322 - Lobna Hassan PDF

LOBNA HASSAN
MEANS TO GAMEFUL ENDS:

HOW SHOULD GAMIFICATION BE DESIGNED?
322 EKONOMI OCH SAMHÄLLE
ECONOMICS AND SOCIETY
For a long time, information systems have been de- gle to provide comprehensive guidance for the gamifica-
signed to provide organizational utility, efficiency, and tion design process.
cost reduction. As technological advancement took place, This dissertation employs the goal-setting theory, show-
information systems grew to further facilitate personal pro- casing how gamification design can suit the preferences
ductivity and entertainment. Out of modern systems, games of different users. The dissertation additionally investigates
have an extraordinary reach in modern society. That reach contextualized gamification design by employing the de-
eventually became too significant to ignore without system- liberation theory and researching design for collective,
atic study. While many individuals recognize the value of group engagement such as is seen in the context of civic
and need for hard work in life, many—perhaps all—do not engagement. Finally, the dissertation contributes a holistic
wish to live in a universe of pure work or passive engage- gamification design method that incorporates the design
ment with their life’s activities. In that light, scholars began knowledge currently gathered in the gamification fields, as
investigating game design as a means to attain enjoyment well as lessons learned from the failure of gamification pro-
and motivation in mundane life activities, giving birth to the jects. The contributions complement each other and pro-
gamification movement as we know it today. vide a multi-dimensional gamification design knowledge
As a design and research stream, gamification refers to on how gamification should be designed.
the design of systems, services, and processes to provide While this dissertation has theoretically and practically
“gameful” experiences—psychological experiences, simi- contributed to the knowledge on gamification design, there
lar to those provided by games—to positively influence en- is more to be researched before gamification design can
gagement with mundane life activities. While the user ben-
efits reported from implementing gamification showcase
its potentially positive impact, the understanding of how to
come close to being perfect. The journey to gamify is mere-
ly commencing. Not only is this pursuit of how to gamify
essential to understand a phenomenon and the human be-
MEANS TO GAMEFUL ENDS
LOBNA HASSAN – MEANS TO GAMEFUL ENDS

design gamification is still in its infancy. Some gamification havior around it, but it is also essential to create a gameful
designs may be suitable to some users or in certain con-
texts, but the same designs may not have the same results
reality, one not of pure work but of enjoyment, motivation,
persistence and flow.
for different users or in different contexts. Furthermore, cur-
rent methods to design gamification have been developed
in isolation, each reinventing the wheel, and hence strug-
LOBNA HASSAN
HANKEN
SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
HELSINKI
ARKADIANKATU 22, P.O. BOX 479
00101 HELSINKI, FINLAND
PHONE +358 (0)29 431 331
978-952-232-368-2 (printed) VAASA

978-952-232-369-9 (PDF) KIRJASTONKATU 16, P.O. BOX 287
ISSN-L 0424-7256 65101 VAASA, FINLAND
ISSN 0424-7256 (printed) PHONE +358 (0)6 3533 700
ISSN 2242-699X (PDF)
[email protected]
JUVENES PRINT, HELSINKI HANKEN.FI/DHANKEN
Ekonomi och samhälle
Economics and Society
Skrifter utgivna vid Svenska handelshögskolan

Publications of the Hanken School of Economics
No. 322
Lobna Sameer Mostafa Mostafa Hassan
Means to Gameful Ends

How Should Gamification Be Designed?
Helsinki 2018
Means to Gameful Ends: How Should Gamification Be Designed?
Key words: Gamification, gamefulness, motivation, e-participation, civic engagement
© Hanken School of Economics & Lobna Hassan, 2018
Lobna Sameer Mostafa Mostafa Hassan

Hanken School of Economics
Information Systems Sciences, Department of Management & Organization
P.O.Box 479, 00101 Helsinki, Finland
Hanken School of Economics
ISBN 978-952-232-368-2 (printed)

ISBN 978-952-232-369-9 (PDF)
ISSN-L 0424-7256
ISSN 0424-7256 (printed)
Juvenes Print – Suomen Yliopistopaino Oy, Helsinki 2018

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This PhD journey initiated a profound dismantling and reconstruction of my reality

and understanding of it on every level. It has been the start of an endlessly passionate
journey of self and world understanding and reinvention. It is only the debut of a
research career.
I stand at this temporary “end” not with a new understanding of reality, but in awe of
the endless pursuit of what it could be. I stand in awe of the hands of time, human
cognition, human psyche, and how the three entwine to paint the fluid and ever-
changing canvas of life.
While some journeys must be undertaken alone, one is profoundly lucky and privileged
to have companions who guide or walk alongside them. For walking with me on this
merely beginning journey, I sincerely express my gratitude to my:
x Research advisors, alphabetically: Dr. Juho Hamari, Dr. J. Tuomas

Harviainen, and Dr. Mikael Laakso
x Degree advisor: Dr. Bo-Christer Björk
x Pre-examiners: Dr. Sylvester Arnab and Dr. Harri Oinas-Kukkonen
x Opponent: Dr. Sylvester Arnab
x Funding organizations: Hanken Support Foundation and the Foundation for
Economic Education: Liikesivistysrahasto.
x Office mate and sounding board: Pekka Buttler
x Colleagues and friends at Hanken: Anna Abramova, Alexander Grun, Kari
Jalonen, Lena Jungell, Mikaela Krohn, Linus Nyman, Fouad-Philippe Saadé,
Cenyu Shen, and Mikko Vesa
x Colleagues and friends at the Gamification Group: Mila Bujic, Bahadir Gurkan,
Henrietta Jylhä, Jonna Koivisto, Henry Korkeila, Joseph Macey, Benedikt
Morschheuser, Timo Nummenmaa, Max Sjöblom, and Maria Törhönen
x My brilliant and possibly imaginary co-author: Tommy Tomitchini
x My dear friends in Cairo, Egypt and around the globe: Rana Abdurrahman,
Nader Alexan, Afaf Aref, Mayar Bakeer, Mai Elshimy, Manal Elshimy, Mona
Elshimy, Heba Ezz El Din, Sarah Hamed, Marian Hany, Sarah Mohsen, and
Rasha Rushdy
x Nerdfighters and ever-present friends: Marwa Ahmed & Sofana Al-Bahi,
x Mom, Dad, Rasha, and Mohammed, thank you for the endless support!
Lobna Hassan
Helsinki 09.09.2018
iv
NOTE
The publishing name of the author of this dissertation changed to Lobna Hassan in late
2015. Thus, the dissertation author has publications prior to 2015 under the name Lobna
Sameer, which are often cited in the body of this manuscript.
The publishing name Lobna Sameer was also once misprinted as Lobna Samer in an
article published by the journal Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy.
The journal has been notified.
v
CONTENTS
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Positioning the dissertation.................................................................................... 1
1.2. Research problem and questions ........................................................................... 2
1.3. Structure of the dissertation................................................................................... 5
2. Gamification: a background ......................................................................................... 8
2.1. A short history of the gamification of modern systems ........................................ 8
2.2. Gamification: What it is ........................................................................................ 9
2.2.1. Behavioral psychology roots of gamification............................................... 11
2.2.2. Positive psychology roots of gamification ................................................... 12
2.3. Gamification design practices ............................................................................. 14
2.4. Summary and conclusions ................................................................................... 14
3. Gamification design-user fit ....................................................................................... 15
3.1. The gamification design space ............................................................................ 15
3.2. Goal-setting theory and gamification design fit .................................................. 17
4. Gamification design-use context fit ........................................................................... 20
4.1. Understanding the context of civic engagement.................................................. 21
4.2. Deliberation theory and gamified e-participation................................................ 23
5. Gamification design and research processes ............................................................. 25
5.1. Gamification design methods .............................................................................. 25
5.2. Researching gamification design......................................................................... 26
6. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 31
6.1. Research design ................................................................................................... 31
6.2. Problem-driven, theory-advancing approaches employed .................................. 32
6.2.1. Action Design Research ............................................................................... 32
6.2.2. Design Science Research.............................................................................. 36
6.3. Additional quantitative methods employed......................................................... 37
7. Summary of Papers..................................................................................................... 40
7.1. Summary of Paper 1 ............................................................................................ 40
7.2. Summary of Paper 2 ............................................................................................ 42
7.3. Summary of Paper 3 ............................................................................................ 44
#
7.4. Summary of Paper 4 ......................................................................................... 45

4( " " (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((03
8.1. Addressing the research questions .................................................................... 47
8.1.1. User-gamification design fit ...................................................................... 48
8.1.2. Context-gamification design fit ................................................................. 49
8.1.3. Gamification design method ...................................................................... 50
8.2. Contributions of the dissertation ....................................................................... 51
8.3. Limitations of the dissertation .......................................................................... 54
8.4. Concluding remark........................................................................................... 56
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((13
APPENDICES
%- (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((3-

#
TABLES
-'"&! ! (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((.3

.' &! -(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((0,
/' &! .(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((0.
0' &! /(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((00
1' &! 0(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((02
2'"& !!!"! ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((10
FIGURES
"-'"&! !!((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((2
".'!(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((-,
"/'"! "! ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((-/
"0'" ! ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((-3
"1') !! ! # !!! !!(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((-4
"2'"&! !!&((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((.0
"3'! $(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((//
"4'!$!!)!!(((((((((((((((((((((1,
"5'! !((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((1.
#
-
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Positioning the dissertation
For a long time, information systems (IS) and information systems research have
focused on ways to provide utilitarian value and cost efficiency through technological
tools (Gurbaxani & Whang 1991; Hirschheim & Klein 2012; Johnston & Vitale 1988;
Laudon & Laudon 2016). Nowadays, modern ISs not only facilitate the management of
organizations and the global economy, but also provide means of attaining hedonic and
personal value such as entertainment, enjoyment (Rosen & Sherman 2006; Van der
Heijden 2004), social connection (e.g., Boyd & Ellison 2007), and management of one’s
personal life and goals (Oinas-Kukkonen 2012; Swan 2013). Within this ever-
expanding IS utilization sphere, researchers have observed that systems created for
hedonic and entertainment purposes such as games have reached unparalleled levels of
pervasiveness in the daily lives of many individuals around the globe (Brookey 2010;
Hamari & Keronen 2017). Curious about this observation, researchers in the fields of
IS, psychology, and sociology, amongst other fields have begun investigating how and
why games have become that widely appreciated.
While playing games, individuals are usually captivated in a state of positive

motivation, which keeps them engaged with a game for long periods of time (Juul
2010; Kultima 2015; McGonigal 2011; Stenros 2015). Sometimes, this engagement is
highly serious and intense that gaming in and of itself can become a career path for
professional gamers, as seen with eSports players who compete, as physical sports
players do, in tournaments organized around gaming (Hamari & Sjöblom 2017; Taylor
2012). Such observation as well as psychology research highlight that while many
individuals recognize the value of and need for hard work in life, many—perhaps all—
do not wish to live in a universe of pure work, or passive engagement with their life’s
activities (Compton 2005; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi 2014). Thus, scholars have
begun to study game design as means to attain enjoyment and motivation in mundane
life activities (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled & Nacke 2011; Huotari & Hamari 2012; 2017).
As a design practice and research stream, gamification refers to the design of systems,
services, and processes to provide “gameful” experiences—positive, hedonic
experiences, similar to those provided by games—to positively influence engagement
with mundane life activities (Huotari & Hamari 2012; 2017). Gamification has been
employed in numerous fields such as education (Christy & Fox 2014; Lieberoth 2015),
.
government services (Bista, Nepal, Paris & Colineau 2014), fitness and health
management (Hamari, Hassan, & Dias 2018; Jones, Madden & Wengreen 2014),
organizational settings (Herzig, Strahringer & Ameling 2012; Raftopoulos 2014), and
communication (Farzan, DiMicco, Millen, Dugan, Geyer & Brownholtz 2008; Jung,
Schneider & Valacich 2010). This emerging gamification ecosystem houses many
popular gamified systems and applications, including Fitocracy (fitness), Habitica
(habits formation), and Yousician and Duolingo (learning). Gamification has also been
introduced to established software packages such as SAP (gamification modules),
Google Maps (Google Waze), and Microsoft Office (Ribbon Hero). Therefore, based on
increasing interest, it has been predicted that by 2020, at least half of all organizations
will have implemented gamification as part of their systems or internal processes (IEEE
2014). Gartner (2011) had made a more optimistic prediction for 2015.
1.2. Research problem and questions
While the user benefits reported from implementing gamification showcase its
potentially positive impact (Hamari & Koivisto 2015b), understanding how to design
gamification to achieve operational objectives is in its infancy (Arnab, Nalla, Harteveld
& Lameras, 2015; Gartner 2012; Morschheuser, Hassan, Werder & Hamari 2018).
Games—as the inspiration source of gamification design—are complex artefacts to
concretely define and successfully design (Juul 2010; Karhulahti 2015; Linehan 2008;
Tavinor 2008), let alone transfer their design practices to realms outside entertainment
(Arnab & Clarke 2017). On the other hand, the goal of gamification is not only hedonic
(as is the goal of most games), but also includes impacting behavior (engagement)
(Hamari 2015). To affect behavior, gamification aims to induce gamefulness, a positive
psychological state that underlies why games and gamification are engaging (Huotari &
Hamari 2012; 2017). However, gamefulness is a subjective state, the experience of
which depends on differentiated user preferences for design (Rigby 2015) and the
gamification use context (Hamari, Koivisto & Sarsa 2014; Nicholson 2012; 2015).
Some gamification designs might be suitable to some users or in certain contexts,

therefore increasing users’ experience of positive gamefulness and benefits. However,
the same designs might not have the same results for different users or in a different
context (Arnab et al. 2015; Morschheuser et al. 2018). For example, a competitive
gamification design in a business organization may drive productivity and be
considered gameful; however, the same design at a school may lead to
counterproductive negative social behavior stemming from competition, which hinders
/
learning. Alongside these user- and context-specific gamification design challenges,

gamification design methods have been developed in isolation, each reinventing the
wheel without building on the design knowledge already gathered in the field. Thus,
they struggle to provide holistic, comprehensive guidance for gamification design,
especially regarding user and context fit (Morschheuser et al. 2018). Unsurprisingly,
most gamification implementations are expected to fail, because of poor design
(Gartner 2012). While some gamification implementations successfully achieve their
objectives, many do not, highlighting the need to address the research question:
How should gamification be designed?
With regard to the gamification design-user fit: Gamification design, observably,

borrows design features from roughly three main classes of design: 1) game elements
(Arnab et al. 2015; Deterding et al. 2011; Santhanam, Liu & Shen 2016), 2) social
networking designs (Boyd & Ellison 2007; Chen, Lu, Chau & Gupta 2014; Hamari &
Koivisto 2015), and 3) quantified-self (QS) designs (Choe, Lee, Lee, Pratt & Kientz
2014; Gurrin, Smeaton & Doherty 2014; Swan 2009). Experiences of gamefulness from
these classes of gamification design are thought to be influenced by the goal-setting
characteristics of individuals as well as their goals’ attributes (Landers, Bauer & Callan
2017; Oinas-Kukkonen 2012; Zuckerman & Gal-Oz 2014). Goals and goal setting are
inherent in most, if not all, individuals (Locke & Latham 1984, 2002; Loock, Staake &
Thiesse 2013). Thus, understanding the influence of goal attributes and goal-setting on
experiencing design allows for designing gamification to fit the preferences of a large
user base, increasing the likelihood that many users will experience gamefulness from
gamification. However, research is still needed to understand how goal attributes and
goal-setting characteristics influence the experience of gamification design (Hamari
2013; Landers et al. 2017; Zuckerman & Gal-Oz 2014). Advancing this understanding is
the first objective of this dissertation, as articulated in RQ (1).
RQ (1): Which classes of gamification design do different users prefer?
With regard to the gamification design-context fit: What is needed in gamification

design, for it to be better able to induce gamefulness, is contextualized design and
awareness of the considerations that the use context might impose on designers or
users (Coenen 2014; Deterding 2012, 2015; Morschheuser et al. 2018). While many
gamification use contexts are intensely under study, some remain unsystematically
researched, complicating gamification design and development in these contexts and
0
leading to many failed implementations. Based on literature reviews, the gamification

field has thus far focused on studying use contexts that require stimulating individual-
level engagement (for the reviews, see Hamari et al. 2014; Koivisto & Hamari 2018).
More research is needed on stimulating group-level engagement through gamification
such as in use contexts, where community engagement or communal collaboration are
essential for success. Otherwise, designers are limited to a trial-and-error process that
may lead to failed implementations and wasted resources when designing for these
contexts (e.g., Hassan, Morschheuser, Alexan & Hamari 2018). Group-level
engagement manifests in various contexts, including civic engagement (Asquer 2013;
Bista et al. 2014; Gordon, Walter & Suarez, 2014), the focus of this dissertation.
Studying the gamification of civic engagement provides insight into gamification

contexts in which collaborative engagement is of value, such as organizational contexts
(Harviainen & Hassan In-press). In addition, studying the gamification of civic
engagement can lead to the development of practical tools that positively influence it,
improving trust in government, and government decision-making, and reducing
governance costs (Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago 2014; Nelson 2012; Raphael,
Bachen, Lynn, Baldwin-Philippi & McKee 2010). Being of Egyptian origin and having
lived through many recent civic movements enabled by online systems, the context of
civic engagement was additionally of personal interest to the author of this dissertation.
Therefore, the second objective of this dissertation is to enhance theoretical and
practical understanding of gamification design to ensure use context fit by examining
contextualized gamification design for civic engagement, as articulated in RQ (2).
RQ (2): How should gamification be designed considering its use context?
With regard to a comprehensive gamification design method to guide the

gamification design process: While gamification can be implemented online or offline
through software or relatively less advanced technological means such as pen and
paper, the gamification of software is especially challenging. The process of designing
gamified software is complex, involves many stakeholders and activities, and is prone
to challenges. Furthermore, gamification of software inherits the natural challenges
associated with the development of any software, on top of the specific challenges
associated with gamification design (Deterding 2015; Hamaro 2015; Morschheuser et
al. 2018). Unfortunately, as the gamification literature shows (Arnab et al. 2015;
Morschheuser et al. 2018), gamification design methods often provide incomplete
guidance and do not build on the gamification design knowledge gathered in the field.
1
Rather than reinvent the wheel by contributing yet another method to guide the
gamified software design process, this dissertation builds on the design knowledge
already gathered in the gamification field. Thus, this dissertation contributes a holistic
gamification design method that can guide designers through designing gamification to
fit its users and use context, and that addresses the challenges associated with gamified
software design. The third objective of this dissertation is articulated in RQ (3).
RQ (3):How can the gamification design process be guided?
1.3. Structure of the dissertation
This dissertation is composed of four papers, each providing one possible answer to the
respective research question(s) it addresses. It is imperative to note that the research
questions tackled in this dissertation can be answered in various ways. This
dissertation merely provides one possible answer to the questions investigated, with
the aim of advancing knowledge on how to design gamification that fits users and the
use context. More research is needed before the questions in this dissertation can come
close to be fully answered. The papers included in this dissertation are:
Paper 1: Hamari, J., Hassan, L., & Dias, A. (2018). Gamification, quantified-self or
social networking? Matching goal-setting with motivational technologies, User
Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 28(1), 35-74. DOI: 10.1007/s11257-018-
9200-2.
Paper 2: Hassan, L. (2017). Governments should play games: Towards a framework

for the gamification of civic engagement platforms, Simulation & Gaming, 48(2), 249-
267. DOI: 10.1177/1046878116683581.
Paper 3: Hassan, L., Morschheuser, B., Alexan, N., & Hamari, J. (2018). First-hand
experience of why gamification projects fail and what could be done about it.
Proceedings of the 2nd International GamiFIN Conference (GamiFIN2018).
Paper 4: Morschheuser, B., Hassan, L., Werder, K., & Hamari, J. (2018). How to
design gamification? A method for engineering gamified software. Information &
Software Technology, 95, 219-237. DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2017.10.015.
A visual summary of the research problem, questions, and studies comprising the
dissertation is provided in Figure 1.

This dissertation is composed of eight chapters. The first provides a short discussion of
gamification, its origins, and the gameful experience it aims to stimulate. Chapter Two
discusses gamification origins as well as different psychological perspectives on its
design. The Third Chapter addresses gamification design classes and the experience of
gamification design according to the differentiated characteristics of user goal
attributes and users’ goal-setting. The fourth chapter explore the considerations that
the gamification use context places on gamification design, specifically in the context of
gamification of civic engagement. Chapter Five examines current methods of
gamification design, as well as possible problem-driven theory-advancing methods for
gamification research, design, and development. Chapter Six presents the
methodological approaches adopted in this dissertation while Chapter Seven provides
concise summaries of the papers comprising this dissertation. Finally, Chapter Eight
elaborates the findings, contributions, and limitations of the studies reported in this
dissertation.

2. GAMIFICATION: A BACKGROUND
Waka Waka Waka, Waka Waka

Waka
Waka Waka, Waka Waka Waka!
Waka, Waka
- Pac-man, prominently influencing the gamification movement
2.1. A short history of the gamification of modern systems
When personal computing began gradually entering the daily lives of individuals and
organizations, many scholars considered it a fad that would soon prove useless (e.g.,
Stoll 1995), while others saw great potential (e.g., Gurbaxani & Whang 1991; Pawlaw
1981). Slowly, as further advancements took place with regard to hardware and
networks technologies, we witnessed the development and continuous refinement of
computer-based information systems: complex technological artefacts that aim at
storing, processing, and outputting value to users (Laudon & Laudon 2016). However,
as the costs of producing and utilizing information systems were still relatively high,
most systems were geared toward improving efficiency and productivity, defining the
value systems could deliver mainly in terms of organizational utility and cost reduction
(Gurbaxani & Whang 1991; Pawlaw 1981).
As technological advancement continued to take place, the scope of the value systems
can provide expanded to include personal productivity and benefits (Boyd & Ellison
2007; Oinas-Kukkonen 2012; Swan 2009, 2013), as well as entertainment and hedonic
experiences such as those inherent in games (Juul 2010). The extraordinary reach of
games eventually became too significant to ignore, and the systematic study thereof
emerged. Almost daily, hundreds of thousands of individuals choose to spend much of
their finite resources of time and money on games (McGonigal 2011). In 2015, there
were approximately 1.8 billion gamers worldwide (ESA 2015), and in 2017, gamers
collectively spent approximately 110 billion dollars on gaming hardware and software
(Newzoo 2017). Thus, researchers and practitioners turned their attention to the study
of games, game design, and the reasons for this pervasive reach of games (e.g., Burke
2014; McGonigal 2011).
However, studying games is challenging. First, there is not a single universally agreed-
on understanding of what a game is (Karhulahti 2015; Linehan 2008; Salen &
Zimmerman 2003; Suits 1978; Tavinor 2008). One common understanding of it is as a

system that presents users with challenges, rules for addressing these challenges, and
possible positive outcomes from these challenges (Broer & Poeppelbuss 2013). In
addition, games have been understood in terms of the holistic assemblage and
occurrence of a set of conditions considered precursors for a game to occur (Juul 2010).
A game is also defined in terms of the experiences it induces rather than measurable
technological characteristics. Beyond the challenge of understanding what a game is,
game design is complex and involves collaborative work across various disciplines,
including psychology, design, and programming. This makes games multifaceted
artefacts that are difficult to define, understand (Arnab & Clarke 2017; Kultima 2015;
Stenros 2015; Tavinor 2008), and design (Brookey 2010).
The engagement impact of this difficult-to-define artefact (games) is often attributed to

its ability to stimulate psychological needs such as those for autonomy or social
belonging, thereby creating enjoyable psychological experiences, including enjoyment,
immersion, and escapism amongst other experiences (Deterding 2015; Huotari &
Hamari 2012; 2017; McGonigal 2011). Many scholars became interested in studying if
the design principles underlying games and the engaging experiences they provide can
facilitate increased productivity and utility in contexts outside entertainment (Stenros
2015). Hence, the idea was born of harnessing the engaging power of games to increase
the utility of non-entertainment-oriented systems. This fueled the pursuit of gamifying
systems, giving rise to the “gamification” movement (Deterding et al. 2011; Hamari
2015; Huotari & Hamari 2012, 2017).
2.2. Gamification: What it is
There is no consensus on when the term “gamification” first appeared, but it is argued
that it and related practices gained traction in late 2010 (Burke 2014; Walz & Deterding
2015). Gamification aims to study game design (Landers, Auer, Collmus & Armstrong
2018) to invoke engaging experiences similar to those invoked by games. The purpose
is to positively influence user engagement through gamefulness (Huotari & Hamari
2012, 2017). Therefore, gamification reportedly revolves around introducing game
elements to non-gaming contexts for engagement purposes (Deterding et al. 2011).
However, at the time of writing this dissertation, it was difficult to produce an
exhaustive list of the game elements employed in gamification. However, a few sources
summarize the most commonly used game elements in gamification such as points,
badges, and leaderboards (for syntheses, see Koivisto & Hamari 2018; Morschheuser,
Hamari, Koivisto & Maedche 2017a; Pedreira, García, Brisaboa & Piattini 2015).

