assumptions and so on. The cyclical nature of this process enables
managers to quickly apply the insights gathered from data in order to maximize success.
In the academic context, only a few researchers mention the importance of an iterative process when
designing gamification. Ruhi (2015), for example, states that an effective design begins with proper
planning and cyclical improvements based on system testing and user feedback. Although some
research mentions the iterative character of designing gamification, this focus seems less pronounced
within the academic context.
4.4.2 Long term
As the interviewees pointed out, the extent to which a gamified system should change and evolve is
largely dependent on the term of implementation. According to experts, static gamification designs may
generate some positive results in the short run but will soon become ineffective. According to Maarten
Molenaar (2016) gamification, if not changing substantially, cannot be effective longer than two or three
weeks. An important explanation for this was provided by expert Steve Dale (2016) who suggested that
a fixed gamification design risks being gamed by its users. This view was also confirmed and explained
by Mario Herger (2016) who stated that, although a simple and unchanging gamification design might
generate some positive outcomes at first, employees will eventually seek shortcuts to receive the

40
rewards present in quick and easy ways, while neglecting the actual quality of their work. In this case,
as employees will stop performing the targeted behaviour as soon as the rewards are removed,
gamification has the exact opposite effect.
In other words, when gamification is expected to be implemented for a longer period, an evolving design
seems required. It is argued that gamification should stay meaningful if it wants to effectuate long-lasting
behaviour change among employees (Maarten Molenaar, 2016). The academic literature seems to agree
with this point of view and provides a deeper understanding as regards to which features a gamification
design should contain to keep employees interested. First, the system’s content should be up-to-date,
innovative and exciting to the users. In addition, the tasks that are promoted within the design should be
of a suitable difficulty level so that employees stay properly challenged (Vehns, 2014). Research by
Fels & Seaborn (2015) suggests that the difficulty level of completing challenges and obtaining rewards
should not be constant. Instead, gamification should feature rewards that are scalable. By presenting
low initial barriers to entry that yield greater rewards in exchange for completing more complex and
involved challenges, employees can be motivated to keep trying harder (Fels & Seaborn, 2015). In this
regard, Werbach & Hunter (2012) mention the concept of ‘progression stairs’, a term that reflects the fact
that a successful game experience evolves, with an escalating level of challenges, as users move
through it. This increasing difficulty should not be completely linear, but instead should increase at
variable rates. The illustration below clearly indicates this varying difficulty between different levels.
These insights can be linked to Csikszentmohalyi’s 'flow theory' that was earlier described in the
theoretical framework of gamification. Csikszentmohalyi (1990) suggests that in order to reach a state of
flow, the difficulty of a game should be in balance with the individual skill level of employees. If challenges
are too easy, users might lose their interest. On the other hand, challenges that are too difficult might
result in frustration among employees that try hard but are unable to succeed. In either case, employees
will eventually abandon the system and gamification will ultimately fail.
Figure 7: Progression stairs (Werbach & Hunter, 2012)

The Key Determinants of Success for Internal Gamification

The Key Determinants of Success for Internal Gamification

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (6)

Similar to The Key Determinants of Success for Internal Gamification

Similar to The Key Determinants of Success for Internal Gamification (20)

The Key Determinants of Success for Internal Gamification