The practice of designing gamification through introducing game elements to non-

gaming contexts emphasizes the centrality of game elements as the current state of the
art in gamification design (Landers et al. 2018). Nonetheless, with the lack of
agreement in the literature on what games and game elements exactly are, the
gamification design space remains limited to merely the commonly used game
elements (Huotari & Hamari 2012, 2017). This restricts designers’ creativity and leads
to gamification implementations that are often criticized for being superficial,
distracting, or ineffective in inducing an enjoyable gameful experience (Bogost, 2015;
Kim 2015; Landers 2014).
The design space available for games—as the inspiration source of gamification—
continues to expand and is more complex than simply adhering to common design
elements (Kultima 2015; Petridis, Dunwell, Arnab, Scarle, Qureshi, De Freitas,
Protopsaltis & Star 2011; Stenros 2015). Games such as World of Warcraft and
Pokemon Go employ social designs, live interaction between players, and real-time
performance indicators, elements that span various disciplines and fields of design.
Pokemon Go additionally utilizes location-based technologies, which have only recently
become significantly available to game designers and consumers. The focus of many
game designers is not merely on designing a system through employing certain design
elements, but on how the holistic assemblage of game elements, mechanics, and rule
systems, and the interplay between them and users, can produce gameful experiences.
Gamefulness, in turn, is what drives engagement with an activity such as playing a
game or using gamified systems (Hamari et al. 2014a; Landers et al. 2018). The
understanding of gamification depicted in Figure 2 bypasses confining the gamification
design space solely to what comes to be labeled as game elements but highlights the
question of what constitutes a “gameful experience” and how to induce it through
design.
"
" !$

Gamefulness is abstractly conceived as a positive, subjective psychological state

experienced from the interaction with a game or gamified system (Huotari & Hamari
2012; 2017). Similar to games, gamefulness does not have a concrete, universal
definition, but is fluidly defined by the positive psychological experiences—e.g.,
immersion, relatedness, flow, escapism—games and gamified systems attempt to
induce, which lead to behavioral outcomes such as increased engagement. However,
engagement is yet another complex psychological construct to understand or induce.
Engagement is thought to be an energy expression of individuals’ motivations (Ryan &
Deci 2000a). However, not only are there different degrees of motivation (or lack of it),
there are similarly different kinds of motivation and individual dispositions (Ryan &
Deci 2000b).
One relatively agreed-on interpretation of motivation is provided by self-determination

theory, which categorizes it as intrinsic and extrinsic (Deci & Ryan 1985; 2004).
Intrinsic motivation is an individual’s internal drive to pursue a behavior for the
internal, psychological value it provides. Extrinsic motivation is an individual’s pursuit
of a behavior for reasons other than the psychological value it may bring them. To
induce gamefulness that motivates engagement, gamification often employs a mix of
behavioral (Hayes 1993; Linehan, Kirman & Roche 2015) and positive psychology
(Compton 2005; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi 2014) to influence intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation.
2.2.1. Behavioral psychology roots of gamification
Behavioral psychology advocates that human behavior is motivated and could be

influenced by the environment surrounding an individual (Hayes 1993; Thaler &
Sunstein 2008). This understanding extends to that motivation and consequently
behavior could be influenced through stimuli, rewards, reward schedules, and
behavioral conditioning (Linehan 2008). Reward-based gamification emerged based on
this understanding (Farzan et al. 2008; Jin, Zhou, Lee & Cheung 2013; Jones et al.
2014; Nicholson 2012). Users of such gamification are often rewarded upon completing
a task or according to a reward schedule, which encourages them to complete more
tasks in order to attain more rewards.
If the behavior that the designers which to motivate and reinforce through gamification
does not require tremendous mental effort and the user lacks the intrinsic motivation
for its pursuit, then reward-based gamification can positively influence user motivation

and engagement as designers intended (Hassan 2017). The behavioral impact of such
gamification, however, tends to depend on the continuous provision of rewards (Bogost
2015; Kim 2015; Nicholson 2015).
Many critics of gamification direct the bulk of their criticism of gamification toward
reward-based design, arguing that it can lead to addictive behavior and a morally
questionable behavioral impact (Bogost 2015; Kim 2015; Rey 2012). Organismic
integration theory (Deci & Ryan 2004) further indicates that extrinsic rewards—such as
those offered in reward-based gamification—diminish intrinsic motivation, and thus
decrease the long-term sustainability of the behavior in question (Bogost 2015; Rigby
2015; Zuckerman & Gal-Oz 2014). Nonetheless, reward-based gamification is often
effective for quick, short-term behavioral impact that lasts for as long as rewards are
available and appealing to individuals (Jones et al. 2014; Nicholson 2015). If the
objective is longer-term behavioral impact, then reward-based gamification may cause
adverse, unintended demotivation (Zuckerman & Gal-Oz 2014).
2.2.2. Positive psychology roots of gamification
The behavioral lens to gamification implies that designers can attempt to motivate
individuals and influence their behavior through the design of the user’s physical or
digital environments (Linehan et al. 2015; Linehan 2008). Digital environments can be
designed to afford stimuli and rewards that induce motivation. On the other hand,
digital environments can be designed to afford more holistic positive psychological
experiences to induce motivation such as experiences of gamefulness. This is where a
study of positive psychology comes into play in games and gamification design (Huotari
& Hamari 2012; 2017).
Positive psychology is the science of how to make life worth living or provide a better
life experience through researching and theorizing on positive experiences such as
happiness, motivation, and resilience (Compton 2005; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi
2014). Self-determination theory (Baard, Deci, & Ryan 2004; Deci & Ryan 1985, 2004)
has become a cornerstone theory of motivation in the field of positive psychology
(Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi 2014). Other than categorizing motivation as intrinsic or
extrinsic, the theory outlines the psychological drives that intrinsically motivate
individuals to engage in a behavior. The theory proposes that three psychological needs
underlie intrinsically motivated behavior: 1) the drive to learn new skills to the point of
excellence (mastery), 2) free choice and the potential to behave in accordance with

one’s wishes (autonomy), and 3) feeling part of a community (relatedness). Research

indicates that sustainable, positive motivation stems from the stimulation of these
three intrinsic needs (e.g., Baard et al. 2004; Zuckerman & Gal-Oz 2014; Zhang 2007,
2008). Stimulating these intrinsic needs within the first month of introducing
gamification is statistically predictive of user enjoyment, motivation, and behavioral
impact from gamification (Rigby 2015).
“Purpose” is another psychological variable that influences intrinsic motivation (Pink

2009). Purpose is an expression of goal-setting, as elaborated on in the next chapter
(Chapter Three) (Jung et al. 2010; Landers et al. 2017; Latham 2003; Locke & Latham
2002). It represents individuals’ innate need to know that they have a mission to
accomplish, especially an autonomous one. Encouraging and showcasing the mastery
of autonomous goals is key to why games engage individuals for prolonged periods
(Hamari 2013). Figure 3 summarizes the discussion on gamification design routes and
motivation.
#

Beyond positive motivation, positive psychology studies many other psychological

states and experiences in terms of which gamefulness is often defined, such as flow
(Hamari & Koivisto 2014), challenge (Cowley & Charles 2016; Linehan 2008), and
immersion (Lee, Kim & Lee 2013). These experiences are highly appreciated by users
and can be almost universally considered gameful but the study of these experiences is
beyond the focus of this dissertation.

2.3. Gamification design practices
Design is a tool that can be utilized to reach different ends depending on the designer’s
objectives and morality (Oinas-Kukkonen 2012). Reportedly, gamification design can
exploit users (Bogost 2015; Kim 2015; Rey 2012) or in contrast, induce engaging
psychological experiences (gamefulness) (Landers et al. 2018). Nonetheless, individuals
are not passive recipients of design. Gamefulness is not only subjective to how
designers understand and choose to induce it, but additionally to how individuals
experience design. What is gameful or exploitative to one user is not necessarily so to
another. For example, as Huotari and Hamari (2017) explain, a dashboard in a stock
market is to some individuals an object with little gameful value, but a source of
immersion, autonomy, or flow to others. Furthermore, the dashboard may be
appreciated by an individual during work hours, but not on holidays, as the context of
interaction with the design or artefact determines the experience thereof (Oinas-
Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009).
Consequently, it cannot be expected that a single gamification design would be

similarly appreciated by all users (Mann, De Ridder & Fujita 2013; Wang, Schneider &
Valacich 2015). The different gamification design routes, summarized in Figure 3,
could be of value depending on designer objective, user preferences, and use context.
Thus, it is worthwhile understanding designers’ and users’ subjective perceptions of
gamification design, and how this subjectivity is further influenced by gamification use
environments.
2.4. Summary and conclusions
Gamification is a complex design practice that extends beyond the introduction of game
elements to non-entertainment contexts. A thought process underlies why certain
gamification designs are employed over others. In many cases—perhaps all—
gamification requires a deep understanding of behavioral and positive psychology in
order to induce gamefulness that leads to behavioral outcomes as is the intention of
gamification. However, gamefulness is a subjective experience in terms of how
designers define it and individuals experience it. These complexities regarding how to
design for gamefulness, and whether individuals will experience what designers intend
them to experience, establish gamification as a complex design practice requiring a
user-context-design fit and holistic design method.

3. GAMIFICATION DESIGN-USER FIT
Sheldon: The thing about tomatoes, I think you will really enjoy this,
is that they are shelved with the vegetables, but they are technically a fruit.
Penny: Interesting
Sheldon: Isn't it!
Penny: No, I mean what you find enjoyable.
- The Big Bang Theory series, a short commentary on

how individuals differ in their perception of the enjoyable or gameful

3.1. The gamification design space
Often, popular—and arguably successful—gamification implementations include

various design elements beyond what is commonly considered game elements at the
moment of designing these implementations. Gamification design appears to span all
possible design classes that can help gamefulness. Taking the gamified fitness
application Zombies, Run! as an example: the application employs 1) game elements
such as narratives, progress bars, and leaderboards; 2) quantification features such as
performance measurements and location tracking; and 3) social networking features
such as a newsfeed and the ability to follow friends. Similar interdisciplinary design
practices are observed in gamified systems such as Microsoft Office’s Ribbon Hero and
apps such as Duolingo.
Observation shows that the primary classes of design used by gamification designers
fall roughly into three categories: 1) game elements (aka gamification), which draws
from game design (Landers et al. 2018); 2) social networking design, which draws
from social networking service designs (Boyd & Ellison 2007; Lin & Lu 2011); and 3)
quantified-self (QS) design, which draws from the Internet of Things, wearables, and
dashboard design (Choe et al. 2014; Gurrin et al. 2014; Swan 2009).
Game elements are considered the design components from which games are built
(Deterding et al. 2011; Landers et al. 2018). Commonly used game elements in
gamification design include points, badges, quests, missions, leaderboards, and
progress bars. The holistic interplay between these game elements facilitates the
positive psychological experiences that characterize games, not the existence or non-
existence of certain design elements therein (Rigby 2014). Nevertheless, gamification is
often exclusively defined in terms of transferring game elements to non-gaming

contexts (Francisco-Aparicio, Gutiérrez-Vela, Isla-Montes & Sanchez 2013),

emphasizing the importance of these elements to gamification design.
Social networking design—whether in independent social applications or as part of

other systems—aims to connect individuals and create communities (Boyd & Ellison
2007; Petridis et al. 2011; Richter & Koch 2008). Commonly used social networking
design elements in gamification design include newsfeeds, private messaging,
friending, cheering, groups, and collaborative activities. Social designs attend to the
socio-psychological needs of individuals such as those for social support, social
feedback (Hamari & Koivisto 2015; Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009), social
comparison (Festinger 1954), or relatedness (Deci & Ryan 2000). These are also
psychological experiences often perceived as facilitators of the gamefulness games and
gamification attempt to induce (Huotari & Hamari 2012; 2017; Rigby 2014).
Quantified-self (QS) design aims to improve people’s management of their personal

lives through the regular collection, processing, and presentation of data on behavioral,
environmental, biological, or other variables of interest to an individual. This provides
a means to help individuals evaluate and regulate their personal performance (Choe et
al. 2014; Mehta 2011; Munson & Consolvo 2012; Swan 2009). Commonly used QS
design elements in gamification design include manual and automatic diaries, data
visualization, and performance forecasts. QS attends to individuals’ cognitive needs for
information and cognitive feedback (Swan 2009, 2013; Zhang 2007, 2008), which
could lead to a sense of autonomy and mastery linked to experiences of gamefulness
(Huotari & Hamari 2012, 2017; Rigby 2014).
While these three design streams are distinct, their practices tend to overlap. For
example, chats and private messaging may have emerged from social networking
design practices but are now features observed in many games and systems (Oinas-
Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009; Petridis et al. 2011), and can thus be considered a game
element as well. Similarly, quantified measures of performance whether in terms of
progress bars or statistics are core in the design of many QS applications as well as
games. Although these three design classes may overlap, they provide a way to
categorize, study, and compare design practices and the experiences they can induce.
Figure 4 illustrates the interplay between these design classes.

$

3.2. Goal-setting theory and gamification design fit
Gamefulness, the target experience of gamification, is subjective, and the emergence

thereof is contingent on how users experience design. Differences in experiencing
gamefulness from the features belonging to the design classes, outlined in Figure 4,
may be due to many variables, some of which are the differentiated attributes of users’
goals and the differences in their goal-setting characteristics (Hamari 2013; Hamari et
al. 2018; Landers et al. 2017; Zuckerman & Gal-Oz 2014). Goals and goal-setting are
innate in most—if not all--individuals (Locke & Latham 1984, 2002; Loock et al. 2013).
Understanding the influence of goal attributes and goal-setting on experiencing design
enables gamification design that fits the preferences of a wide range of users, increasing
the likelihood that many will experience gamefulness from gamification.
Goal-setting theory is one of most established theories that investigates an individual’s

or group’s process of identifying and attaining desirable outcomes (goals) (Locke &
Latham 1984, 2002; Loock et al. 2013). Three important aspects of goal-setting that
vary between individuals and goals, summarized in Figure 5, are 1) individuals’ goal
focus (outcomes, process) (Freund, Hennecke & Riediger 2010; Latham 2003; Mann et
al. 2013); 2) individuals’ orientation toward goal-setting (mastery, proving, avoidance)
(Burnette, O'Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack & Finkel 2013; Elliot & Harackiews 1994; Hackel,
Jones, Carbonneau & Mueller 2016; Lunenburg 2011); and 3) goal-specific attributes
(difficulty, specificity) (Drach-Zahavy & Erez 2002; Locke, Shaw, Saari & Latham 1981;
Locke & Latham 2013).

%

Goal foci: The literature distinguishes between outcome-focused or process-focused

individuals (Freund et al. 2010). A focus on the outcomes of an activity is a concern
with ends rather than the process by which these ends are attained. On the other hand,
a focus on process is a concern with the process of attaining ends, rather than the ends
of an activity (Burnette et al. 2013; Freund et al. 2010; Latham 2003; Locke & Latham
2002). Being outcomes or process focused has a bearing on the importance individuals
ascribe to either the outcomes or process of goal-attainment. For example, while
working for the same organization, outcomes-focused individuals may focus on closing
a specific number of sales deals per week, while process-focused individuals may focus
on following the sales process efficiently and closely, regardless of the sales outcome.
Goal-setting orientations: Common orientations for goal-setting include 1) mastery, 2)

proving, and 3) avoidance (Hackel et al. 2016; Locke & Latham 2002; Mann et al.
2013). 1) Mastery-oriented individuals focus on self and skills development. Attempting
to improve one’s school grades compared to previous year’s is an example of a mastery
orientation to learning. 2) Proving-oriented individuals focus on showcasing their
competence through benchmarking it against external standards. For example, a
proving-oriented student might wish to rank the first in their class to prove they are
better than the rest of the class. Finally, 3) avoidance-oriented individuals tend to steer
away from setting goals, usually to avoid negative social evaluations or failure in
meeting these ends. A student with an avoidance orientation may avoid setting any
academic goals for fear of not meeting personal or social expectations.

Goal attributes: Commonly investigated goal attributes include goal specificity and
difficulty (Drach-Zahavy & Erez 2002; Locke et al. 1981; Locke & Latham 2013). Goal
specificity describes how clearly a goal is defined. The more specific a goal is—such as
closing a specific number of sales deals—the more individuals should be able to track,
evaluate, and regulate their efforts for its attainment (Latham 2003; Locke & Latham
2002). Goal difficulty, on the other hand, refers to the perceived effort needed for goal
attainment (Capa, Audiffren & Ragot 2008). Difficulty is a subjective attribute. An
individual might perceive the goal of closing ten sales deals per week as easy, while
someone else might find this same goal challenging. This difference in perception is
influenced by various variables including the individual’s sales experience, industry,
and level of self-efficacy.
The design space available to gamification is unlimited and ever expanding. The limits
are only imposed by designers’ creativity in the utilization of new technologies to
induce gamefulness, and users’ reception of these technologies and designs. It cannot
be expected that all users, who have differentiated characteristics and preferences, will
equally receive all gamification design classes. Thus, it is important to determine and
accommodate users’ preferences for design. One approach to accommodate the
subjectivity of the gameful experience and user preferences is to understand how
different individuals experience different gamification design classes according to their
varying goal attributes and goal-setting characteristics, based on the psychological
theory of goal-setting. Goal-setting is innate in most, if not all, individuals. Therefore,
the customization of gamification design according to characteristics shared by many
users could increase the likelihood of user-design fits across a larger number of
individuals, improving the probability of a widely successful reception of gamification
implementations.

4. GAMIFICATION DESIGN-USE CONTEXT FIT
Sheldon: Um, Penny, that's where I sit.

Penny: So? Sit next to me.
Sheldon: No, I sit there.
Penny: What's the difference?
Sheldon: "What's the difference?"
Sheldon: In the winter that seat is close enough to the radiator to remain warm, and yet not
so close as to cause perspiration. In the summer, it is directly in the path of a cross breeze
created by opening windows, there and there. It faces the television at an angle that is
neither direct, to discourage conversation, nor so far wide to create a parallax distortion.
Sheldon: I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
- The Big Bang Theory series, a short commentary on context considerations
As much as individual characteristics influence experiences of gamefulness,

experiences of gamefulness are similarly influenced by the gamification use context.
Context affects how individuals experience design (Klevers, Sailer, & Günthner 2016;
Landers et al. 2018; Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009), expanding or limiting the
design options available to induce gamefulness (Deterding 2012, 2015; Nicholson 2012,
2015; Noran 2016; Rigby 2015). In addition, while some gamification designs are
successful in some contexts, these same designs may not be similarly successful if
transferred to another context. For example, in an organizational setting, a competitive
gamification design may be appropriate and gameful to users; however, in an
educational setting, the same design may hinder learning. A cooperative gamification
design may be more effective in schools where sharing and cooperation are often
encouraged, but not necessarily appreciated in other competitive organizational
settings.
Contextualization is essential in gamification design to ensure that implementations

successfully meet their operational objectives (Coenen 2014; Deterding 2012, 2015;
Hassan 2017; Morschheuser et al. 2018). For example, the gamification of some
services such as government services is often subject to increased ethical considerations
and legal requirements (Harviainen & Hassan In-press), which the gamification of
exercise, for example, is not subjected to. Thus, it is essential to enhance our
understanding of the design implications of the various gamification use contexts.
Reviews of the literature on gamification indicate that the research focus has thus far
been on studying use contexts that primarily require inducing gamefulness on an
individual level to fuel individual engagement and behavioral change (for reviews, see

Hamari et al. 2014; Koivisto & Hamari 2018). Gamification use contexts, where
community engagement or active communal collaboration are needed, require more
research and study to enhance designers’ understanding of how to design for these
purposes, rather than relying on a trial-and-error process that may often lead to failed
implementations and wasted resources (e.g., Hassan, Morschheuser, Alexan & Hamari
2018). Collaborative engagement design purposes manifest in various contexts,
including civic engagement (Asquer 2013; Bista et al. 2014; Gordon, Walter & Suarez
2014) amongst others.
4.1. Understanding the context of civic engagement
Aristotle argued that humans are social beings (Rackham 1944); living in isolation
from each other is not sustainable. Thus, humans establish and belong to communities,
be they large or small (Chen 2016; Rothschild 2016; Vinciarelli 2009) and online or
offline (Bista et al. 2014; Supendi & Prihatmanto 2015). Historically, the governance of
such communities emerged to manage conflicting interests, efficiently allocate societal
resources, and protect the community and its individuals from internal and external
threats (North 1984). Democracy arose and has become a popular method of
governance that attempts to ensure the wellbeing of communities through the
governance of the people, by the people, for the people (Burns 1997; Epstein 2011;
Rothschild 2016). Consequently, democratic governance relies on the active
engagement of the people in governance-related activities (Abdelghaffar & Sameer
2013; Abdelghaffar & Samer 2016; Epstein 2011; Fung & Wright 2001). Accordingly,
one internal threat to democratic governance is the lack of civic engagement.
Civic engagement is the active participation of citizens in shaping their communities

(Adler & Goggin 2005; Rothschild 2016). The employment of Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs) as a means of shifting this participation online is
referred to as e-participation (Macintosh 2004). Many modern technologies offer
various platforms to facilitate e-participation, including forums, chat rooms, social
tools (Komito 2005; Lee & Kim 2014; Sameer & Abdelghaffar 2015), and games
(Kahne, Middaugh & Evans 2009; Mayer 2009) amongst others. Such modern
technologies are being utilized as a means of civic engagement in an attempt to increase
the efficiency thereof and to keep up with the exponential growth of modern societies
(Gordon et al. 2014; Sánchez-Nielsen & Lee 2013; Supendi & Prihatmanto 2015).

On average, individuals spend 20 hours per week online, twice that observed 10 years
ago (Ofcom 2015). Reaching individuals online for the purpose of e-participation can
reduce the costs of civic participation and increase inclusion in governance (Sanchez-
Nielsen & Lee 2013; Phang & Kankanhalli 2008). Despite the worldwide increase in the
number of people spending volumes of their time online (Lee & Kim 2014), this online
activity does not significantly translate into higher activity on e-participation platforms,
as was hoped when shifting civic participation online. It is frequently reported that
governments worldwide are struggling to maintain active citizen engagement with e-
participation tools (Abdelghaffar & Samer 2016; Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago
2014; Eränpalo 2014). Furthermore, e-participation platforms have a significant
turnover rate, and users who initially contribute on them rarely continue to do so (Jin
et al. 2013; Lee & Kim 2014).
Accordingly, studies have examined demographic and psychological variables that

influence civic engagement online or offline, but few have investigated the role of
technological design in influencing active engagement on e-participation platforms
(Lee & Kim 2014). This relative lack of research on e-participation design is surprising,
as the lack of engagement on e-participation platforms is partially attributed to the
failure of current e-participation design in meeting users’ needs for enjoyment using an
IT artefact (Dargan & Evequoz 2015; Hassan 2017; Hassan et al. 2018).
Studying civic engagement is of benefit to both the gamification and governance fields.
It provides insight into gamification design in contexts where collaborative engagement
is valuable, such as in organizational contexts (Harviainen & Hassan In-press).
Furthermore, gamification as a design practice that aims to induce engagement can
positively influence e-participation engagement and enjoyment of related platforms
(Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago 2014; Gordon et al. 2014; Nelson 2012; Raphael
et al. 2010; Stewart, Bleumers, Mariën, Schurmans, Van Looy, Jacobs, Willaert, De
Grove, Misuraca & Centeno 2013). Hence, some initiatives have already focused on
researching and developing gamified e-participation applications (e.g., Dargan &
Evequoz 2015; Hassan & Nader 2016; Stewart et al. 2013). For example; Bista et al.
(2014) conducted a frequently cited study on the gamification of e-participation. They
developed a gamified community for welfare recipients to use for one year to help them
communicate with each other and the government during a welfare system transition.
The study reported positive outcomes, recommending that more research be conducted
on gamified e-participation.

4.2. Deliberation theory and gamified e-participation
While gamification seems to make e-participation platforms more engaging, designing

for e-participation is influenced by the rules of democratic deliberation as vital
precursors of effective civic engagement (Burkhalter, Gastil, & Kelshaw 2002;
Harviainen & Hassan, In-press; Phang & Kankanhalli 2008; Sameer & Abdelghaffar
2015). This consideration necessitates expanding understanding of how gamification
design can facilitate democratic deliberation while maintaining its positive impact on
user engagement in e-participation.
The theory of deliberation is fundamental to civic participation, positing that

democratic societal discussions of political matters are the preferred medium to create
informed individuals who actively participate in governance (Eränpalo 2014; Fung &
Wright 2001; Min 2007; Schlosberg, Zavestoski & Shulman, 2009). Many deliberation
models illustrate how online or offline deliberations should take place (see Burkhalter
et al. 2002 and Perote-Peña & Piggins 2015 for examples). Therefore, it is difficult to
identify a single deliberation model as a universal guideline for the design of civic
engagement platforms (Abdelghaffar & Sameer 2013). Furthermore, it cannot be
expected that one solution or model will fit all civic engagement design needs.
However, the generalizable aspects of deliberation (Burkhalter et al. 2002; Eränpalo

2014; Min 2007; Sameer & Abdelghaffar 2015; Swezey, Sano, Hirata, Shiramatsu,
Ozono & Shintani 2012) include 1) information provision (citizens are provided with
sufficient information about relevant civic matters); 2) interactivity (citizens are
encouraged to interact with each other and express their opinions through the
appropriate means); and 3) reflection (citizens reflect on the information presented to
them and on their online interactivity so that they can later provide their opinions
through voting or other appropriate mechanisms). These deliberation concepts are
summarized in Figure 6. Attaining this type of deliberation may increase societies’
benefits from their investment in e-participation, increased citizen involvement in
governance, improved government legitimacy, and enhanced government decision
making (Macintosh 2004; Sánchez-Nielsen & Lee 2013; Swezey et al. 2012).
These three deliberation variables are also important in gamification design, but for
different reasons. In gamification, it is important to communicate to users why the
reinforced behavior is important (information provision). Interactivity is encouraged to
facilitate the engaging experiences of competition or collaboration, and players are

encouraged to reflect on their experience of the gamified service (reflections)

(Nicholson 2012). Thus, introducing deliberation into gamification design expands the
definitions of information provision, interactivity, and reflection within existing
gamification design practices (Hassan 2017).
&

CommunityPlanit is an example of a gamified e-participation tool for local planning

designed based on the objectives of providing an engaging experience and facilitating
deliberation (Gordon et al. 2014). Through the tool, citizens are first educated on
matters related to their communities through videos (information provision), then
asked to deliberate on these matters with each other through online discussion forums
(interactivity) and rewarded with points and badges for reflecting on others’ opinions
(reflection). Using the tool, users suggest solutions to the problems their communities
face, and spend the points earned on the solutions they want implemented. The
government next funds the solutions elected. Some of these solutions have already been
implemented, and users have shown their appreciation of the tool’s design.
The gamification use context of civic engagement presents designers with complex
objectives that must be considered alongside how to facilitate a gameful experience to
induce user engagement. This chapter discussed the deliberation variables considered
the precursors of civic participation, and provided examples of how gamification design
has been implemented in the context of civic engagement, with positive outcomes.
Based on the discussion, the gamification of civic engagement requires a
multidisciplinary understanding of gamification design that integrates civic
engagement and gamification design. The successful design of gamification is, in and of
itself, already a complex and multidisciplinary process.

5. GAMIFICATION DESIGN AND RESEARCH PROCESSES

Arnold: When first working on (this design project),
there was a pyramid I thought you needed to scale,
so I gave you a guide along the way, each step in order to reach the next step,
but you never got there. I couldn't understand what was holding you back.
Then, one day, I realized I'd made a mistake. (It) isn't a pyramid, but a maze.
Every choice will bring you closer to the center or send you spiraling to the edges, to madness.
Do you understand now, Dolores?
Dolores: I'm sorry. I'm trying, but I don't understand.
- Westworld series, a depiction of how winding design can be
5.1. Gamification design methods
Not only does the implementation of gamification require a design that fits user
preferences and the use context, as detailed in Chapters 2–4, but it also requires
holistic design methods to guide designers through gamification design challenges
(Deterding 2015). To summarize the discussion in the previous chapters, gamification
design is challenging because: 1) As outlined in Chapter 2, gamification utilizes games
as design inspiration. However, games are in and of themselves complex artefacts to
design (Juul 2010; Karhulahti 2015; Linehan 2008; Tavinor 2008), and their design
practices difficult to transfer to realms outside entertainment (Arnab & Clarke 2017); 2)
As noted in Chapter 2, to afford gamefulness, gamification design entails
understanding behavioral and positive psychology, among other subjects (Huotari &
Hamari 2012; 2017; Hamari & Koivisto 2014); 3) As chapters 3 highlighted,
gamefulness that impacts behavior depends on the fit between gamification design and
differentiated user preferences (Arnab et al. 2015; Nicholson 2012, 2015; Noran 2016;
Rigby 2015); 4) As Chapter 4 emphasized, the gamification implementation context has
implications for gamification design, expanding or limiting the design options available
to them (Deterding 2015; Herger 2014).
Most gamification design methods were developed in isolation, each reinventing the
wheel without reflecting on the design knowledge already gathered in the field. Thus,
they fail to provide holistic and comprehensive design guidance for all phases of
gamification implementation or address the abovementioned design challenges
(Morschheuser et al. 2018). Thus far, only a few sources provide methodological
guidelines for designing gamification (e.g., Helms et al. 2015; Marache-Francisco &
Brangier 2013; Robson, Plangger, Kietzmann, McCarthy & Pitt 2015). As the theory and
applications of gamification continue to grow, the need to update and augment the
design and development thereof must keep pace with emerging complexities

(Morschheuser et al. 2018). To substantiate the need for holistic gamification design
methods, Morschheuser et al. (2018) conducted a literature review, identifying the 17
gamification design methods available at the time. The examination of these methods
highlighted seven phases for implementing gamification, as summarized in Table 1.
The methods in Table 1 emphasize user-centric approaches to gamification design that

consider users’ needs, wants, and skills at every stage of the design process to ensure
implementations that fit users’ preferences (Burke 2014; Herger 2014: Kumar & Herger
2013; Radoff 2011). The gamification design methods seem to recognize the subjectivity
of inducing gamefulness. However, as shown in Table 1, many methods do not cover all
stages of gamification design or combine phases in the process. Others do not pay
attention to the fit between design and the use context. Thus, the guidelines provided
by some of these methods are not detailed enough and do not holistically cover all
gamification design phases. The review by Morschheuser et al. (2018) further
reconfirms the identified need for holistic, comprehensive, and detailed methods to
guide all stages of gamification design and implementation.
5.2. Researching gamification design
Gamification designers are often hindered by the lack of comprehensive, detailed

gamification design methods. They often resort to a process of trial and error in design
that could be reduced by accelerating the growth of gamification design and practice
(Hassan et al. 2018). This raises questions as to how to practically and theoretically
research the gamification design process to address this problem and contribute to the
extant design knowledge. Utilizing problem-driven, theory-advancing research
approaches in gamification research could be valuable in terms of simultaneously
enhancing both the theoretical and the practical understanding of gamification design,
ensuring that most gamification projects, successful or not, contribute to either theory
or practice if not both. These strengths of problem-driven, theory-advancing research
can reduce the cycle of trial and error in gamification design.
Several problem-driven, theory-advancing research approaches exist. One is Action

Research (AR), which enables theory development, and practical work in context,
supporting the needed contextualization in gamification design. AR was developed at
the University of Michigan in the aftermath of WWII to facilitate the study of social
psychology outside laboratory settings (Baskerville & Myers 2004; Blum 1955). AR is
carried out in the environment of the study subjects, capitalizing on the interaction--

Model Preparation Analysis Ideation Design Implementation Evaluation Monitoring
Brito, Vieira & Duran 2015 - -
Burke 2014 -
Deterding 2015 -
Dignan 2011 - -
Fitz-Walter 2015 -
Francisco-Aparicio et al. 2013 - -
Helms et al. 2015
Herger 2014
Herzig, Ameling, Wolf & Schill 2015
Kapp 2012 -
Klevers et al. 2016
Kumar & Herger 2013 -
Marache-Francisco & Brangier 2013 - - -
Radoff 2011 - -
Robson et al. 2015 - - -
Schmidt, Brosius & Herrmanny 2017 -
Werbach & Hunter 2012 -

between them and the researchers, transforming the researcher into a change agent
(Brydon-Miller, Greenwood & Maguire 2003; Järvinen 2005). AR has an iterative
nature between theorizing and practical intervention (Baskerville & Myers 2004; Blum
1955; Sein, Henfredsson, Purao, Rossi & Lindgren 2011), and can advance both the
theoretical and practical understanding of gamification design methods.
However, while AR-based research attempts to empirically investigate theoretical and

practical artefacts, AR does not provide guidelines for the design of these artefacts
(Sein et al. 2011). This is perhaps why it is relatively infrequently employed in the many
subfields of IS research, wherein the practical design of artefacts is often needed
(Brydon-Miller et al. 2003; Järvinen 2005). While not all IS research requires the
deployment of new artefacts, many endeavors do need such efforts. For example, in the
emerging gamification design field, research artefacts are often designed, and the
implementation and reception thereof evaluated to enhance the underlying design
theory and practice.
Design Science Research (DSR), as a problem-driven, theory-advancing research

approach, enables the systematic design, development, and evaluation of theoretical
and practical artefacts (Hevner, March, Park & Ram 2004; March & Smith 1995). Thus,
DSR is frequently employed in IS research (Goes 2014; Iivari 2007), especially in the
development and testing of innovative solutions. For example, Morschheuser, Riar,
Hamari, and Maedche (2017b) employed a DSR approach in the development and
evaluation of a gamified system that facilitates cooperative interactions between users,
contributing one of the few blueprints for the development of cooperative gamification.
While controlled design and evaluations in DSR may conserve resources, it is not
always able to introduce artefacts that meet their predefined criteria of utility, because
of unaccounted for environmental factors (Iivari 2007; March & Smith 1995; Markus,
Majchrzak & Gasser 2002). However, the emergent design process in AR approaches
introduces interventions designed in real settings, but is a risky and complex process to
manage (Järvinen 2005). The trade-off between controlled and emergent design is
influenced by the research objectives, available resources, and research environment.
Since gamification design is considered a complex task requiring contextualized
considerations (Deterding 2012, 2015; Hamari et al. 2014; Noran 2016), contextualized
emergent design through AR may be worthwhile. Nonetheless, controlled design
through DSR is as similarly valuable to gamification research, because it provides
guidelines for the design and evaluation of artefacts.

Gamification design researching would significantly benefit from employing problem-

driven, theory-advancing research approaches, especially those that combine the
strengths of AR and DSR and minimize their shortcomings. While Action Design
Research (ADR) is one such possibility (Sein et al. 2011), it is rarely adopted in
gamification research (Coenen 2014; Klapztein & Cipolla 2016; Schacht & Maedche
2015). Thus, ADR’s possible benefits and challenges in gamification research are not
well known but it could accelerate the growth of the gamification design field and
increase the likelihood of successful gamification implementations.
This chapter summarized the gamification design methods currently reported in the
literature, emphasizing that not all methods address all phases of the gamification
design process or provide comprehensive guidance for all implementation phases. This
highlights the need for the development of comprehensive, detailed gamification design
methods based on the knowledge gathered thus far through research, and not to
provide another gamification design method developed in a vacuum. Next, the needs
for the accelerated growth of the field of gamification research to address design
challenges and for comprehensive gamification design methods are stressed.
Accelerated growth could be facilitated through employing problem-driven, theory-
advancing approaches, such as those discussed in this chapter.

6. METHODOLOGY
Hagrid: “If anyone wanted ter find out some stuff,

all they’d have ter do would be ter follow the spiders.
That’d lead ‘em right! That’s all I’m sayin’.
Ron: Why spiders? Why couldn't it be "follow the butterflies?
- J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

A cynical commentary on methods to discover truth.
6.1. Research design
With the novelty of gamification as a field, there is a need to develop both practice-
oriented guidelines and theories to advance understanding of gamification design
(Deterding 2012; Hassan & Nader 2016; Nicholson 2015). Problem-driven approaches
to research address practical challenges (Brydon-Miller et al. 2003; Goes 2014; Livari
2015), such as those pertaining to determining an appropriate gamification design for
certain users and contexts or which design methods to employ. However, because of
their relatively limited contribution to the theory, problem-driven approaches to
research are considered too time and context specific, which often discourages
researchers from adopting them. On the other hand, theory-driven approaches to
research, while are expected to contribute generalizable theories, often struggle with
relevance across time and contexts (Hevner et al. 2004; March & Smith 1995). Theory
must be continuously refined as our understanding of a phenomenon evolves over time,
rendering it outdated or irrelevant to the current reality (Davis 2015; Lounsbury &
Beckman 2015).
Since the primary research question addressed by this dissertation is: How should
gamification be designed?, this question has practical relevance; thus, problem-driven
approaches could be employed to address it and its sub-questions. However, the
intention of addressing this research question is to additionally contribute to the theory
on gamification design for different users and contexts. Thus, a theory-advancing
approach can also be appropriately employed. Since problem-driven and theory-
advancing research approaches have different strengths and weaknesses, combined,
they may cancel out each other’s weaknesses and address practical problems and
facilitate theory development simultaneously (Coenen, Donche & Ballon 2015; Davis
2015; Iivari 2015; Lounsbury & Beckman 2015). This duality is of significant
importance in the emerging gamification research field and was adopted in this
dissertation.

6.2. Problem-driven, theory-advancing approaches employed
Various problem-driven, theory-advancing research approaches are often employed in

gamification research such as Design Science Research (DSR) (Hevner et al. 2004;
March & Smith 1995), Action Research (AR) (Baskerville & Myers 2004; Blum 1955),
and Action Design Research (ADR) (Sein et al. 2011). These approaches and their value
in researching gamification design were discussed in Chapter 5. Other methods and
approaches can be employed in gamification research, as synthesized by Hamari et al.
(2014) and Koivisto and Hamari (2018). There is most definitely no perfect research
approach; however, some are better suited to certain endeavors than others. The
studies reported on in this dissertation employed the ADR and DSR approaches and
various quantitative and qualitative methods to culminate in a mixed methods research
design. Justification for adopting these approaches and their implementation is
provided in the following sub-sections.
6.2.1. Action Design Research
A main aim of this dissertation, as delineated in Chapter 1, was to study the context of
civic engagement and understand the implications of gamification use context for
gamification design, as articulated in RQ (2): How should gamification be designed
considering its use context? Being one of the largest research endeavors undertaken in
this dissertation, possibly requiring the most design and development resources as well
as time, the author commenced the doctoral research work with it. Research to address
RQ (2) was implemented in parallel with relatively smaller-scale research that was next
started with the aim of addressing the remaining RQs.
Since RQ (2) focuses on contextualized gamification research, AR could have been a

suitable research approach because of the expected involvement of numerous research
participants with different roles in the research addressing the RQ. However, the
research work involved the actual design and development of a gamified e-participation
artefact, requiring artefact design and development guidelines that are rarely afforded
through AR. Rather, these guidelines are provided through DSR approaches, also
rendering these approaches appropriate in addressing the research question and
carrying out the underlying research work.
ADR attempts to combine the strengths of DSR and AR (Sein et al. 2011). It provides
guidelines to navigate the interactivity between researchers and research participants,
contextualized design, and the design and development of artefacts and organizational

interventions (Coenen et al. 2015; Iivari 2015; Sein et al. 2011). Therefore, the approach
is valuable in gamification research if carried out properly. However, caution is
preached as integrating DSR and AR could lead to the rushed development and
introduction of rudimentary artifacts that do not meet expectations (Coenen 2014). As
ADR can potentially balance the research requirements to address RQ (2), it was
adopted as a research approach in this dissertation.
In order to better understand how gamification research can be conducted through

ADR, a literature review was conducted using the EBSCO and Scopus databases at the
start of the research work in 2016, using the keywords “gamif*” and “action design
research” or “ADR” across titles, keywords, and abstracts, revealing (until updated
searches in May 2017) three peer-reviewed publications (Coenen 2014; Klapztein &
Cipolla 2016; Schacht & Maedche 2015). The observed dearth in gamification research
utilizing ADR highlights the importance of conducting the research approach to
determine its relevance, benefits, and drawbacks in gamification research and identify
guidelines for its utilization.
Next, Sein et al. (2011) was followed as a guide for the use of ADR. Accordingly, the
ADR approach comprises four stages: Stage (1) problem formulation; Stage (2)
building, intervention, and evaluation (BIE); Stage (3) reflection and learning; and
Stage (4) formulation of learning. The work carried out according to these stages is
detailed in Paper 4 and summarized in this section. A visual summary of the research
approach is provided in Figure 7.
ADR stage (1): In this stage, the empirical work is initiated by identifying theoretical
and practical research problems. The theoretical problem of this empirical work was
determined through a literature study and refined through academic discussions. The
gamification field appeared to lack a theoretical understanding of gamified e-
participation to guide practical work within that context. This led to the initiation of
the MANGO project (Motivational Affordances iN Governmental Organizations) and
Paper 2 of this dissertation (Hassan 2017). In Paper 2, the identified theoretical
problem was conceptualized and a theoretical investigation of RQ (2) was provided.
The paper contributed a theoretical framework for the gamification of e-participation
through concept analysis and discussions with academics in several seminars.

!

Self-determination theory, discussed in Chapter 2, was used in Paper 2 as a lens to

discuss gamification, and the literature on gamification and its influence on
engagement was extended to the facilitation of e-participation requirements dictated by
deliberation theory, discussed in Chapter 4. While deliberation theory is a political
theory, it focuses on constructive communication that can develop informed
individuals. This framework (in Paper 2) is hence relevant to many contexts in which
informed collaborations and discussions are important. The theoretical framework
presented in Paper 2 guided the practical work of the ADR approach. Regarding the
practical problem of the ADR approach and MANGO, cooperation was arranged with a
small-sized government unit that needed a gamified solution for e-participation. The
practical problem was identified and documented through discussions with a middle-
level manager at the unit, as described in Paper 3.
ADR stage (2): The practical, empirical research of MANGO ran for 18 months and
involved cooperative work between several stakeholders: the author of the dissertation
as a researcher, gamification designer, and project coordinator; a middle-level manager
responsible for the intervention to be developed; a developer; cooperating researchers;
and research funders. Following a user-centric design approach to gamification based
on Burke (2014), personas were developed for the primary target user groups of the
artifact. Next, a list of operational requirements for the artifact was produced. The
purpose was to ensure gamification design user and context fit. Next, the gamification
design was developed through cycles of brainstorming and consulting the relevant
literature to refine ideas. Research participants each had a specific role in the research
process, identified by their area of expertise and title in the project. Each participant’s
involvement was sought during the research work according to the identified roles they
held. Stage (1) concluded with the development of a Minimum Viable Product (MVP),
an implementable artifact with working core features.
ADR stage (3): Stage (3) is longitudinal and continuous, running parallel to the other
stages. Research logs were maintained throughout all stages of this research,
containing emails, paper designs, and meeting minutes, as well as research notes by the
author of the dissertation. The logs were actively reflected on during this stage, as
recommended by Sein et al. (2011), to identify changes to the IT-artifact and holistic
intervention as the artifact and the intervention evolved through the research
iterations.

ADR stage (4): During this stage, generalizable learning from MANGO was
extrapolated, formalized, and communicated in peer-reviewed publications and
academic presentations. The research problems and how they were addressed were
reflected on along with relevant observations throughout the research work. Examining
the impact of the artifact was not possible, however, because the project was
terminated after changes to the available project resources. Thus, we cannot provide
final evaluations of the intervention; however, the artifact design and research
documentation enabled reflections on the gamification design process and ADR
research approach, as described in Hassan and Nader (2016) and Hassan et al. (2018),
and enhance understanding of the gamification of civic engagement as in Hassan
(2017).
6.2.2. Design Science Research
Another main aim of this dissertation as outlined in Chapter 1 was to contribute a

holistic method for the design of gamification software, as communicated in RQ (3):
How can the gamification design process be guided? The research addressing this RQ
was started and lead by the author’s colleagues. Paper 4 of this dissertation,
Morschheuser et al. (2018), utilized DSR to first synthesize the current body of relevant
literature to develop a comprehensive gamification design method. Given the study’s
focus, DSR was deemed an appropriate research approach because of its strength in the
systematic development and evaluation of artifacts intended to solve practical problems
as well as in developing generalizable design principles or theory (Hevner et al. 2004;
Kuechler & Vaishnavi 2012). Employing a less systematic problem-driven, theory-
advancing approach like AR or ADR would have provided less structure to the research
process of Paper 4. This was unnecessary, as most of the research reported on in Paper
4 was conducted in a controlled environment. Therefore, the research process of Paper
4 consisted of two parts: 1) developing theory-ingrained artifacts and 2) evaluating the
developed artifacts, the artifact being a method for gamification design that
emphasizes the importance of user and context fit in gamification design.
A. Artifact development
During the artifact development stage, first, a literature review was conducted to
extract scholarly experiences on gamification design. Second, expert interviews were
conducted to extract professional experiences. Based on the gathered theoretical and
practical knowledge, a new gamification design method was formulated, synthesizing

the identified gamification design knowledge from the literature and expert interviews.
This completed step 1 of the DSR approach. The details of the artifact development and
this research stage are provided in Paper 4.
B. Practical evaluation of the artifact
Evaluation took place in two stages. First, expert interviews were conducted, which
contained both structured parts to ensure concise, precise evaluations, and
unstructured parts to probe the experts when needed. Second, a case study-oriented
evaluation was performed in cooperation with a multinational German engineering
company. Since the gamification design method developed in this study synthesizes
prior methods for gamification design accumulated over the past five to seven years, an
empirical validation thereof may have been unnecessary. Regardless, a practical
evaluation was carried out to assess the practicality of the holistic method rather than
its parts, as elaborated in Paper 4. It was concluded from both evaluations that the
gamification design method was effective, and easy to use and comprehend.
6.3. Additional quantitative methods employed
There is no doubt that problem-driven, theory-advancing approaches to research are

demanding, requiring many resources to carry them out. One could hardly expect that
every research question posed by this dissertation or by researchers in general could
only be addressed through these complex approaches. Various techniques to arrive at
answers to research questions are available, each offering a different vantage point and
level of detail. When employed, targeted research approaches or methods do provide
rich answers and conserve research resources. While more extensive approaches could
have been employed to answer RQ (1)—Which classes of gamification design do
different users prefer?—employing such approaches was not feasible within the
boundaries of the available resources and timeframe of this dissertation.
In Paper 1 (Hamari et al. 2018), RQ (1) was addressed using a quantitative method
through a psychometric survey. Surveys are considered an established approach in the
measurement of latent variables such as attitudes, preferences, and beliefs (Nunnally
1978). They provide a gateway to the individualized perception of reality, which is not
equally afforded by most other research methods (Barker & Pistrang 2015; Fransella
1981). Therefore, we preferred to employ a psychometric survey over other possible
research methods such as user interviews, observations, or log data analysis. The
survey measured users’ experiences of the three classes of gamification design outlined

in Figure 4, namely game elements, social designs, and QS designs, as well as users’
goal-setting aspects, summarized in Figure 5.
In total, 167 users of HeiaHeia, a major Finnish-based exercise encouragement app,

successfully completed the survey. HeiaHeia was launched in 2009 and is available in
the Apple, Android, and Microsoft App stores. HeiaHeia users were selected because
the app simultaneously incorporates the three classes of gamification design
investigated in this dissertation, enabling a comparative study of the experience
thereof. In addition, in the exercise context, users voluntarily choose to engage with one
app over another or with some features over others. Even though applications
employing the three classes of gamification design are found in other contexts, such as
educational or organizational contexts, adherence to the use of apps or some of their
features in these contexts may be because of hierarchal pressures, job requirements, or
peer pressure amongst other possible pressures on applications’ users. These pressures
may still be present in a context where engagement with an app or its features is
voluntary, although this is likely minimal. Users of an exercise app are likely to have
signed up for its use voluntarily and are likely to employ specific features over others
based on their personal preferences and characteristics. As this research is interested in
personal characteristics and preferences, the context was considered valuable.
The survey was accessible through the app only to registered users to ensure
participants’ familiarity with the app before completing the survey. The demographics
of the participants are in Paper 1; however, noteworthy is that almost 80% of
participants had been using the app for more than a year, and more than 80% had used
it several times, indicating their familiarity with its features. The model for Paper 1 was
tested through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), a standard approach in studies
that employ psychometric surveys. SmartPLS was used to assess the validity and
reliability of the model as well as its structural validity through component-based PLS-
SEM (Ringle, Wende & Will, 2005). The tested model indicated that users do differ in
their experience of gamification design according to their goal attributes and goal-
setting characteristics.

This chapter discussed the research approaches and methods employed in this
dissertation. The dissertation adopted two overarching problem-driven, theory-
advancing approaches. The first is an Action Design Research approach in which
literature reviews, conceptual theoretical analyses, and practical development work
were utilized as research methods. The second approach is a Design Science Research
approach in which literature reviews, expert interviews, and practical development
work were utilized as research methods. To support these approaches and answer the
remaining research question of the dissertation, psychometric surveys were employed.
While no single research approach or method is perfect, the chapter problematized the
selected approaches and methods, justifying their selection.

7. SUMMARY OF PAPERS
7.1. Summary of Paper 1
The study was conducted by the author of this dissertation with Juho Hamari (PhD)
and Antonio Dias (MSc). Key facts pertaining to this paper are provided in Table 2.
The study observes that systems are increasingly augmented with hedonic designs to
positively motivate users to use them and engage with the task they are attempting to
accomplish. Designers of such hedonic systems often employ design features from
three sets of design classes: 1) game elements, commonly referred to as gamification; 2)
QS designs, drawn from big data, wearables, and dashboard design; and 3) social
networking designs, drawn from social networking services designs. The three classes
of hedonic design often overlap in popular gamification implementations. The
perception of these design classes depends on users’ personal characteristics and
preferences.
Users of gamified systems do not share the same goal attributes or goal-setting
characteristics. Thus, it cannot be expected that a single gamification design will fit all
users. It would be beneficial to design gamification to fit users and provide individuals
with the motivation they need depending on their goal attributes and goal-setting
characteristics. This pertains specifically to 1) the goal focus of the users (outcomes,
process); 2) orientation of the goal setter toward goals (mastery, proving, or
avoidance); and 3) goal attributes (difficulty, specificity). Since these characteristics
vary across many, if not all, individuals, understanding how to fit gamification design
based on them can enhance the perception of gamification across a wide spectrum of
users. Therefore, in this study, we investigated how different goal foci, orientation, and
goal attributes are associated with perceptions of the gamification design classes.
The study employed psychometric survey data (N=167) from users of HeiaHeia, a
popular exercise encouragement app. It was found that users’ goal attributes and goal-
setting characteristics are connected with their preference for gamification design
classes. The results of this study provide the means to customize gamification
implementation according to users’ measurable goal attributes and goal-setting
characteristics, thereby facilitating the development of gamified systems that achieve a
user-design fit.

!

Full reference Hamari, J., Hassan, L., & Dias, A. (2018). Gamification, quantified-
self or social networking? Matching goal-setting with motivational
technologies, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 28(1),
35-74. DOI: 10.1007/s11257-018-9200-2.
Additional Presented at: Play Cultures (2016), University of Jyväskylä, Finland

presentations Presented at: GamiFIN (2017), UCPori. Pori, Finland, where the
author of the dissertation received the Best Conference Presentation
Award.
Aim of the study In finding means to gameful ends, this study provided an answer to
and link to the aim RQ (1) of the dissertation by investigating one possible way through
of the dissertation which gamification could be designed to fit user preferences. Goal-
setting theory was applied, increasing the likelihood that gamification
design would be positively received and contribute to the experience
of gamefulness across a wide spectrum of individuals.
Research method Psychometric survey data (N=167) from users of HeiaHeia, a popular
exercise encouragement app. The obtained data were analyzed
through Structural Equation Modeling.
Contribution The theoretical contributions include extending goal-setting theory to

the context of gamification. On the practical side the study provides
designers with a guide to better achieve a user-design fit and with a
measurement instrument that could be employed, modified, or
expanded to determine the attributes of user goals and their goal-
setting characteristics to accordingly fit gamification design.

The study was conducted solely by the author of the dissertation. Key facts pertaining
to this paper are summarized in Table 3.
Recognizing the importance of contextualized gamification design and development,

the study reported in this paper investigated e-participation and the gamification
thereof. The context of e-participation was selected, as it is frequently reported that
governments worldwide are struggling to maintain communities willing to actively
engage with online and offline civic participation channels. E-participation is a field in
need of design practices to increase user engagement, possibly through gamification.
Engagement between governments and citizens can potentially improve government
legitimacy and decision making and reduce governance costs. Despite this potential,
research on how gamification can influence citizen engagement with e-participation
platforms is limited. Moreover, theoretical and practical frameworks as possible design
guidelines for gamifying e-participation are lacking.
The study followed a conceptual analytical approach through which the discourse on
what gamification is and its influence on engagement was integrated with that on the
requirements of e-participation. Self-determination theory was used as a lens to
examine gamification and engagement, and the theory of democratic deliberation as a
guide to understand the normative requirements of e-participation. The paper presents
a conceptual framework that integrates the mentioned theories to provide a theoretical
base for the gamification of e-participation. This framework could be employed to
guide the design of gamified e-participation tools and the subsequent development of
contextualized and practical gamified e-participation design guidelines. This is perhaps
the first study to link these theories in a comprehensive framework. In addition, the
study identified research directions for researchers interested in gamification and e-
participation to improve theoretical and practical understanding of gamified e-
participation.

"

!
Full reference Hassan, L. (2017). Governments should play games: Towards a

framework for the gamification of civic engagement platforms,
Simulation & Gaming, 48(2), 249-267. DOI:
10.1177/1046878116683581.
Aim of the study In finding means to gameful ends, this study provides an answer to RQ
and link to the (2) of the dissertation by advancing understanding of contextualized
aim of the gamification design and its implications for designing and experiencing
dissertation gamification design in the context of e-participation. The paper
provided a needed theoretical understanding for gamified e-
participation, which served as the basis for some of the empirical work
of the dissertation.
Research method The paper followed a conceptual analytical approach through which the
discourse on what gamification is and its influence on engagement was
integrated with that on the precursors of e-participation engagement.
Contribution The paper presented a conceptual framework for understanding the

gamification of e-participation and design-use context fit and identified
future research directions for researchers interested in gamified e-
participation.

The study was conducted by the dissertation author with Benedikt Morschheuser
(PhD), Nader Alexan (MSc), and Juho Hamari (PhD). Key facts pertaining to this paper
are summarized in Table 4.
Gamification as a motivational design practice is often introduced to e-participation

platforms to increase citizen engagement with civil servants. After developing a
theoretical base for gamification design in the context of e-participation (presented in
Paper 2 of this dissertation), this study aimed to practically and empirically investigate:
how civic engagement can be gamified. This study was conducted for 18 months in
collaboration with a governmental organization in need of a gamified tool. However,
the project (MANGO) was terminated before the debut of the developed gamified
platforms, although the research partners have accepted the design and subsequent
prototype.
The study demonstrates an operationalization of the developed framework for gamified

e-participation presented in Paper 2 (Hassan 2017). In addition, it demonstrated the
use of ADR as a problem-driven, theory-advancing approach rarely used in
gamification research. Finally, the study reflected on why gamification projects fail and
how to mitigate such possible failure.
The contribution of this study was threefold: a) It provided a contextualized design for
a gamified e-participation platform based on the theoretical framework developed in
Paper 2 (Hassan 2017) and the recognition of user preferences according to goal-setting
aspects as per the recommendations in Paper 1 (Hamari et al. 2018); b) It introduced a
Minimum Viable Product (MVP) based on the design described earlier that can be
implemented or customized to fit other contexts with little effort; c) It demonstrated
how Action Design Research (ADR) can be carried out in gamification research and
identified its strengths, weaknesses, threads, and possible risk mediation techniques to
accompany its use by future researchers.

#

"
Full reference Hassan, L., Morschheuser, B., Alexan, N., & Hamari, J. (2018). First-
hand experience of why gamification projects fail and what could be done
about it. Proceedings of the 2nd International GamiFIN Conference
(GamiFIN2018).
Initially published Hassan, L., & Nader, A. (2016). Gamification design in action: The
abstract and practical cases of gamification platforms for employee work
presentation motivation and citizen’s civic engagement. Proceedings of the
International Conference on ICT Management for Global
Competitiveness and Economic Growth in Emerging Economies
(ICTM 2016). ISBN: 978-83-64389-62-7.
Aim of the study The study addressed RQ (2) of the dissertation by integrating the
and link to the aim two previous studies (Paper 1 and Paper 2 of this dissertation).
of the dissertation Furthermore, it demonstrated a practical endeavor to design
personalized, contextualized gamification.
Research method Action Design Research (ADR) according to Sein et al. (2011).
Contribution The contributions of this study are threefold: a) a contextualized

design of gamified e-participation platforms, b) an MVP of a
gamified e-participation platform, and c) a demonstration of how to
conduct ADR in gamification research and identification of its
strengths, weaknesses, threads, and possible risk mediation
techniques.

The study was conducted by the author of the dissertation with Benedikt Morschheuser
(PhD), Juho Hamari (PhD), and Karl Weber (PhD). Key facts pertaining to this paper
are summarized in Table 5.
Gamification design is complex. It requires impeccable system design for mere

operability as well as psychologically, user-, and context-aware design to induce
appropriate engagement, which is the underlying aim of gamification. However, most
gamification design methods have been developed in a vacuum, and few pay
comprehensive attention to the challenges thereof. Thus far, only a few sources have
provided methodological insights into how to gamify or mitigate the risks inherent in
gamification design and implementation. Some of these challenges were highlighted in
Paper 3 of this dissertation (Hassan et al. 2018). Consequently, it has been projected
that most gamification implementations are doomed to failure.
The aim of this study was to answer the research question: How should gamified
software be designed? The aim was to contribute a holistic and detailed method for
gamification design that is user and context aware. A Design Science Research
approach was employed through which we developed a method for designing
gamification based on literature reviews, expert interviews, and initially developed
gamification design principles. Finally, we evaluated the design method through expert
interviews and by using it in a gamification development case study project.
Based on the evaluations, the developed gamification design method outlined in this
study was deemed comprehensive, implementable, complete, and provides practical
utility. The method additionally represents a synthesis of the literature and practices of
designing gamification up until the conception of the method. Finally, the study
provided research directions for researchers in the field of gamification design and
development.

$

#
Full reference Morschheuser, B., Hassan, L., Werder, K., & Hamari, J. (2018). How
to design gamification? A method for engineering gamified software.
Information & Software Technology, 95, 219-237. DOI:
10.1016/j.infsof.2017.10.015.
Aim of the study and RQ (3) of the dissertation aims to advance the practices of designing
link to the aim of and developing gamification. To this end, this study provides a method
the dissertation for designing and developing gamification. The method also
acknowledges the need to contextualize and personalize gamification,
which, as articulated in RQs (1 & 2), are some of the aims of this
dissertation.
Research method The study employed a DSR approach within which a literature review
and interviews with 25 gamification experts were conducted. The
developed artifacts were evaluated through ten interviews with
gamification experts and a development project case study.
Contribution The study contributed a method for designing gamification that

emphasizes user- and context-design fit.

8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
I'm an apostrophe.
I'm just a symbol to remind you that there's more to see
I'm just a product of the system, a catastrophe, and yet a masterpiece,
I do what it takes, whatever it takes.
- Imagine dragons - Whatever it Takes, a short discussion of socially

constructed artifacts such as individuals, dissertations, and research findings
8.1. Addressing the research questions
This dissertation aimed to advance gamification design theory and practice by

researching how should gamification be designed? The aim is to increase the likelihood
that gamification implementations would have a better chance at inducing gamefulness
and achieving their implementation objectives. To address this research question, the
dissertation contributes a multi-dimensional gamification design and practice theory
that focuses on guiding the gamification design process toward designing gamification
that better matches 1) user preferences and 2) use context.
Designing gamification to match user preferences can be achieved in various ways. One
way is through the design knowledge contributed by this dissertation, which details
how to match gamification design to users’ goal attributes and goal-setting
characteristics. Gamification, on the other hand, is observably employed in many
contexts. This dissertation focused on the relatively unexplored contextualized
gamification design for group collaboration, a key component in the civic engagement
context.
While it is valuable to generate design theory and practices regarding gamification

design for various user and context fits, the knowledge may remain lost to designers if
they are not directed toward seeking it. Thus, this dissertation contributed 3) a method
to guide the process of gamification design, in which the importance of gamification
design for user and context fit is highlighted.
It can hence be concluded that the research directions and contributions of this
dissertation complement one another, and offer a multi-dimensional, holistic guide for
how to design gamification. The contributions of this dissertation are elaborated in the
following sub-sections.

8.1.1. User-gamification design fit
While all individuals can use the same information systems or technological tools, they
do so with different goals in mind. For example, Facebook can be used by some
individuals to communicate with others, but by others to run a business or play games
(Petridis et al. 2011). Different users or user groups appreciate different aspects of the
Facebook design. Similarly, as indicated by the results reported in Paper 1, this is the
case with gamification design and user goal attributes and goal-setting characteristics
(Hamari 2013; Landers et al. 2017; Zuckerman & Gal-Oz 2014). Individual differences
in goal attributes and goal-setting characteristics influence individuals’ preferred
classes of gamification design.
While it may appear that a gamified system—or any system for that matter—that offers
a plethora of features is more likely to cater to wide-ranging user preferences, research
indicates that offering users a wide selection of features might create an information
overload. Feeling overwhelmed, users then tend be become dissatisfied with the system
in question (Oinas-Kukkonen 2012; Willemsen, Graus, & Knijnenburg 2016), which
threatens its economic feasibility. As such, matching gamification design to individual
preferences might facilitate users’ experience of gamefulness more than would a
generic gamification design that might overwhelm users.
RQ (1): Which classes of gamification design do different users prefer? addressed

user-fitted gamification design through the lens of goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham
1984, 2002; Loock et al. 2013). The results of Paper 1, which addressed this RQ,
indicate that good fit is expected between A) users who focus on outcomes and the
gamification design classes of game elements and QS features, B) users with a proving
orientation and the gamification design classes of game elements and social
networking, C) users with a mastery orientation and the gamification design class of
QS, and D) users with specific goals and the gamification design class of QS. On the
other hand, no fit is expected between users with avoidance orientations and the
gamification design class of social networking, nor between users with difficult goals
and the gamification design classes of game elements and social networking.
User modeling and user-adapted gamification design possibly based on the results
reported in Paper 1 can help designers design gamification that fits users’ preferences—
and possibly induces gamefulness—without overwhelming them. Several established
design practices such as market segmentation, user analysis, and product analysis

(Jonker, Piersma & van den Poel 2004) can further contribute toward attaining
gamification design-user fit by identifying target users of gamified applications and
segmenting them into groups. These groups can then be investigated, and personas
reflecting their goal-setting aspects developed to guide a user-centric gamification
design approach based on the results of Paper 1. However, more research is needed
before detailed customization guidelines are available for customizing gamification
design based on user goal-setting aspects.
8.1.2. Context-gamification design fit
RQ (2): How should gamification be designed considering its use context? addressed
contextualized theoretical and practical design and implementation of gamification that
meets the objectives of its use context. The dissertation adopted the gamification design
context of civic engagement as a lens through which to understand how gamification
design can fit its use context. Paper 2 theoretically investigated the gamification of civic
engagement, to this end formulating the theoretical framework presented in Figure 8.
The proposed theoretical framework adopts self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan
1985; 2004) and proposes that engagement can be positively influenced through
extrinsic reward-based gamification or by stimulating intrinsic motivation. Each of
these gamification design routes is important in the context of civic engagement,
depending on the end goal of gamification and the timeframe within which to achieve
engagement. Thus, both routes are worth considering in the design and development of
gamification. Implementing context-specific gamified civic engagement additionally
requires the facilitation of democratic deliberation, a precursor of informed civic
engagement and e-participation.
The MANGO project, reported on in Paper 3, aimed to empirically and practically

address RQ (2) by utilizing the knowledge acquired in Papers 1 and 2. However, the
gamified platform developed as part of the MANGO project did not enter the evaluation
or utilization stages. As mentioned in the published extended abstract (Hassan & Nader
2016), aside from deliberation as the precursor of civic engagement, the economic and
political situation of the country wherein civic engagement is to be gamified imposes
additional implications for gamification implementation as well as for the resources
available for implementation. These observations across Papers 2 and 3 and the
extended abstract highlight the influence of context on gamification implementation
and the need to understand both the design implications created by use contexts and
environmental implications important in one context but not in another.

&

! %
In hindsight, considering the available resources, the objectives of the work carried out
as part of Paper 3 and the MANGO project were too elaborate. Nonetheless, the
empirical work contributed a design for gamified civic engagement and a working MVP,
both of which are ready for use with little modification. The empirical work also
enhanced the practical understanding of a research approach underutilized in
gamification, namely ADR, and provided some reasons for why gamification projects
fail and how to mitigate this possible failure throughout the design and development
process. In addition, Paper 3 emphasized the importance of problem-driven, theory-
advancing approaches in gamification research, as they increase the likelihood of either
theoretical or practical contributions, if not both, accelerating the growth of the
gamification field and ensuring a payoff of implementation-based research projects.
8.1.3. Gamification design method
RQ (3): How can the gamification design process be guided? addressed the
development of a comprehensive method for gamification design, detailing the steps of
that process, and how to facilitate gamification design that fits users and the use
context. Paper 4 elaborated such a method for designing gamified software, under
which the learnings obtained in Papers 1, 2, & 3 are combined. Paper 4 and the

gamification design method emphasize the importance of user modeling and designing
for user preferences, as emphasized in Paper 1. In addition, Paper 4 and the
gamification design method emphasize the importance of understanding the context in
which gamification will be implemented, as highlighted in Papers 2 and 3. Finally, the
lessons learned from the MANGO project, clarified in Paper 3, are acknowledged in
Paper 4 alongside other risks of gamification implementation with the intention to
provide guidance for navigating these risks. The gamification design method is
presented in Figure 9.
The gamification method in Paper 4 was utilized in the design and development of a
gamified application for car parking space management. The result from a design
method that emphasized contextualized, user-centric gamification design was an
application that is appreciated by its users. It hence appears, as is the premise of this
dissertation, that contextualized gamification design tailored to user preferences and
the use context following a comprehensive gamification design method could improve
the likelihood that gamification achieves its operational objectives.
8.2. Contributions of the dissertation
This dissertation aimed to advance understanding of gamification design. The gameful

experience, namely the user experience end goal of many gamification
implementations, is a positive psychological experience that does not have a
standardized definition. Rather, it is subjectively defined in terms of the psychological
experiences designers wish their users to experience. Experiencing gamefulness is also
subjective, and depends on how users experience design. What constitutes a positive
psychological experience for one user may not be similarly received by another. Paper 1
of this dissertation employed goal-setting theory to determine how to design
gamification with a degree of user fit. To this end, user preferences for gamification
design classes were identified based on their goal-setting aspects. Goal-setting is innate
in most, if not all, individuals. Therefore, studying how users experience gamification
design classes according to goal-setting theory enabled the development of guidelines
for gamification design-user fit for a wide array of potential gamification users,
substantiating the value and relevance of such guidelines.

Experiencing gamefulness from gamification is also influenced by the gamification use

context, next to user preferences. This dissertation studied gamification design for
context fit by researching gamification in the context of civic engagement through the
lenses of deliberation theory and self-determination theory. The context of civic
engagement is one in which gamification has a high potential for positive societal
impact. In addition, researching civic engagement is relevant for other gamification use
contexts in which community building and engagement are needed, for example,
collaborative work, or the organization and maintenance of online and offline
communities of interest. Paper 2 contributed a theoretical framework for the
gamification of civic engagement developed through a theoretical, analytical approach.
The framework can be applied and evaluated in an on ground civic engagement
implementation or in a related context of communal engagement.
Combining the contributions of Papers 1 and 2, the research underlying Paper 3 aimed
toward designing and implementing a gamified application for civic engagement. The
application considered the goal-setting related aspects of target users—based on Paper
1—and aimed to validate the theoretical framework presented in Paper 2. However, the
far too ambitious research work of Paper 3 did not go as planned, showcasing some of
the reasons gamification projects fail. Gamification projects are not only challenging
because of the difficulties in designing to induce gamefulness and ensure user and
context fit, but also because they require increased financial and time resources, human
expertise, and project management skills to deal with these difficulties.
The challenges of the research work underlying Paper 3 highlight the importance of
holistic gamification design methods that guide designers toward user and context fit in
design as well as through all phases of gamification implementation, ensuring that
designers avoid the risks associated with gamification projects such as those outlined in
Paper 3. Nonetheless, many currently available gamification design methods do not
provide comprehensive guidelines for all phases of gamification design or facilitate user
and context fit. Paper 4 contributes a comprehensive, holistic method for designing
gamification, which was validated through expert interviews and a practical
development project. This method incorporated the design knowledge gathered in the
gamification field at the time. Thus, the method incorporates lessons learned from the
failures and successes of others in the field and does not reinvent the wheel. Table 6
summarizes the theoretical and practical contributions of this dissertation.

Study Theoretical contributions Practical contributions
- Determined user differences in design - A survey-based tool to identify the goal

experience based on goal-setting theory attributes and goal-setting
- Connected the discourse on characteristics of users of a gamified tool
gamification, social networking, and - Guidelines for the selection of
Paper 1
quantified-self design gamification designs classed according

RQ(1)
- Expanded the theoretical discourse of to user preferences

motivation and gamification acceptance
- Connected the gamification literature

Paper 2
to the e-participation literature,

RQ(2)
contributing a theoretical framework for

the gamification of e-participation
Identified some of the strengths and A design and MVP ready for use to
weaknesses of utilizing ADR in gamify e-participation
RQ(2)
gamification design research
Identification of several gamification

Paper 3
design risks and how to mitigate them

RQ(3)
Synthesized the literature on A holistic method for designing user and

Paper 4
gamification design methods and context-fitted gamification that can

practice mitigate some of the risk of the
gamification process
8.3. Limitations of the dissertation
All research work is limited, as no research is perfect or free of biases. As such, this
dissertation has the general limitations imposed on most dissertations, which can be
summarized as: the need to conclude the dissertation within a reasonable timeframe
that facilitates the mental, financial, and social continuation of the dissertation author,
while ensuring viable theoretical and practical contributions from the dissertation. In
addition, the contributions of the dissertation are limited by the limitations of the
studies part of the dissertation.
The data used in Paper 1 was obtained through a psychometric survey; thus, it is cross-
sectional and self-reported. While surveys do not reflect actual usage patterns of
gamified applications, which is indeed important in determining how design influences
user behavior, usage data do not necessarily reflect how users experience design.
Psychometric surveys can provide such reflection on users’ experience and perceptions

of reality. Therefore, self-reported measures through surveys offer a different and

important vantage point regarding the phenomenon under study. Paper 1 also
investigated a limited set of goal-setting aspects but did not examine other individual
differences such as gender or age. Such individual differences may mediate the
relationship between goal-setting and the experience of gamification design classes.
Examining individual differences may facilitate identifying more refined relationships
between gamification design classes and user preferences. The scope of this early
exploratory work did not enable an investigation of such additional variables within the
timeframe of this dissertation. Further research is encouraged to improve on the
contributed findings of this dissertation.
Similarly, the theoretical framework for the gamification of e-participation contributed

in Paper 2 needs to be validated through empirical work that further explores
gamification in the civic engagement context. Empirical validation was attempted in
this dissertation as communicated in Paper 3, which led to the development of a
gamified e-participation design and an MVP. However, the design and the MVP remain
in need of evaluation. In addition, the dissertation contributes but only a one way to
understand gamified civic engagement. This theoretical understanding must be
expanded by introducing further political and design theory and contextualizing this
understanding to specific civic engagement objectives.
While Paper 4 and the research reported therein employed a variety of research
methods to address its respective research question, it remains that the interviews part
of that research (conducted with gamification experts to synthesize gamification design
methods) were conducted with self-selected experts. Thus, methods such as those
considered private intellectual property or trade secrets were not incorporated in the
gamification design method developed from this study. The gamification design
method presented in the Paper should also be further validated in a wide variety of
contexts to enable in-depth comparisons and identify possible issues related to its
practical utilization.

8.4. Concluding remark
While this dissertation has theoretically and practically contributed to the knowledge
on how to design gamification, there is more to be researched before gamification
design can come close to being perfect. The journey to gamify is merely commencing.
Not only is this pursuit of how to gamify essential to understand a phenomenon and the
human behavior around it, but it is also essential to create a gameful reality, one not of
pure work but of enjoyment, motivation, persistence and flow.

REFERENCES
Abdelghaffar, H., & Sameer, L. (2013). The roadmap to E-democracy in Arab Spring
countries via social networks. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on
E-government. Academic Conferences International Limited. Italy
Abdelghaffar, H., & Samer, L. (2016). Social development of rules: can social
networking sites benefit e-rulemaking? Transforming Government: People,
Process and Policy, 10(2), 273-296.
Adler, R. P., & Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by “civic engagement”? Journal of
Transformative Education, 3(3), 236-253.
Rackham, H. (1944). Aristotle in 23 Volumes. Politics, 21.
Arnab, S., & Clarke, S. (2017). Towards a transdisciplinary methodology for a game
based intervention development process. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 48(2), 279-312.
Arnab, S., Nalla, M., Harteveld, C., & Lameras, P. (2015, September). An inquiry into
gamification services: Practices, experiences and insights. Proceedings of the
2015 International Gamification for Business Conference (pp. 34-45).
Asquer, A. (2013). Not Just Videogames: Gamification and its Potential Application to
Public Services. In E. F. Halpin (Ed.). Digital Public Administration and E-
Government in Developing Nations: Policy and Practice (pp. 146-165). IGI
Global.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic Need Satisfaction: A
Motivational Basis of Performance and WeilBeing in Two Work Settings.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045-2068.
Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2015). Research methods in clinical psychology: An

introduction for students and practitioners, 3rd edition. Chichester, England:
John Wiley & Sons.
Baskerville, R., & Myers, M. D. (2004). Special issue on action research in information
systems: Making IS research relevant to practice: Foreword. MIS Quarterly,
329-335.
Bista, S. K., Nepal, S., Paris, C., & Colineau, N. (2014). Gamification for online
communities: A case study for delivering government services. International
Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 23(2), 1441002-1-1441002-25.
Blum, F. H. (1955). Action research—A scientific approach? Philosophy of Science,

22(1), 1-7.

Bogost, I. (2015). Why gamification is bullshit 2. In Walz, S. P. and Deterding, S. (eds.)

The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications. Cambridge, MA, USA:
MIT Press, pp. 65-79.
Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
Brito, J., Vieira, V., & Duran, A. (2015, April). Towards a framework for gamification
design on crowdsourcing systems: The GAME approach. Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on Information Technology-New Generations 2015
(ITNG), (pp. 445-450). IEEE.
Broer, J., & Poeppelbuss, J. (2013). Gamification: A new phenomenon in information

systems research? Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Conference on
Information Systems (ACIS) (pp. 1-13). RMIT University.
Brookey, R. A. (2010). Hollywood gamers: Digital convergence in the film and video
game industries. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? Action
Research, 1(1), 9-28.
Burke, B. (2014). Gamify: How gamification motivates people to do extraordinary

things. New York: Bibliomotion, Inc.
Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw, T. (2002). A Conceptual Definition and
Theoretical Model of Public Deliberation in Small Face-to-Face Groups.
Communication Theory, 12(4), pp. 398-422.
Burnette, J. L., O'Boyle, E. H., VanEpps, E. M., Pollack, J. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2013).
Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-
regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139(3), 655.
Burns, J. M. (1997). Government by the People. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Capa, R. L., Audiffren, M., & Ragot, S. (2008). The effects of achievement motivation,
task difficulty, and goal difficulty on physiological, behavioral, and subjective
effort. Psychophysiology, 45(5), 859-868.
Christy, K. R., & Fox, J. (2014). Leaderboards in a virtual classroom: A test of

stereotype threat and social comparison explanations for women's math
performance. Computers & Education, 78, 66-77.
Choe, E. K., Lee, N. B., Lee, B., Pratt, W., & Kientz, J. A. (2014, April). Understanding
quantified-selfers' practices in collecting and exploring personal data.
Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in
computing systems (pp. 1143-1152). ACM.

Coenen, T. (2014, November). The design and evaluation of a pervasive engagement

game in a city neighborhood. Proceedings of the 18th International Academic
MindTrek Conference: Media Business, Management, Content & Services (pp.
221-228). ACM. Tampere, Finland.
Coenen, T., Donche, V., & Ballon, P. (2015, January). LL-ADR: Action design research
in living labs. Proceedings of the 48th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS), (pp. 4029-4038). IEEE. Hawaii, USA.
Compton, W. C. (2005). Introduction to Positive Psychology. Belmont, CA: Thomson

Wadsworth.
Coronado Escobar, J. E., & Vasquez Urriago, A. R. (2014, October). Gamification: An

effective mechanism to promote civic engagement and generate trust?
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of
Electronic Governance (pp. 514-515). ACM.
Cowley, B., & Charles, D. (2016). Behavlets: A method for practical player modeling
using psychology-based player traits and domain specific features. User
Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 26(2-3), 257-306.
Dargan, T., & Evequoz, F. (2015, June). Designing Engaging e-Government Services by
Combining User-Centered Design and Gamification: A Use-Case. Proceedings of
the 15th European Conference on eGovernment: ECEG 2015 (p. 70). Academic
Conferences Limited.
Davis, G. F. (2015). Celebrating Organization Theory: The AfterParty. Journal of

Management Studies, 52(2), 309-319.
Deci, E., & Ryan, M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Handbook of Self-Determination Research.

Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: Designing for motivation. Interactions, 19(4), 14-

17.
Deterding, S. (2015). The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: A method for gameful design.
Human–Computer Interaction, 30(3-4), 294-335.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to
gamefulness: Defining gamification. Proceedings of the 15th International
Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp.
9-15). ACM.

Dignan, A. (2011). Game frame: Using games as a strategy for success. Free Press,
New York, NY.
Drach-Zahavy, A., & Erez, M. (2002). Challenge versus threat effects on the goal–
performance relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 88(2), 667-682.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1994). Goal setting, achievement orientation, and
intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66(5), 968.
Epstein, R. A. (2011). Direct Democracy: Government of the People, by the People, and
for the People. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 34, 819.
Eränpalo, T. (2014). Exploring Young People's Civic Identities through Gamification: A

case study of Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian adolescents playing a social
simulation game. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 13(2), 104-120.
ESA (2015). Essential facts about the video game industry. 2008. Retrieved from:
http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-
2015.pdf Retrieved on 10 Nov 2017.
Farzan, R., DiMicco, J. M., Millen, D. R., Dugan, C., Geyer, W., & Brownholtz, E. A.
(2008). Results from deploying a participation incentive mechanism within the
enterprise. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (pp. 563-572). ACM.
Fitz-Walter, Z. J. (2015). Achievement unlocked: Investigating the design of effective

gamification experiences for mobile applications and devices. Doctoral
dissertation. Queensland University of Technology.
Francisco-Aparicio, A., Gutiérrez-Vela, F. L., Isla-Montes, J. L., & Sanchez, J. L. G.

(2013). Gamification: Analysis and Application. In: Penichet, M. R. V., Peñalver,
A., Gallud, A. J. (eds). New trends in interaction, virtual reality and modeling
(pp. 113–126). London, UK: Springer.
Fransella, F. (Ed.). (1981). Personality: Theory, measurement and research. Vol. 719.
Routledge Kegan & Paul.
Freund, A. M., Hennecke, M., & Riediger, M. (2010). Age-related differences in

outcome and process goal focus. European Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 7(2), 198-222.
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered

participatory governance. Politics and Society, 29(1), 5-42.

Gartner. (2012). Gartner says by 2014, 80 percent of current gamified applications will
fail to meet business objectives primarily due to poor design,
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2251015
Goes, P. B. (2014). Editor's comments: Design science research in top information

systems journals. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), iii-viii.
Gordon, E., Walter, S., & Suarez, P. (2014). Engagement Games: A Case for Designing
Games to Facilitate Real-World Action. Boston: EGL. Available online at
http://engagementgamelab.org/pdfs/engagement-gameguide.Pdf.
Gurbaxani, V., & Whang, S. (1991). The impact of information systems on organizations
and markets. Communications of the ACM, 34(1), 59-73.
Gurrin, C., Smeaton, A. F., & Doherty, A. R. (2014). Lifelogging: Personal big data.
Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 8(1), 1-125.
Hackel, T. S., Jones, M. H., Carbonneau, K. J., & Mueller, C. E. (2016). Re-examining
achievement goal instrumentation: Convergent validity of AGQ and PALS.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 73-80.
Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field

experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(4), 236-245.
Hamari, J. (2015). Gamification: Motivations & Effects. Doctoral Dissertation. Aalto

University.
Hamari, J., Hassan, L., & Dias, A. (2018). Gamification, quantified-self or social
networking? Matching goal-setting with motivational technologies, User
Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 28(1), 35-74. DOI: 10.1007/s11257-
018-9200-2
Hamari, J., & Keronen, L. (2017). Why do people play games? A Meta-
Analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 7(3), 125-141.
Hamari, J., & Sjöblom, M. (2017). What is eSports and why do people watch it?
Internet Research, 27(2), 211–232.
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015a). “Working out for likes”: An empirical study on social
influence in exercise gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 333-347.
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015b). Why do people use gamification services?
International Journal of Information Management, 35(4), 419-431.
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2014). Measuring flow in gamification: Dispositional Flow
Scale-2. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 133-143.

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014, January). Does gamification work? A
literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In proceedings of the 47th
Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii,
USA.
Hassan, L. (2017). Governments Should Play Games: Towards a Framework for the
Gamification of Civic Engagement Platforms. Simulation & Gaming, 48(2), 249-
267.
Harviainen, J. T., & Hassan, L. (In-press). Governmental Service Gamification: Central

Principles. International Journal of Innovations in the Digital Economy.
Hassan, L., Morschheuser, B., Alexan, N., & Hamari, J. (2018). Gamification of e-
participation: First-hand experience of why gamification projects fail and what
could be done about it. Proceedings of the 2nd International GamiFIN
Conference (GamiFin2018).
Hassan, L., & Nader, A. (2016). Gamification design in action: The practical cases of
gamification platforms for employee work motivation and citizens’ civic
engagement. Proceedings of the International Conference on ICT Management
for Global Competitiveness and Economic Growth in Emerging Economies
(ICTM 2016), 67-70.
Hayes, S. C. (1993). Why environmentally based analyses are necessary in behavior

analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60(2), 461-463.
Herger, M. (2014). Enterprise Gamification: Engaging People by Letting Them Have

Fun: Book 1 – the Basics. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Herzig, P., Strahringer, S., & Ameling, M. (2012). Gamification of ERP systems –
Exploring gamification effects on user acceptance constructs. Multikonferenz
Wirtschaftsinformatik (pp. 793-804). Braunschweig: GITO.
Herzig, P., Ameling, M., Wolf, B., & Schill, A. (2015). Implementing gamification:
Requirements and gamification platforms. Gamification in Education and
Business (pp. 431-450). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Hevner, A., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram. S. (2004). Design Science Research in
Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105.
Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (2012). A glorious and not-so-short history of the
information systems field. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,
13(4), 188-235.
Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012, October). Defining gamification: A service marketing
perspective. Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek
Conference (pp. 17-22). ACM.

Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2017). A definition for gamification: Anchoring gamification
in the service marketing literature. Electronic Markets, 27(1), 21-31.
IEEE (2014). Everyone’s a gamer – IEEE experts predict gaming will be integrated into
more than 85 percent of daily tasks by 2020. <http://www.ieee.org/about/
news/2014/25_feb_2014.html> (Accessed 07.05.14).
Iivari, J. (2007). A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science.

Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 5.
Iivari, J. (2015). Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science
research. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(1), 107-115.
Jin, X. L., Zhou, Z., Lee, M. K., & Cheung, C. M. (2013). Why users keep answering
questions in online question answering communities: A theoretical and
empirical investigation. International Journal of Information Management,
33(1), 93-104.
Johnston, H. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1988). Creating competitive advantage with

interorganizational information systems. MIS Quarterly, 153-165.
Jones, B. A., Madden, G. J., & Wengreen, H. J. (2014). The FIT Game: Preliminary
evaluation of a gamification approach to increasing fruit and vegetable
consumption in school. Preventive Medicine, 68, 76-79.
Jung, J. H., Schneider, C., & Valacich, J. (2010). Enhancing the motivational
affordance of information systems: The effects of real-time performance
feedback and goal setting in group collaboration environments. Management
Science, 56(4), 724-742.
Juul, J. (2010). A casual revolution: Reinventing video games and their players.
London, England: MIT Press.
Jonker, J. J., Piersma, N., & Van den Poel, D. (2004). Joint optimization of customer
segmentation and marketing policy to maximize long-term profitability. Expert
Systems with Applications, 27(2), 159-168.
Järvinen, P. (2005). Action research as an approach in design science. European

Academy of Management. Citeseer, Munich.
Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., & Evans, C. (2009). The civic potential of video games.
London, England: MIT Press.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based

methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco, USA: John
Wiley & Sons.
Karhulahti, V. (2015). Defining the videogame. Game Studies, 15(2).

Kim, T. W. (2015). Gamification ethics: Exploitation and manipulation. Proceedings of

ACM SIGCHI Gamifying Research Workshop.
Klapztein, S., & Cipolla, C. (2016). From Game Design to Service Design: A Framework
to Gamify Services. Simulation & Gaming, 47(5), 566-598.
Klevers, M., Sailer, M., & Günthner, W. A. (2016). Implementation Model for the
Gamification of Business Processes: A Study from the Field of Material
Handling. Simulation and Gaming in the Network Society (pp. 173-184).
Singapore: Springer.
Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2018). The rise of motivational information systems: A
review of gamification research. Working paper.
Komito, L. (2005). e-Participation and Governance: Widening the net. The Electronic
Journal of e-Government, 3(1), 39-48.
Kuechler, W., & Vaishnavi, V. (2012). A framework for theory development in design
science research: Multiple perspectives. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 13(6), 395-423.
Kultima, A. (2015, September). Game design research. Proceedings of the 19th

International Academic Mindtrek Conference (pp. 18-25). ACM.
Kumar, J., & Herger, M. (2013). Gamification at Work. 1st edition. Interaction Design
Foundation.
Landers, R. N. (2014). Developing a theory of gamified learning: Linking serious games

and gamification of learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 752-768.
Landers, R. N., Auer, E. M., Collmus, A. B., & Armstrong, M. B. (2018). Gamification
science, its history and future: Definitions and a research agenda. Simulation &
Gaming, 49(3), 315-337.
Landers, R. N., Bauer, K. N., & Callan, R. C. (2017). Gamification of task performance
with leaderboards: A goal setting experiment. Computers in Human Behavior,
71, 508–515.
Latham, G. P. (2003). Goal Setting: A Five-Step Approach to Behavior Change.

Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 309-318.
Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2016). Management information systems. New Jersey,
USA: Pearson Education.
Lee, J., & Kim, S. (2014, January). Active Citizen E-Participation in Local Governance:
Do Individual Social Capital and E-Participation Management Matter?
Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS), 2014 (pp. 2044-2053). IEEE. Hawaii, USA.

Lee, H. Y., Kim, J. Y., & Lee, W. H. (2013). Gamification in Virtual Reality Digital Game
Art. International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications,
7(13), 480.
Lieberoth, A. (2015). Shallow gamification testing psychological effects of framing an

activity as a game. Games and Culture, 10(3), 229-248.
Linehan, C. (2008). A behavioural analysis of computer game playing competence,

experience and related physiological processes. Doctoral dissertation, National
University of Ireland Maynooth.
Linehan, C., Kirman, B., & Roche, B. (2015). Gamification as behavioral psychology in
Walz, S.P. and Deterding, S. (eds.) The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues,
Applications. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, pp. 81-105.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1984). Goal setting: A motivational technique that works!
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting
and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (eds.). (2013). New developments in goal setting and task
performance. New York, USA: Routledge.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125.
Loock, C. M., Staake, T., & Thiesse, F. (2013). Motivating Energy-Efficient Behavior
with Green IS: An Investigation of Goal Setting and the Role of Defaults. MIS
Quarterly, 37(4), 1313-1332
Lounsbury, M., & Beckman, C. M. (2015). Celebrating organization theory. Journal of

Management Studies, 52(2), 288–308.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Goal-Setting Theory of Motivation. International Journal of

Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1), 1-9.
Macintosh, A. (2004, January). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making.

Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS). IEEE. Hawaii, USA.
Mann, T., De Ridder, D., & Fujita, K. (2013). Self-regulation of health behavior: Social
psychological approaches to goal setting and goal striving. Health Psychology,
32(5), 487-498.
March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information
technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251-266.

Markus, M. L., Majchrzak, A., Gasser, L. (2002). A design theory for systems that
support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 179-212.
Mayer, I. S. (2009). The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: A review.
Simulation & Gaming, 40(6), 825-862.
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can
change the world. New York, USA: Penguin.
Mehta, R. (2011). The Self-Quantification movement–Implications for healthcare

professionals. SelfCare, 2(3), 87-92.
Min, S. (2007). Online vs. Face-to-Face Deliberation: Effects on Civic Engagement.

Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, 12(4), 1369-1387.
Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Maedche, A. (2017a). Gamified
crowdsourcing: Conceptualization, literature review, and future agenda.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 106, 26-43.
Morschheuser, B., Hassan, L., Werder, K., & Hamari, J. (2018). How to design
gamification? A method for engineering gamified software. Information &
Software Technology, 95, 219-23.
Morschheuser, B., Riar, M., Hamari, J., & Maedche, A. (2017b). How games induce
cooperation? A study on the relationship between game features and we-
intentions in an augmented reality game. Computers in Human Behavior, 77,
169-183.
Munson, S. A., & Consolvo, S. (2012, May). Exploring goal-setting, rewards, self-
monitoring, and sharing to motivate physical activity. Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare
(PervasiveHealth) and Workshops (pp. 25-32). IEEE.
Nelson, M. J. (2012, October). Soviet and American precursors to the gamification of

work. Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference
(pp. 23-26). ACM.
Newzoo. (2017). 2017 Global Games market report | Newzoo. [online] Available at:
http://eldiario.deljuego.com.ar/images/stories/Notas/00__2017/07/31/Newzo
o_Global_Games_Market_Report_2017_Light.pdf [Accessed 10 Nov. 2017].
Nicholson, S. (2012). A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful

gamification. Proceedings of Games+Learning+Society 8.0 (GLS 8.0)
Nicholson, S. (2015). A recipe for meaningful gamification. Gamification in Education

and Business (pp. 1-20). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Noran, O. (2016). On Gamification in Action Learning, Proceedings of the Australasian

Computer Science Week Multi-conference (ACSW 2016), Canberra, Australia,
Article 15, ACM Digital Library, pp. 1-9
North, D. C. (1984). Government and the Cost of Exchange in History. The Journal of
Economic History, 44(02), 255-264.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ofcom (2015, May). Time spent online doubles in a decade. Retrieved February 01,
2016, from http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2015/time-spent-online-doubles-
in-a-decade/
Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2013). A foundation for the study of behavior change support

systems. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(6), 1223-1235.
Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Harjumaa, M. (2009). Persuasive systems design: Key issues,
process model, and system features. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 24(1), 28.
Pedreira, O., García, F., Brisaboa, N., & Piattini, M. (2015). Gamification in software
engineering–A systematic mapping. Information and Software Technology, 57,
157-168.
Perote-Peña, J., & Piggins, A. (2015). A model of deliberative and aggregative

democracy. Economics and Philosophy, 31(01), 93-121.
Petridis, P., Dunwell, I., Arnab, S., Scarle, S., Qureshi, A., De Freitas, S., Protopsaltis,
A., & Star, K. (2011). Building social communities around alternate reality
games. In Liarokapis, F., Doulamis, A., & Vescoukis, V. (eds.) Proceedings of the
2011 Third International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious
Applications VS-Games 2011(pp. 76-83). Washington: IEEE.
Phang, C. W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2008). A framework of ICT exploitation for e-

participation initiatives. Communications of the ACM, 51(12), 128-132.
Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York,
NY: Riverhead Books.
Radoff, J. (2011). Game on: energize your business with social media games. Wiley
Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, IN,
Raftopoulos, M. (2014). Towards gamification transparency: A conceptual framework

for the development of responsible gamified enterprise systems. Journal of
Gaming and Virtual Worlds, 6 (2), 159-178.

Raphael, C., Bachen, C., Lynn, K. M., Baldwin-Philippi, J., & McKee, K. A. (2010).
Games for civic learning: A conceptual framework and agenda for research and
design. Games and Culture, 5(2), 199-235.
Rey, P. J. (2012). Gamification, playbor & exploitation. Cyberblog. Retrieved from The
Society Pages: http://thesocietypages.
org/cyborgology/2012/10/15/gamification-playbor-exploitation-2.
Richter, A., & Koch, M. (2008, May). Functions of social networking services.
Proceedings of the International Conference on the Design of Cooperative
Systems (pp. 87-98).
Rigby, C. S. (2015). Gamification and motivation 4. In Walz, S.P. and Deterding, S.

(eds.) The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications (pp. 23-64).
Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, pp.
Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J. H., McCarthy, I., & Pitt, L. (2015). Is it all a
game? Understanding the principles of gamification. Business Horizons, 58(4),
411-420.
Rosen, P., & Sherman, P. (2006). Hedonic information systems: Acceptance of social
networking websites. Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information
Systems (AMCIS 2006). Acapulco, Mexico. Paper 162.
Rothschild, J. (2016). The Logic of a CoOperative Economy and Democracy 2.0:

Recovering the Possibilities for Autonomy, Creativity, Solidarity, and Common
Purpose. The Sociological Quarterly, 57(1), 7-35.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic
definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1),
54-67.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of Play: Fundamentals of Game

Design. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.
Sameer, L., & Abdelghaffar, H. (June 2015). The use of social networks in enhancing e-
rulemaking. Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on E-government,
(pp. 254-263). Academic Conferences International Limited. Portsmouth,
United Kingdom.
Sanchez-Nielsen, E., & Lee, D. (2013, January). eParticipation in Practice in Europe:

The Case of “Puzzled by Policy: Helping You Be Part of EU.” Proceedings of the
46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2013 (pp.
1870-1879). IEEE. Hawaii, USA.

Santhanam, R., Liu, D., & Shen, W. C. M. (2016). Research Note—Gamification of

Technology-Mediated Training: Not All Competitions Are the Same.
Information Systems Research. 27(2), 453-465.
Schacht, S., & Maedche, A. (2015). Project knowledge management while simply
playing! Gaming mechanics in project knowledge management systems.
Gamification in Education and Business (pp. 593-614). Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Schlosberg, D., Zavestoski, S., & Shulman, S. (2009). Deliberation in E-Rulemaking?

The Problem of Mass Participation. Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and
Practice, Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Schmidt, R., Brosius, C., & Herrmanny, K. (2017). Ein Vorgehensmodell für
angewandte Spielformen. Gamification und Serious Games (pp. 15-29).
Wiesbaden: Springer Vieweg.
Sein, M., Henfredsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action Design
Research, MIS Quarterly. 35(1), 37-56.
Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Positive psychology: An introduction.

In Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology (pp. 279-298). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Stenros, J. (2015). Playfulness, play, and games: A constructionist ludology approach.

Doctoral dissertation. University of Tampere.
Stewart, J., Bleumers, L., All, A., Mariën, I., Schurmans, D., Van Looy, J., Jacobs, A.,
Willaert, K., De Grove, F., Misuraca, G., & Centeno, C. (2013). The potential of
digital games for empowerment and social inclusion of groups at risk of social
and economic exclusion: Evidence and opportunity for policy. JRC Scientific
and Policy Report, European Commission, Joint Research Center (JRC),
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Sevilla.
Stoll, C. (1995, February). The Internet? Bah! Newsweek.
Suits, B. (1978). The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia.
Supendi, K., & Prihatmanto, A. S. (2015, December). Design and implementation of the
assessment of publik [sic] officers web base with gamification method.
Proceedings of the 2015 4th International Conference on Interactive Digital
Media (ICIDM), (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Swan, M. (2009). Emerging patient-driven health care models: An examination of

health social networks, consumer personalized medicine and quantified self-
tracking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
6(2), 492-525.

Swan, M. (2013). The quantified self: Fundamental disruption in big data science and
biological discovery. Big Data, 1(2), 85-99.
Swezey, R. M., Sano, H., Hirata, N., Shiramatsu, S., Ozono, T., & Shintani, T. (2012,
August). An e-participation support system for regional communities based on
linked open data, classification and clustering. Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 11th
International Conference on Cognitive Informatics & Cognitive Computing
(ICCI* CC), (pp. 211-218). IEEE.
Tavinor, G. (2008). Definition of videogames. Contemporary Aesthetics, 6.
Taylor, T. L. (2012). Raising the stakes: E-sports and the professionalization of

computer gaming. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: MIT Press.
Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: The gentle power of choice architecture. New
Haven, Conn.: Yale.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS
Quarterly, 28(4), 695-704.
Vinciarelli, A. (2009). Capturing order in social interactions [social sciences]. IEEE

Signal Processing Magazine, 26(5), 133-152.
Wang, X., Schneider, C., & Valacich, J. S. (2015). Enhancing creativity in group
collaboration: How performance targets and feedback shape perceptions and
idea generation performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 42, 187-195.
Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize
your business. Philadelphia, USA: Wharton Digital Press.
Willemsen, M. C., Graus, M. P., & Knijnenburg, B. P. (2016). Understanding the role of
latent feature diversification on choice difficulty and satisfaction. User Modeling
and User-Adapted Interaction, 26(4), 347-389.
Zhang, P. (2008). Technical opinion: Motivational affordances: Reasons for ICT design
and use. Communications of the ACM, 51(11), 145-147.
Zhang, P. (2007). Toward a positive design theory: Principles for designing motivating
information and communication technology. Designing information and
organizations with a positive lens (pp. 45-74). Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Zuckerman, O., & Gal-Oz, A. (2014). Deconstructing gamification: Evaluating the

effectiveness of continuous measurement, virtual rewards, and social
comparison for promoting physical activity. Personal and Ubiquitous
Computing, 18(7), 1705-1719.

APPENDIX 1 PAPERS
Paper 1: Hamari, J., Hassan, L., & Dias, A. (2018). Gamification, quantified-self or
social networking? Matching goal-setting with motivational technologies, User
Modeling and User-Adapted interaction, 28(1), 35-74. DOI: 10.1007/s11257-
018-9200-2.
Paper 2: Hassan, L. (2017). Governments should play games: Towards a framework

for the gamification of civic engagement platforms, Simulation & Gaming,
48(2), 249-267. DOI: 10.1177/1046878116683581.
Paper 3: Hassan, L., Morschheuser, B., Alexan, N., & Hamari, J. (2018). First-hand
experience of why gamification projects fail and what could be done about it.
Proceedings of the 2nd International GamiFIN Conference (GamiFIN2018).
Paper 4: Morschheuser, B., Hassan, L., Werder, K., & Hamari, J. (2018). How to
design gamification? A method for engineering gamified software. Information
& Software Technology, 95, 219-237. DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2017.10.015.
User Model User-Adap Inter
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-018-9200-2
Gamification, quantified-self or social networking?

Matching users’ goals with motivational technology
Juho Hamari1,2,3 · Lobna Hassan3,4 · Antonio Dias5
Received: 4 May 2017 / Accepted in revised form: 15 January 2018

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract Systems and services we employ in our daily life have increasingly been
augmented with motivational designs which fall under the classes of (1) gamification,
(2) quantified-self and (3) social networking features that aim to help users reach their
goals via motivational enforcement. However, users differ in terms of their orientation
and focus toward goals and in terms of the attributes of their goals. Therefore, dif-
ferent classes of motivational design may have a differential fit for users. Being able
to distinguish the goal profiles of users, motivational design could be better tailored.
Therefore, in this study we investigate how different goal foci (outcome and focus),
goals orientation (mastery, proving, and avoiding), and goal attributes (specificity and
difficulty) are associated with perceived importance of gamification, social networking
and quantified-self features. We employ survey data (N = 167) from users of Heia-
B Juho Hamari
juho.hamari@tut.fi
Lobna Hassan
Lobna.hassan@hanken.fi
Antonio Dias
antonio.fernandesdias@aalto.fi
1 Gamification Group, Laboratory of Pervasive Computing, Computing and Electrical

Engineering, Tampere University of Technology, Korkeakoulunkatu 10, 33720 Tampere, Finland
2 Gamification Group, Digital Media, Faculty of Humanities, University of Turku, Pohjoisranta
11 a, 28100 Pori, Finland
3 Gamification Group, Tampere Research Center for Information and Media, Faculty of
Communication Sciences, University of Tampere, 33014 Tampere, Finland
4 Information Systems Sciences, Department of Management and Organization, Hanken School of
Economics, Arkadiankatu 22, 00100 Helsinki, Finland
5 Department of Information and Service Economy, Aalto University School of Business, P.O. Box
21210, 00076 Aalto, Finland
123
J. Hamari et al.
Heia; a popular exercise encouragement app. Results indicate that goal-setting related
factors of users and attributes of goals are connected with users’ preference over moti-
vational design classes. In particular, the results reveal that being outcome-focused is
associated with positive evaluations of gamification and quantified-self design classes.
Users with higher proving-orientation perceived gamification and social network-
ing design classes as more important, users with lower goal avoidance-orientation
perceived social networking design as more important, whereas users with higher
mastery-orientation perceived quantified-self design more important. Users with dif-
ficult goals were less likely to perceive gamification and social networking design
important, whereas for users with high goal specificity quantified-self features were
important. The findings provide insights for the automatic adaptation of motivational
designs to users’ goals. However, more research is naturally needed to further inves-
tigate generalizability of the results.
Keywords Gamification · Quantified-self · Social networking · Goal-setting · Goal

orientation · Motivational information system
1 Introduction
Systems are increasingly imbued with motivational design with the aim of positively
engaging users towards using a system as well as towards engagement with the task
they are attempting to accomplish through the use of the system (Bouvier et al. 2014;
Deterding 2015; Hamari et al. 2014a; Jung et al. 2010; Landers et al. 2017; Lieberoth
2015; Oinas-Kukkonen 2013; Santhanam et al. 2016; Zhang 2008). In fact, it has been
predicted that most organizations will eventually implement a form of motivational
design into their systems (Gartner 2012). Today, the use of motivational design seems
prominent across software families of varying sizes and purposes SAP1 , Google Maps
(in form of Google Waze2 ), Microsoft Office (Ribbon Hero3 ), Fitocracy4 (fitness),
Mindbloom5 (life planning), and Yousician6 (learning) to name a few.
Since the inception of this wave of design, the designs have converged into three
primary classes: (1) gamification—draws from game design (Deterding 2015; Hamari
and Koivisto 2015b; Huotari and Hamari 2017; Santhanam et al. 2016; Vesa 2017),
(2) quantified-self—draws from big data, wearables and dashboard design (Choe et al.
2014; Gurrin et al. 2014; Swan 2009) and (3) social networking—draws from social
networking services (Boyd and Ellison 2007; Chen et al. 2014; Krasnova et al. 2015;
Lin and Lu 2011). Most popular implementations of motivational design include all
three in one form or another.
1 https://www.sap.com/.
2 https://www.waze.com.
3 https://ribbon-hero.en.softonic.com/.
4 https://www.fitocracy.com/.
5 www.mindbloom.com/.
6 https://yousician.com/.
123
Gamification, quantified-self or social networking?…
However, motivational design is difficult to implement as it requires the command

of several disciplines such as (motivational/social/behavioral) psychology and game
design beyond software development (Deterding 2015; Huotari and Hamari 2017;
Morschheuser et al. 2017; Nicholson 2012; Rigby 2014; Zhang 2008). Moreover,
the end goal of motivational design is commonly not the mere motivation but the
accomplishment of a level of behavioral change, thus adding to the complexity of
such design (Bouvier et al. 2014; Hamari et al. 2014b; Orji et al. 2014). Due to these
difficulties, the optimistic prediction about the successful penetration of motivational
design into modern information systems has turned less optimistic (Gartner 2012).
Specifically pertaining to this study; users do not share the same kinds of goals,
nor the same orientations towards goal-setting. Goals define what individuals wish
to attain and consequently what they require motivation for (Elliot and Harackiewicz
1994; Latham 2003; Locke and Latham 2013). It would be hence motivationally ben-
eficial to design motivational technology that is capable of providing the motivation
individuals need depending on the differentiated characteristics of their goals. Specifi-
cally, goals for example differ with regards to their defining attributes such as difficulty
and specificity (Elliot and Harackiewicz 1994; Freund et al. 2010; Mann et al. 2013),
their attainability, and goal seeking outcomes (Freund et al. 2010; Hackel et al. 2016;
Landers et al. 2017; Lunenburg 2011; Mann et al. 2013). Individuals who focus on
attaining specific outcomes rather than enjoy the process of attaining these outcomes
could be expected to draw more motivation out of motivational features that empha-
size to them the outcomes they want to attain and their value e.g. badges and medals.
Individuals who would rather focus on enjoying the process of goal attainment, might
see little value in such features and require a different set of motivational features that
might make the process more enjoyable through for example features of messaging
and friending. Thus, the design principles most suited for differentiated user needs
depending on their various orientations towards goals are expected to differ as it is
hard to expect a single solution to fit all users (Koivisto and Hamari 2014; Mann
et al. 2013; op den Akker et al. 2014; Wang et al. 2015). Therefore, being able to
differentiate these design principles and consequently develop differentiated services
and systems along goal profiles of users may help to more effectively target system
features to individual users, increasing their adoption rates and the value individuals
could draw from them.
Thus far each of the three principle motivational designs has been investigated
in isolation and there has been no comparison across them, making it hard to draw
conclusions about their fit with different goals and consequent differentiated user
needs (Hackel et al. 2016; Landers et al. 2017; Lunenburg 2011). There is a lack
of understanding of how goal-setting and the attributes of goals affect the impor-
tance of the design classes of motivational systems. To this end, this study sets the
following research question: “how different goal foci (outcome and focus), goals orien-
tation (mastery, proving, and avoiding), and goal attributes (specificity and difficulty)
are associated with perceived importance of gamification, social networking and
quantified-self-features” with the aim of producing knowledge for the problems of
which of the motivational designs are better suited for users with different goal focus,
orientation and attributes of their goals. We employ survey data (N = 167) gathered
123
J. Hamari et al.
among users of HeiaHeia7 ; a popular exercise encouragement app that combines all
three technologies of gamification, quantified-self and social networking as the core
of the service. The exercise context is one of the largest domains that employ these
motivational designs, and therefore, provides an apt context to undertake the present
study in to both derive insights into this specific context but also beyond, into what
motivational technologies are.
2 Background
2.1 Goal-setting
Goal-setting is a crucial aspect of human behavior; it has a heightened role in activities

that require perseverance and planning such as is the case with practically all activities
of modern individuals or organizations. Goal-setting refers to an individual’s or a
group’s process of determining desirable end-states that they wish to achieve and
intend to use in self-regulation (Burnette et al. 2013; Locke and Latham 2002; Loock
et al. 2013). Concretely set goals rather than wishful thinking are important for goal
attainment (Elliot and Harackiewicz 1994; Latham 2003; Locke and Latham 2013).
Thus, the process of goal-setting has been extensively studied (Elliot and Harackiewicz
1994; Freund et al. 2010; Locke et al. 1981; Latham 2003; Locke and Latham 2002,
2013; Mann et al. 2013), and it has been linked to improvements in performance in
a variety of settings such as in education, personal development or work productivity
(Locke and Latham 2013; Loock et al. 2013; Nahrgang et al. 2013; Presslee et al.
2013; Rasch and Tosi 1992; Wack et al. 2014).
Goal-setting facilitates self-regulation; a continuous psychological process nec-
essary for the evaluation of one’s performance towards one’s goals, thus allowing
individuals to realign their performance when needed and remain on the path of their
intended outcomes (Burnette et al. 2013; Mann et al. 2013; Zimmerman 2013). Self-
regulation necessitates receiving feedback to evaluate performance (Burnette et al.
2013; Zimmerman 2013). Consequently, systems that allow individuals to monitor
their performance, or those that provide feedback mechanisms may be of importance
to self-regulation (Loock et al. 2013; Zimmerman 2013) and attainment of goals.
However, not all individuals share the same types of goals or attitudes towards goal
setting (Capa et al. 2008; Elliot and Harackiewicz 1994; Freund et al. 2010; Hackel
et al. 2016; Locke et al. 1981; Lunenburg 2011; Roskes et al. 2014).
Three important aspects of goal-setting that vary across individuals are (1) goal
focus (outcomes, process) (Burnette et al. 2013; Freund et al. 2010; Locke and Latham
2002; Mann et al. 2013) (2) orientation of the goal-setter towards goals (trichotomous
goals) (mastery, proving, avoidance) (Elliot and Harackiewicz 1994; Freund et al.
2010; Hackel et al. 2016; Lunenburg 2011; Mann et al. 2013; Zimmerman 2013)
and (3) goal attributes (difficulty, specificity) (Drach-Zahavy and Erez 2002; Locke
et al. 1981; Locke and Latham 2013). Due to such variance across individuals and
consequently system users, it is hard to expect that a single motivational design would
7 https://www.heiaheia.com/.
123
fulfill the needs of all variety of users with such a diversity of goals attributes (Mann
et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2015).
2.1.1 Goal focus
Goals are concerned with the attainment of a desirable end-state (Elliot and Harack-
iewicz 1994; Latham 2003; Locke and Latham 2013). A goal focus describes this
resilient aspect of the goal-setting behavior in terms of what end-state do individ-
uals wish to attain or what loss do they intend to avoid (Freund et al. 2010). The
literature distinguishes between goals that are outcome-focused and goals that are
process-focused; a goal focused on the outcomes of a given activity is mainly con-
cerned with ends rather than the process by which outcomes are attained. Vice versa,
process-focused goals are concerned with the process of attaining outcomes, rather
than the end results of a goal pursuit (Burnette et al. 2013; Freund et al. 2010; Latham
2003; Locke and Latham 2002).
These two goal foci place different weights on the goal attainment process and its
outcomes. For example; individuals with an outcome focus could intend to close 50
sales deals or to lose 10 pounds of weight, while on the other hand individuals with
a goal focused on a process might focus on attempting to follow the process leading
to closing deals or weight-loss regardless whether that end outcome is attained or not.
The desirable end-state of such a goal only extends to following and enjoying the pro-
cess of closing deals or weight-loss. Due to these differences, it should be expected
that different features of motivational designs might be better suited to individuals
with either one of the goal foci more than the other depending on whether the features
motivate through perceived betterment of the goal attainment process or by increasing
the perceived value of attained outcomes. For example, it could be likely that individ-
uals focused on goals’ outcome would prefer features that would clearly showcase to
them the outcomes they attained while individuals focused on a process would not be
as appreciative of these features but might appreciate others.
2.1.2 Goal orientation
Goal attainment is also dependent on the goal orientation of the goal-seeker. Goal
orientations describe the purpose for which an individual sets or does not set a goal
(Pintrich 2000). Common orientations towards goal-setting are (1) mastery, (2) prov-
ing, or (3) avoidance (Hackel et al. 2016; Locke and Latham 2002; Mann et al. 2013).
(1) Mastery oriented users focus on self-development, and acquiring and developing
skills, (Elliot and Harackiewicz 1994; Freund et al. 2010; Lunenburg 2011; Mann
et al. 2013; Nahrgang et al. 2013; Zimmerman 2013). A goal to learn or to improve
one’s productivity relative to previous performance is an example of mastery orienta-
tions to goal-setting, similarly a goal could be to improve one’s health for the sake of
one’s own personal development rather than to for example show to others that one is
healthy. Other orientations to goal-setting (proving) would tend to set goals. Individ-
uals with mastery orientations could then focus on a specific outcome as a measure of
mastery such as getting a high grade on a test, or losing a certain amount of weight,
123
J. Hamari et al.
or they could focus on the process of continuous learning and health improvement as
a measure of how much they are developing.
(2) Proving oriented individuals validate their performance through comparison
with external standards. For example, an employee with a proving orientation to goal-
setting would seek to appear better than others through for example being regarded
as the best sales person in their team regardless whether that goal is attained by a
focus on an outcome number of deals to close or by a focus on following the process
of closing deals most efficiently. Similarly, a person wanting to lose weight with
a proving orientation to goal-setting would want to showcase to others how much
weight they have lost and socially validate their accomplishments. (3) Avoidance
oriented individuals avoid the setting of goals in order to avoid failure, or dodge
negative some negative consequences (Capa et al. 2008; Hackel et al. 2016; Mann
et al. 2013; Roskes et al. 2014; Zimmerman 2013). A sales person afraid of negative
self or peer evaluations might hence avoid setting a goal altogether so that they do
not experience a negative affect when their behavior falls short of expectations. An
individual sharing these same fears of the same person but attempting to lose weight
would similarly as the sales person avoid the setting of any goals to avoid negative
self and social evaluations.
These orientations tend to be stable across time unless an intervention is in
place (Tuominen-Soini et al. 2011), and they are acknowledged to influence the
goal-attainment process and outcomes, and thus should be explicitly considered as
independent variables of goal-setting. For example: individuals with a mastery orien-
tation tend to make the process of goal attainment more enjoyable, while individuals
with proving orientations have been correlated with better performance in terms of
outcomes attainment (Freund et al. 2010; Lunenburg 2011). Orientations might hence
influence what features individuals would employ to showcase their goal-setting out-
comes or the lack thereof.
2.1.3 Goal attributes
Perceptions and attitude towards goal difficulty and specificity, are considered impor-
tant attributes of set goals (Drach-Zahavy and Erez 2002; Latham 2000, 2003; Locke
et al. 1981; Loock et al. 2013; Mealiea and Latham 1996; Rasch and Tosi 1992). Goal
specificity as the relativistic perception of how clearly defined a goal is in relation to
the goal-setter and the context of the goal; the more specific a goal is perceived, the
better individuals are able to articulate it and evaluate their performance towards it,
in contrast, perceptually unspecific or vague goals articulated by goals such as “do
your best” could delude individuals and their social group into misevaluating their
performance towards goals attainment (Capa et al. 2008; Latham 2003; Locke and
Latham 2002). On the other hand, a goal to increase productivity by a certain percent-
age relative to the last quarter or to lose a certain amount of weight is more defined
and specific in terms of an intended outcome and hence easier to evaluate than the
same goal articulated as “do your best”.
Goal difficulty generally refers to the perceived effort needed for goal accomplish-
ment (Capa et al. 2008). Difficulty is a subjective attribute as perceptions of difficulty
differ from one individual to another and from a context to another, depending on a
123
variety of variables. For example, a goal to lose 1 km of weight or close one sales
deal per week may be perceived as easy goals to an individual as they are goals that
seem to require little effort for their attainment however the same goals to for exam-
ple a person on a bed rest or working in a very competitive industry may perceive
these goals as difficult as their attainment under such conditions would require a lot of
effort. Nonetheless, perceptually challenging goals, positively influence persistence,
and motivate individuals to exert more energy towards their attainment to match this
perception of challenge (Locke et al. 1981; Locke and Latham 2002, 2013; Lunen-
burg 2011; Presslee et al. 2013; Rasch and Tosi 1992) if perceived in the right frame
of mind (Drach-Zahavy and Erez 2002). The literature on motivational technologies
recognizes the variance across users in the evaluation and perception of difficulty and
specificity, we hence see motivational systems that aim to tailor the difficulty and
competition level afforded by the system to users’ abilities and perceptions to ensure
that they experience goals as optimally difficult relative to their perception of difficulty
so as to encourage energy exertion towards goal attainment, while still ensuring that
the perceptually difficult goals are within users’ ability ceiling and hence motivating
rather than demotivating (Bouvier et al. 2014; op den Akker et al. 2014).
If an individual perceives a goal of for example closing one deal or losing 1 km of
weight per week as easy, they might exert less effort and be less likely to attain that
goal compared to an individual who perceives the same goal as difficult yet within
their abilities /not as an impossibly to attain goal). This difference in perception could
be influenced by various variables, such as experience, understanding of the industry
in which the individuals are employed and their levels of self-efficacy. Difficulty is
hence to be evaluated relatively since it is generally acknowledged that the more
relatively specific or relatively challenging the goals, the more likely individuals are
to be motivated towards their attainment and to seek the means possible to improve
their performance (Capa et al. 2008; Locke et al. 1981; Locke and Latham 2002;
Nahrgang et al. 2013).
2.2 Motivational design
The information systems discipline has traditionally been characterized as the pursuit
of knowledge pertaining especially to productivity and efficiency (see e.g. Hirschheim
and Klein 2012), and ways in which they may be improved. A substantial body of
knowledge has sprung from this rational, utility-seeking premise of aiding in the
development and construction of efficiently managed and operated organizations and
information systems within them. However, this utility-driven lens of information
systems has not been geared towards capturing users’ motivations as an important
aspect of productivity within these computerized contexts. The first wave of literature
started to widen the perspective of research into understanding that using a system
might also be enjoyable in the early 1990s by studying the concepts of playfulness
and enjoyment in relation to technology acceptance and use (see e.g. Webster and
Martocchio 1992; Davis et al. 1992), and later in 2004 by e.g. Van der Heijden (2004)
via the development of models that addressed the acceptance and use of hedonic
information systems.
123
J. Hamari et al.
However, during the last years this continuum has taken a new step; rather than
only acknowledging the hedonic aspects of system use in its own right, new literature
has sprung up that attempts to wield it towards productivity and in pursuit to help
users reach their goals. These systems and veins of literature are primarily related to
gamification (Deterding 2015; Hamari et al. 2015; Huotari and Hamari 2017; San-
thanam et al. 2016), social networking design (Boyd and Ellison 2007; Chen et al.
2014; Krasnova et al. 2015; Lin and Lu 2011), and quantified-self (Choe et al. 2014;
Gurrin et al. 2014; Swan 2009). Together they form the field of what is known as
“Motivational design” or “Motivational information systems”. In the following sub-
sections, we discuss popular design streams of motivation technology; gamification,
social networking, and quantified-self, relating these discussions to the previously
outlined variables of goal-setting under investigation.
2.2.1 Gamification
Games are often seen as pinnacle form of media that facilitates the emergence of
enjoyable self-purposeful and motivating experiences (Deterding 2015; Hamari et al.
2015; McGonigal 2011). It was only a matter of time for the idea to come about
that these ‘gameful’ affordances that games consist of could be employed to boost
productivity and task engagement outside games (Deterding 2015; Hamari et al. 2015;
McGonigal 2011; Santhanam et al. 2016). Today, this technological development
has been coined as “gamification”. In general, gamification refers to designs that
attempt to give rise to similar experiences as games do (Deterding et al. 2011; Huotari
and Hamari 2017). Gamification commonly attempts to employ mechanics familiar
from games (see Table 1). Gamification has been employed to enhance motivation
and engagement in various contexts that include; education (Christy and Fox 2014;
Hamari et al. 2016; Hanus and Fox 2015; Landers 2014; Lieberoth 2015); government
services (Bista et al. 2014; Hassan and Nader 2016), exercise and health (Hamari and
Koivisto 2015a; Jones et al. 2014), enterprise resource planning (Alcivar and Abad
2016; Raftopoulos 2014), commerce (Bittner and Schipper 2014; Hamari 2013, 2017),
intra-organizational communication and activity (Farzan et al. 2008a, b; Jung et al.
2010).
However, gamification implementation can vary in terms of how deep-rooted and
varied they are. Some gamification implementation may for example attempt to
immerse the user in a narrative rich role-play (Uhlmann and Battaiola 2014), whereas
others may attempt to add gamefulness via reaction and finesse -requiring gameplay
(see e.g. Hamari et al. 2014a, b; Morschheuser et al. 2016; Seaborn and Fels 2015 for
reviews). Most commonly, however, gamification implementations have focused on
easily transferable mechanics such as points, badges and leaderboards that easily fit
into a variety of services across the information systems sphere (see e.g. Hamari and
Koivisto 2014; Morschheuser et al. 2017).
Goal-setting foci As prior research indicates, positive perceptions of gamification
that lead to its adoption, may depend on users’ relationships with goals (e.g. Hamari
2013; Landers et al. 2017). Differences in individual preferences and personal goals
influenced the effects gamification has on motivation and goal attainment (Zuckerman
and Gal-Oz 2014). Gamification can be often seen geared towards the attainment of
123
rewards such as badges, points or higher placement in a game hierarchy such as beating
others on a leaderboard (e.g. Christy and Fox 2014; Cruz et al. 2015; Hamari 2013,
2017; Hamari et al. 2014b), therefore, gamification may be more suited for users who
focus on outcomes as opposed to a focus on the goal-attainment process. However,
gamification also intends to create a gameful, enjoyable experience (Deterding et al.
2011; Huotari and Hamari 2017; Lieberoth 2015; Nicholson 2012; Vesa et al. 2017),
that may make the use of gamified systems more enjoyable (Jung et al. 2010), matching
the preferences of process-focused individuals. We could thus additionally expect that
if the gamification implementation is successful in creating an immersive enjoyable
experience, that it might be appreciated by individuals focused on enjoying the process
of goal attainment.
Goal-setting orientations It follows from the above discussions that proving ori-
ented individuals who wish to showcase and prove their competence to others,
would positively perceive gamification features; leaderboards, points, badges and such
mechanics allow for the communication of achievement easily to others (Burke 2014;
Landers et al. 2017). Mastery oriented individuals may also find benefits from the
use of gamification as it would allow them to observe their self-development through
the same game mechanics. For example, progress bars and points allow individuals
to visualize the effort they have put thus far towards the achievement of a goal or the
attainment of a skill. They also allow individuals to infer their progress and the effort
needed to reach their goals, thus supporting their journey of self-improvement. We can
consequently expect that proving and mastery oriented individuals would positively
perceive gamification and intend to use it in the future.
On the other hand, avoidance oriented individuals with would in contrast place little
importance on use of gamification and may even perceive such a design class nega-
tively and avoid its usage. As previously indicated, individuals with a goal-avoidance
orientation would generally avoid setting explicit goals so as not to be negatively per-
ceived by their peers if they fail in goal attainment (Capa et al. 2008; Hackel et al.
2016; Mann et al. 2013). While they might still use gamification features for enjoy-
ment and immersion purposes, these same features emphasize progress and may thus
emphasize failures and achievement shortcomings; dangers which individuals with a
goal-avoidance orientation would be expected to avoid. It is thus expected that individ-
uals with a goal-avoidance orientation would negatively perceive gamification features
and intend not to use them in the future.
Goal attributes It is believed that one of the main motivational effects of gamifica-
tion stems from its ability to make goals more SMART (Burke 2014; Hamari 2013,
2017; Landers et al. 2017); that is, more Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic,
and Time-bound. Such goals, according to goal-setting theory and decades of research,
assist individuals towards the attainment of their goals (Locke and Latham 2002; Mann
et al. 2013). We could thus postulate that individuals who lean towards specificity in
goal-setting may positively perceive the features of gamification because of this trait.
The affordances gamification offers would resonate with the specificity attribute of
their goals, thus increasing the likelihood that they would continue to use gamification
features to support their appreciation for specific goals. Although, a few studies have
discussed the relationship between gamification and goal-setting, currently there is a
dearth of literature that specifically measured this relationship between the specificity
123
J. Hamari et al.
attribute of goals and perceptions of gamification and thus no final conclusions on the
relationship could be drawn.
Difficulty and challenge is a matter of utmost importance in game design, some
games attempt to match for example their difficulty and challenge level to the skills of
players sometimes in real-time and according to player types as quickly and frequently
as these differences are discovered (Cowley and Charles 2016). The aim is to ensure
engagement with the game by matching the challenge level to user preferences and
skills, thus putting players in an enjoyable state of “flow” where they are immersed
in the task at hand (Csíkszentmihályi 1975). Gamification attempts to mimic this
experience (Hamari and Koivisto 2014a) that may facilitate user engagement with
their goals long enough to attain them. Gamification also as explained has the ability
of molding goals into SMART-ness, that may additionally assist in making difficult
goals seem more attainable (Burke 2014; Landers et al. 2017). Thus, we may expect
individuals who tend to set difficult goals to positively perceive features of gamification
design once they realize its potential to assist them in attaining their goals. Furthermore,
the gameful experience afforded by gamification (Huotari and Hamari 2017; Nicholson
2015), may also be appreciated by these individuals, as they may wish to offset the
perceived difficulty of their goals with gamefulness. However, currently there is a
dearth of literature that specifically measured this relationship between the difficulty
attribute of goal-setting and perceptions of gamification and thus no final conclusions
on the relationship could be drawn.
2.2.2 Social networking
Social computing application have existed for a long time before and after the inception
of the internet (Mamdani et al. 1999; Parameswaran and Whinston 2007), however,
no other technological development has taken social computing to the heights we see
today than the emergence of Social Networking Services (such as Facebook,8 Twitter9
and Instagram10 to name a few) (Boyd and Ellison 2007; Richter and Koch 2008).
We can even observe many social networking features (such as messaging, friending,
virtual cheers and discussion forums) added to information systems and not just as part
of standalone services for social networking (Farzan et al. 2008a, b; Jung et al. 2010).
This design movement spawned off as a consequence of the growingly networked
nature of our society and its unprecedented enabling infrastructure (both hardware
and software layers) (Boyd and Ellison 2007; Butler 2001). Today, we can interact
with peers and non-peers anywhere, anytime to a degree, that has started to regulate
and direct how we live our lives, what aspirations we develop and what goals we set
for ourselves as well as how we progress towards those goals (Butler 2001; Butler and
Wang 2012; Hamari and Koivisto 2015a; Richter and Koch 2008). Individuals gravitate
towards social features as humans potentially rely on the feedback—and social support
and encouragement (Hamari and Koivisto 2015a)—received from these networks to
8 https://www.facebook.com/.
9 https://twitter.com/.
10 https://www.instagram.com/.
123
stay motivated. Communities, peers, and social groups are increasingly considered
important facets of self-regulation and goal attainment (Bouvier et al. 2014; Latham
2003; Loock et al. 2013; Mann et al. 2013).
Social comparison (Festinger 1954) understood as a process of comparing goals
and accomplishments to those of others often to evaluate one’s performance against an
external standard, is a process thought to motivate individuals to improve their perfor-
mance relative to others according to the social comparison theory and many research
studies (Chan and Prendergast 2007; Hamari and Koivisto 2015a; Petkov et al. 2011;
Zuckerman and Gal-Oz 2014). Social Networking Services and features unparalleled
expose us to social influence and comparison (Cialdini and Trost 1998; Cialdini and
Goldstein 2004; Hamari and Koivisto 2015) and additionally increase users’ percep-
tions of relatedness (e.g. Deci and Ryan 2000) and their sense of community (e.g.
Hernandez et al. 2011).
Communities influence their members through their tendency to develop shared
norms of behavior to be adhered to by the community members and through the social
feedback the community exchanges (Hamari and Koivisto 2015a). Social feedback
facilitated by sharing within the community provides a channel for soliciting approval
and external performance evaluations (Jung et al. 2010; Zuckerman and Gal-Oz 2014;
Hildebrand et al. 2013). Such feedback usually promotes social reciprocity (Hamari
and Koivisto 2015a; Munson and Consolvo 2012), and is considered a reason why
social designs may be motivating in goal pursuit (Hamari and Koivisto 2015; Hilde-
brand et al. 2013; Petkov et al. 2011).
Goal-setting foci Individuals’ with a process focus to goal-setting as discussed
mostly intend to enjoy the process of goal attainment (Burnette et al. 2013; Freund
et al. 2010; Latham 2003; Locke and Latham 2002; Mann et al. 2013). It may thus
be expected that they would attempt to enjoy the process by sharing their updates,
thus earning themselves cheers, and the support of a community as discussed. On the
other hand, social comparison is also associated with negative emotions such as envy
and inadequacy (Krasnova et al. 2013, 2015; Tandoc et al. 2015). Individuals with a
process focus to goal-setting may thus avoid social networking features if they tend
to experience such negative emotions. It is consequently difficult to hypothesize on
the relationship between process-focused goals and perceptions of social networking
designs.
Individuals with outcomes focus to goal-setting on the other hand may draw benefits
from the use of social networking features due to the ability of these features to
inspire social reciprocity, comparison, and recognition. Cheers individuals receive in
response to their achieved outcomes, revalidate to them the importance of reaching
these outcomes, thus resonating with their outcomes orientations. Additionally, the
cheers would push these individuals more towards a focus on reaching outcomes in
order to collect more cheers. On the other hand, if the outcomes individuals wish to
achieve do not match the values of their social networks or if these networks are not
vibrant enough to cheer the achievement of these outcomes, then it is also likely that
individuals with outcome-focused goals would draw little use from social networking
features, thus negatively affecting their perception of these designs. Beyond that,
social networking can also be negatively correlated with goal commitment when social
feedback emphasizes personal shortcomings (Kim et al. 2016; Zuckerman and Gal-
123
J. Hamari et al.
Oz 2014), or when individuals pursue goals scarcely appreciated by their social group
(Latham 2003). Such situations that can lead to unfavorable evaluations of one’s self
or cause a disturbance to one’s publicly projected image are considered Ego Threats
that individuals are thought to avoid (Dijkstra 2014; Burnette et al. 2013), they can
also lead to envy, and decreased emotional wellbeing (Krasnova et al. 2013, 2015;
Tandoc et al. 2015). In such conditions, the social networks individuals have no longer
provide them with favorable social support and hence the network may potentially
lose its perceived value by the individual. These conditions may therefore become a
reason why individuals with an outcome focus to goal-setting may eventually avoid
the use of social networking features even if these features afford them a channel to
support their goal attainment. It is thus hard to finally hypothesize the extent to which
individuals with an outcome focus to goal-setting would weight potential benefits from
social networking designs against their potential drawbacks.
Goal-setting orientations Proving as an orientation to goal-setting, relies by defi-
nition on social communities in order for one to prove one’s competences to others.
Individuals with a proving orientation utilize social measures in the evaluations of
their goals (Capa et al. 2008; Hackel et al. 2016; Hamari and Koivisto 2015a; Locke
and Latham 2002; Roskes et al. 2014). It could thus be expected that individuals with
a proving orientation to goals would positively perceive social networking designs
and intend to utilize their features. Online social games and gamified applications
from Farmvile,11 to PokemonGo12 indicate that social sharing, competition and social
comparison are some of the possible ways individuals perceive and communicate their
achievements through a network of friends to whom they wish to prove competence.
However, individuals are not always inclined to disclose their serious goals from the
use of an application or their goal-related progress due to fears of over sharing, boring
their community (Munson and Consolvo 2012), or fears of revealing too much of their
private information (Swan 2009).
Individuals with an avoidance-orientation to goal setting are scarcely expected to
have goals to communicate with their network in the first place, let alone positively
perceive these social designs or intend to continue using a service for their features.
Social recognition has a positive influence on attitudes towards motivational services
employing social features only when the received feedback or social recognition is
considered beneficial (Hamari and Koivisto 2015a; Loock et al. 2013; Jung et al.
2010). In situations where the recognition received is negative or deemed less bene-
ficial (possibly due to the lack of achievements or goals to communicate in the first
place) (Munson and Consolvo 2012) avoidance of social networking features may
be expected especially by avoidance oriented individuals who tend to prefer avoid-
ing embarrassment, or negative social judgment (Capa et al. 2008). Thus, it is likely
that individuals specifically with avoidance orientations would prefer to avoid social
features altogether.
Individuals with a mastery-orientation to goal-setting could be thought of as indi-
viduals whose main focus is on themselves and on improving their skills (Burnette
11 https://www.zynga.com/games/farmville.
12 https://www.pokemongo.com.
123
et al. 2013; Elliot and Harackiewicz 1994; Freund et al. 2010). These individuals may
hence pay little attention to their social network or how external individuals perceive
their goal-related performance. What would be expected to mater more to them is
mainly how they themselves perceive and evaluate and their own progress towards the
mastery of the skills they wish to master. Accordingly, it is thus hard to expect that
these individuals would draw much benefit from social networking designs and thus
we expect that they would not positively perceive its features or intend to continue to
use a motivational service because of the presence of these features.
Goal attributes Social groups provide individuals with behavioral directions based
on the values the social groups perceive positively (Cialdini and Goldstein 2004;
Cialdini and Trost 1998; Hamari and Koivisto 2015a; Jung et al. 2010). At times, these
directions may not be specific enough for effective self-regulation (Nahrgang et al.
2013) and thus provide little assistance for individuals who appreciate goal-specificity.
For example; goals to “work hard”, or to “work harder than last quarter”, or to “increase
output by 5%” have different levels of specificity and thus would be appreciated
differently by different individuals. We could expect that a mismatch between the
goals specificity degree that individuals and their social group respectively appreciate,
would influence the extent to which individuals positively or negatively perceive social
networking with these groups and the features that facilitate it. On the other hand, this
mismatch possibly when the individual has a specific goal the achievement of which
could be easily communicated, may lead the larger social groups with unspecific or
hardly quantifiable goals, to exaggerate the individual’s goal achievement, thus making
the individual appreciate the social features of a motivational service. It is thus hard to
determine with certainty whether individuals with specific goals would perceive more
benefits from the use of social networking features than drawbacks.
With regards to the difficulty attribute of goals, generally, the more individuals lean
towards perceptually difficult goals regardless who set them for the individual, the
greater the energy and motivation needed for its attainment (Drach-Zahavy and Erez
2002; Locke and Latham 2013; Presslee et al. 2013). Individuals who lean towards
goals perceived as difficult may find that social cheers are motivational and assistive
with goal attainment. They may however on the other hand avoid the use of these
features for fears of failures due to the difficulty of their goals. As previously was
the case with avoidance-oriented individuals, we expect that individuals with difficult
goals would lean towards the avoidance of social designs.
2.2.3 Quantified-self
The last few years witnessed a rise in the adoption of devices such as smart watches,
activity trackers, and sleep monitors, coupled with an increase in the use of Quantified-
Self (QS) software and features (Gurrin et al. 2014; Rawassizadeh et al. 2015; Swan
2009; Lupton 2016; op den Akker et al. 2014) as well as increased use of quantifica-
tion sensors, GPS tracking, and visualization software (Choe et al. 2014; Lupton 2016;
Mehta 2011). Quantified-self hardware and software automatically track changes in
certain variables that individuals are interested in as measures of their performance
in a certain area of interest such as health (see op den Akker et al. 2014 for a
review), work productivity, or self-development (Swan 2009). This has given rise
123
J. Hamari et al.
to the quantified-self movement (Choe et al. 2014; Mehta 2011; Munson and Con-
solvo 2012; Zuckerman and Gal-Oz 2014), which emphasizes the importance of the
regular collection, processing, and presentation of data on behavioral indicators, envi-
ronmental indicators or biological indicators etc. as measures to evaluate personal
performance so that individuals can better achieve progress in their areas of interest
(Lupton 2016; Swan 2009), Such tracking of variables of interest is also of societal
benefit as it might help individuals remain healthy and productive, lowering health
care costs for a society while possibly increasing productivity levels (op den Akker
et al. 2014). Typically, QS designs employs features such as logs, diaries, performance
graphs and other statistical analyses.
Quantified-self measurements have been experimentally (Munson and Consolvo
2012), and observationally (Mehta 2011) linked to increases in performance towards
goal attainment. Additionally, it is thought to be important to support goal-setting, in
general and self-regulation in specific (Choe et al. 2014; op den Akker et al. 2014;
Zuckerman and Gal-Oz 2014), and thus has been adopted in the design of several
information systems such as with Nike+,13 MyFitnessPal,14 Habitica15 and many
others. It is thus expected that individuals who focus on the outcomes of goal-settings
would use QS as a mechanism to ensure regulation of their performance. However,
while QS certainly does offer individuals many benefits that could help in the pursuit
of outcomes, attitudes towards quantification are negative and quantification has been
judged by its users as ineffective in reaching outcomes, although their performance
data may indicate otherwise (Zuckerman and Gal-Oz 2014). Such dissonance between
the perceived and actual benefits from quantified-self features in terms of outcomes
attainment support may be due to several cognitive, affective, and behavioral barriers
to the adoption and use of quantification as a motivational mechanism.
Goal-setting foci Keeping track of variables of interest is considered time con-
suming as collected data is subject to fragmentation across several applications, and
extensive cognitive skills are required for comprehending and benchmarking the col-
lected data, let alone to draw behavioral conclusions based on it (Choe et al. 2014).
Additionally, qualitative aspects of performance such as quality, or personal conditions
such as moods are not easily trackable through most quantitative measure of perfor-
mance (Swan 2009), hence certain outcomes are not always best reflected through QS
features. It is thus hard to draw final conclusions on the perceptions of QS features
by user with outcome-focused goals. On the other hand, individuals who focus on the
process of goal-setting may appreciate a stream of details as to how their process is
proceeding. Their focus on the process may additionally instill in them the drive to
acquire the needed skills to comprehend QS data and to use it as a continuous, precise
measure of a process that extends overtime.
Goal-setting orientations As discussed, individuals with a proving orientation uti-
lize social measures in the evaluations of their goals (Capa et al. 2008; Hackel et al.
2016; Locke and Latham 2002; Mann et al. 2013; Roskes et al. 2014), since the
13 http://www.nikefuellab.com.
14 www.myfitnesspal.com/.
15 https://habitica.com/.
123
interpretation of the quantified-self data is reportedly challenging for self-quantifiers

themselves (Choe et al. 2014; Gurin et al. 2014), let alone for individuals outside of this
interest circle. It is unrealistic to expect all individuals to have the ability to interpret
and evaluate QS features and output or to be aware of the benchmarks against which
to evaluate the data it provides. Thus, individuals with a proving orientation to goals
would unlikely be able to prove themselves through QS features as their social circles
may lack the skills needed to evaluate the QS data. It is however still possible that
individuals with a proving orientation might be able to meaningfully select, summa-
rize and interpret their data in ways that demonstrate their achievement to their circles
without requiring such external evaluators to possess data interpretation skills. Addi-
tionally, individuals with a proving orientation may seek membership in communities
that have the ability to interpret their performance and celebrate them for it. Empirical
studies so far do not support such an assumption as self-quantifiers are hesitant to
share their performance even to potentially an interested community (Barrett et al.
2013; Choe et al. 2014). Thus, the extent to which quantified-self-ers would positively
perceive QS features and intend to use it could not be definitely determined from the
available theoretical base.
With regards to individuals with an avoidance orientation to goal-setting; it is likely
that their lack of goals could make them perceive QS features positively as these fea-
tures would provide them with a tracking mechanic of their activity regardless of a final
evaluation of it that these individuals general tend to wish to avoid as communicated by
Hackel et al. (2016), Mann et al. (2013) and Zimmerman (2013). In this sense, the use
of QS features does not necessarily require the pre-hand existence of goals and hence
they could be appreciated by individuals with avoidance orientation. On the other
hand, quantification is instrumental to self-knowledge and development (Munson and
Consolvo 2012; Zuckerman and Gal-Oz 2014). Individuals with a mastery orientation
are above all interested in developing their skills and thus they may perceive QS as a
method to regularly and accurately measure and evaluate their performance towards
mastery. It is thus expected that individuals with a mastery-orientation to goal-setting
would perceive QS positively.
Goal attributes Quantified-self designs support self-regulation through provision
of performance data that allows for detecting and correcting discrepancies between
intended and actual outcomes (Swan 2009, 2013; Whitson 2013). Quantified-selfers
recommend the development of specific goals for the successful collection and inter-
pretation of quantification data (Gurrin et al. 2014): the more specific the goal, the
more effective QS features are. It is thus expected that individuals who set specific
goals would appreciate QS features, perceive it more positively, and draw greater
benefits from it.
Generally, the more individuals lean towards perceptually difficult goals regardless
of the source of the goal, the more likely they could be expected to appreciate a
stream of data that would allow them to detect discrepancies between intended and
actual performance early on. On the other hand, if individuals do not possess the
abilities and resources to use QS features, the use of such tools may make difficult
goals seem more challenging and individuals would thus prefer to avoid their use and
instead adopt more intuitive features to support their difficult goals. Consequently, no
123
J. Hamari et al.
definite conclusions could be made as to the relationship between difficulty of goals

and perception of QS features.
2.3 Research model
This study sets the following research question: “how different goal foci (outcome and
focus), goals orientation (mastery, proving, and avoiding), and goal attributes (speci-
ficity and difficulty) are associated with perceived importance of gamification, social
networking and quantified-self-features” with the aim of producing knowledge for
understanding which of the motivational design are better suited for users with differ-
ent goal focus, orientation and goal attributes. While we have extensively discussed
the possible relationships between the dimensions of goal-setting and the motivational
design classes there still remains ambiguity on what can be expected and hypothesized
about these relationships. Table 1 presents a summary of the concepts and expected
associations of these design and their relationships with various goal-setting variables.
In the empirical portion of the study we investigate the relationship between all the
goal-setting related constructs and the importance of all of the three principle classes
of motivational designs for users. Figure 1 depicts the research model investigated.
3 Empirical study
3.1 Participants
One hundred sixty-seven (N = 167) users of a Finnish-based major exercise encour-

agement app called HeiaHeia that was launched in 2010 on the App stores of Apple,
Android and Microsoft successfully completed an online survey. Users of Heia-
Heia were selected as HeiaHeia simultaneously incorporates features of gamification,
quantified-self and social networking—the main classes of motivational design, mean-
ing that its users and the participants of the study would have experience with the three
types of designs, allowing for comparative study of the perceptions of these designs.
Please refer to Table 2 for demographic details of the respondents. About 72.5% of
respondents were female, 60% were between 30 and 49 of age, 90% had a college or
university degree, 70% of respondents are fully employed, while students amount to
13.3%. 63% have been using the service for 2 or more years and an additional 17%
have used it for over a year (Table 2). Most visit the service daily or several times a
week (79.5%). Almost all (94%) exercise at least 3 times a week (see Table 2). 97%
of users declared to log all or most of their physical exercise in the service.
3.2 Materials and measurement
Users of HeiaHeia can either use the app individually or as a part of a group e.g. their
company fitness group as the app encourages. Upon signing up, users are asked to log
their exercise related information in terms of height, weight and target weight or similar
goal (or none) that they want to achieve from the use of the app. They then proceed to
123
Table 1 Summary of concepts
Gamification design Social networking design Quantified-self design
Affects motivation through Users’ psychological needs which Users’ social psychological needs Users’ cognitive needs for
are commonly related to the ones e.g. social support and feedback information about their activity
connected with game experiences (Hamari and Koivisto 2015a), (Swan 2009, 2013; Zhang 2008)
e.g. autotelicy, social comparison (Festinger
mastery/competence, immersion, 1954), relatedness (e.g. Deci and
flow etc. (see e.g. Deterding 2015; Ryan 2000) and the sense of
Huotari and Hamari 2017; Zhang community (e.g. Hernandez et al.
2008) 2011; Morschheuser et al. 2017)
Common design features Points/score/XP, Chal- Social feed, bragging, messaging, Self/activity-quantification features
lenges/quests/missions/tasks/goals, social networking/friending, related to tracking such as logs,
badges/achievements/medals/trophies, teams/collaboration, statistics, diaries, visualization of
leaderboards/ranking, progress, customization/personalization, data, benchmarks, forecasts (Choe
quizzes, timers, avatar/character, cheers/praise and comments et al. 2014; Lupton 2016)
narrative/stories, roleplaying (see (Hamari and Koivisto 2015a;
e.g. Hamari et al. 2014a, b; Koivisto and Hamari 2017; Ling

Morschheuser et al. 2016; Seaborn et al. 2005; Morschheuser et al.
and Fels 2015; Koivisto and 2017; Zhang 2008)
Hamari 2017)
Relationship with Goal Foci Importance of gamification features No clear enough expectation related Importance of QS design is more
goal-setting (outcome, is more likely to be positively to the association or direction likely to be positively associated
(based on prior process) associated with outcome focus (positive or negative) can be with process focus rather than
literature) rather than process focus as ascertained between social outcome focus as QS design is
gamification commonly rewards networking design and goal focus more geared towards tracking the
(intermediary)outcomes of entire process of the activity rather
behaviour (e.g. points, badges etc.) than evaluating the outcome.
However, QS design can also
provide information about the
fulfilment of goals, and therefore,
may also be positively associated
with the outcome focus
123
Table 1 continued
Gamification design Social networking design Quantified-self design
123
Orientations towards goal-setting Importance of gamification features Importance of social networking Importance of QS design is likely to
(proving, mastery, avoidance): is more likely to be positively design is likely to be positively be positively associated with the
associated with the proving and associated with the proving mastery orientation as it affords
mastery orientation rather than orientation as it affords sharing accurate tracking of the activity,
avoidance orientations as (and thus proving) achievements, and therefore, provides important
gamification commonly aims at as well as be negatively associated feedback for self-development
showcasing user’s achievements with avoidance orientation as social
and the progress leading to these networking design would also
achievements afford showcasing subpar goal
progress and thus can strengthen
the fear of failure
Goal attributes (specificity, No clear enough expectation related No clear enough expectation related Having specific goals is likely to be
difficulty) to the association or direction to the association or direction positively associated with the
(positive or negative) can be (positive or negative) can be perceived importance of QS design
ascertained between gamifications ascertained between social since having specific goals affords
and goal attributes networking design and goal a more purposeful and relevant use
attributes of tracking and metrics
J. Hamari et al.
Goal focus Outcome
Process
Gamificaon
Movaonal technologies
Proving
Goal orientaon
Avoidance Social
Networking
Mastery
Quanfied-self
Goal aributes
Difficulty
Specificity
Fig. 1 Research model
log in their activity in terms of exercise type, length, vigorousness or non-performed

exercise because of sickness. Users can also log qualitative aspects of exercise in
a diary such as for example how they felt or other remarks about the activity they
performed. Users can check the activities of other users or friends they are connected
to through the app, cheering them on their activity or communicating with them as they
please and leaderboards are used to rank them in terms of exercise-related point earned
during a week. The app could optionally be connected to a fitness wearable so that
the exercise info is automatically logged. Gamification features present on HeiaHeia
include medals, levels and leaderboards. Social networking-features include cheering,
commenting and friends’ activity, as displayed on one’s own newsfeed. Quantified-
self features include manual and automatic logs, and activity tracking of exercise,
sick days and performance indicators. While most of the features of the service are
prominently displayed in the service and may be nearly impossible to ignore, their use
is mostly voluntary, with the exception of medals and levels. These are awarded to
123
J. Hamari et al.
Table 2 Demographic details of respondents
N = 167 Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Age Under 20 3 1.8 Weekly visits More than once a day 10 6

to the
service
20–29 34 20.4 Daily 46 27.5
30–39 53 31.7 Several times 87 52.1
40–49 47 28.1 1 or 2 times 20 12
50–59 22 13.2 Rarely 4 2.4
60 or older 8 4.8 Weekly More than once a day 6 3.6
Exercise
Gender Male 46 27.5 Daily 29 17.4
Female 121 72.5 Several times 122 73.1
Tenure < 1 year 34 20.4 1 or 2 times 10 6
1–2 years 28 16.8 Rarely 0 –
2+ years 105 62.9 – – –
Fig. 2 HeiaHeia screenshots
users in accordance to predefined milestones (e.g. medal badges at 10, 25 or 50 times

of each exercise) or less (levels) known points. Figure 2 provides several screenshots
from HeiaHeia, depicting some of its key features.
A questionnaire was implemented through Webropol; an online surveying tool.
Questionnaires are a standard approach when a study is measuring latent (psychome-
tric) variables such as traits, attitudes, beliefs and experiences (e.g. Nunnally 1978).
They allow access to the respondents’ individualized perception of their reality as
is rarely allowed by other measurement technique (Barker and Pistrang 2015; Bou-
123
vier et al. 2014; Fransella 1981). The link to the questionnaire was placed inside
the service by its operators for a duration between 24th of November and 18th of
December 2014, visible only to registered users to ensure that potential respondents
have been exposed to the service before their participation in our study. The ques-
tionnaire employed 7-point scales in measuring users’ perceptions of the importance
of features of gamification, social networking and quantified-self (“On a scale of 1
(not at all) to 7 (extremely), how important are the following features to you?”) as
well as users goal-setting related factors in terms of foci (outcomes, process), orien-
tations towards goals (proving, mastery, avoidance) and goal attributes (difficulty and
specificity) (“Consider the following statements regarding your exercise” 1—strongly
disagree—7—strongly agree): (see Table 3 for measurement items as well as how
each load on their corresponding variable they measure).
3.3 Procedure
Both the measurement model (validity and reliability) and structural model (results)
were assessed using the component-based PLS-SEM of SmartPLS 3 (Ringle, Wende,
and Will, 2005). The use of structural equation modelling (SEM) is a standard approach
in studies that investigate several dependent relationships simultaneously especially
when analyzing complex multivariate structural models containing both the measure-
ment model (confirmatory factor analysis of constructs (see e.g. Nunnally 1978 on
latent psychometric variables)) and the structural model (multiple regression models
investigating the relationship between constructs) (Hair et al. 2010, 2016).
The advantage of the component-based PLS-SEM estimation in particular, when
compared to co-variance based structural equation methods (CB-SEM), is that it is
non-parametric and therefore makes no restrictive assumptions about the distributions
of the data. Secondly, PLS-SEM better tolerates smaller samples. Thirdly, PLS-SEM
is considered to be a more suitable method for prediction oriented studies, whereas co-
variance based SEM is better suited for testing which models best fit the data (Anderson
and Gerbing 1988; Chin et al. 2003). Fourthly, PLS-SEM can provide a more accurate
measurement of the path coefficient in the model, whereas it has been demonstrated
that CB-SEM can inflate path coefficients (Chin et al. 2003). For these reasons, we
selected PLS-SEM estimation over CB-SEM (Anderson and Gerbing 1988; Hair et al.
2011, 2016; Lowry and Gaskin 2014).
3.4 Results
3.4.1 Measurement model: validity and reliability
Convergent validity of the measurement (see Table 4) was assessed through Average
Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR) of the constructs [AVE
should be > 0.5, CR > 0.7 (Fornell and Larcker 1981)]. Moreover, we omitted two
items that loaded onto their corresponding constructs below 0.6 (Goal orientation:
avoidance item 2 and Goal attribute specificity item 1). As the employed measure of
convergent validity are above the indicated thresholds, we can conclude that the con-
123
Table 3 Survey constructs and measurement items
Construct Item Loading Source
123
Goal focus: outcome “Consider the following statements regarding your exercise” 1—strongly disagree, 7—strongly agree
I often compare my current condition to the condition I want to attain in future 0.856 Adapted from definitions and
I often think what will it be like to attain/reach my exercise goals 0.846 description-based measure in
Freund et al. (2010)
I often dream about the day I will reach my goals 0.759
I often compare my current condition with a past condition 0.801
I often think of the distance between my current physical condition and my goals 0.817
Goal focus: process I often think of what I can do to pursue my exercise goals 0.803
I often think about how I could optimize my exercise sessions 0.782
While exercising, I pay attention how my exercise is going 0.815
When exercising, I am very focused on the exercise itself 0.664
Goal orientation: proving It’s important for me to prove that I am better than others 0.665 Adapted from Elliot and McGregor
It’s important that others know how well I am doing 0.831 (2001); VandeWalle (1997);
VandeWalle et al. (2001)
To be honest, I really like to prove my abilities to others 0.822
I think that it’s important to do well to show how good you are 0.804
Goal orientation: mastery I’m willing to take on a difficult challenge if it helps me reach my goals 0.733
I like challenges that really force me to put on a hard effort 0.879
I prefer challenging goals so that I’ll improve a great deal 0.773
I truly enjoy challenges for the sake of mastering them 0.782
Goal orientation: avoidance I prefer to avoid challenges where I could risk performing poorly 0.784
I am more concerned about avoiding failure in exercise than I am about doing well < 0.600
I would rather drop a difficult challenge than fail 0.879
I would rather take on a challenge that I am familiar with so that I can avoid doing poorly 0.653
I would rather take on challenges that I feel that I will probably do well in 0.653
J. Hamari et al.
Table 3 continued
Construct Item Loading Source
Goal attribute: difficulty My goals in [the service] require a great deal of effort 0.869 Adapted from Wright (2004)
My goals in [the service] are very challenging 0.892
Goals like mine in [the service] are quite demanding day after day 0.796
Goal attribute: specificity I understand exactly what I am supposed to do to achieve my goals in [the service] < 0.600 Adapted from Lee et al. (1991),
Locke and Latham (1984) and
Wright (2004)
If I have more than one goal to accomplish with [the service], I know which ones are the most 0.850
important and which are the least important
When using [the service] I feel that my goals related to exercise are clear 0.643
I have very specific, clear outcomes to aim for in [the service] 0.699
Gamification On a scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely), how important are the following features to you?
Medals 0.899
Your top sports list 0.760
Levels (bronze, silver, etc.) 0.796
Social networking On a scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely), how important are the following features to you?
Cheering 0.848
Commenting 0.831
Friends’ logs 0.872
Top friends 0.827
Quantified-self On a scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely), how important are the following features to you?
Advanced tracking features 0.680
Log 0.767
Sick days 0.800
123
123
Table 4 Validity and reliability (Fornell and Larcker-criterion)
AVE CR GFO GFP GOP GOA GOM GAD GAS G S Q
GFO 0.667 0.909 0.816

GFP 0.590 0.863 0.703 0.768
GOP 0.614 0.833 0.239 0.179 0.784
GOA 0.560 0.871 0.089 0.002 0.134 0.748
GOM 0.630 0.889 0.258 0.502 0.271 − 0.262 0.793
GAD 0.728 0.793 0.379 0.404 0.268 − 0.202 0.476 0.853
GAS 0.564 0.860 0.463 0.460 0.156 − 0.186 0.346 0.524 0.751
G 0.674 0.909 0.345 0.308 0.208 − 0.064 0.135 0.066 0.234 0.821
S 0.714 0.794 0.158 0.094 0.249 − 0.256 0.151 0.060 0.179 0.425 0.845
Q 0.564 0.851 0.384 0.376 0.241 0.008 0.316 0.255 0.342 0.442 0.357 0.751
Bold = square root of the AVE of a given construct

AVE average variance extracted, CR composite reliability, GFO goal focus: outcome, GFP goal focus: process, GOP goal orientation: process, GOA goal orientation: avoidance,
GOM goal orientation: mastery, GAD goal attribute: difficulty, GAS goal attribute: specificity, G gamification, S social networking, Q quantified-self
J. Hamari et al.
vergent requirements of validity and reliability for the model were met. Discriminant
validity was assessed, firstly, through the comparison of the square root of the AVE
(diagonal line, Table 4) of each construct to all of the correlations between it and other
constructs (see Fornell and Larcker 1981), where all of the square root of the AVEs
should be greater than any of the correlations between the corresponding construct
and another construct (Chin 1998). Secondly, we assessed the discriminant validity
by confirming that each item had the highest loading with its corresponding construct.
All three tests indicated that the discriminant validity and reliability were acceptable.
The sample size satisfies different criteria for the lower bounds of sample size for
PLS-SEM: (1) ten times the largest number of structural paths directed at a particular
construct in the inner path model (Chin 1998), and (2) according to Anderson and
Gerbing (1984, 1988), more than 150 respondents as the model is comprised of more
than three. (3) The sample size also satisfies stricter criteria relevant for variance-
based SEM: for example, Bentler and Chou (1987) recommend a ratio of 5 cases per
observed variable.
3.4.2 Structural model: results
The structural equation modelling results obtained from the data gathered among
HeiaHeia users showed that the path model accounted for 18.7% of the variance of the
perceived importance of the gamification design, 18.6% of the perceived importance of
the social networking design, and 23.1% of the perceived importance of the quantified-
self design.
As per the relationship between goal orientation and the importance of motivational
features: the results reveal that being outcome-focused is positively associated with
perceived importance of gamification (β16 = 0.233, p = 0.031), and we can observe
a similar trend for quantified-self (β = 0.196, p = 0.065). Process focus did not have
any significant association with the perceived importance of any of the design classes.
As per the relationship between goal orientation and the importance of moti-
vational features: Proving-orientation was positively associated with the perceived
importance of gamification (β = 0.192, p = 0.025) and social networking designs
(β = 0.283, p < 0.000). Goal avoidance-orientation was negatively associated with
the perceived importance of social networking designs (β = −0.321, p < 0.000).
There was a positive trend between mastery-orientation and perceived importance of
quantified-self designs (β = 0.174, p = 0.066).
As per the relationship between goal attributes and the importance of motivational
features: there was a negative association between the perceived difficulty of goals and
the perceived importance of gamification design (β = −0.213, p = 0.044) as well as
a weaker negative trend between it and social networking design (β = −0.200, p =
0.051), as well as between goal specificity and perceived importance quantified-self
design (β = 0.173, p = 0.051). Figure 3 shows these meaningfully significant paths
of the research model. For full results, please refer to Table 5.
16 β represents the standard regression coefficient.
123
J. Hamari et al.
Goal focus Outcome
Process
Gamificaon
(R² = 0.187)
Movaonal technologies
Proving
Goal orientaon
Social
β = -0.321 (p = 0.000)
Avoidance Networking
(R² = 0.186)
Mastery
Quanfied-
self
(R² = 0.231)
Goal aributes
Difficulty
Specificity
Fig. 3 Results (only meaningfully significant path coefficients are shown for clarity (largest p-value 0.066),
please refer to Table 5 for full results)
4 Discussion
In summary, the results of the present study pertaining to the relationships between
goal-setting and motivational design (in an exercise app) revealed that (1) gamifica-
tion features are perceived to be more important by users who have easier goals, are
outcome-focused and who are more inclined to prove themselves to others. (2) The
perceived importance of social networking features is similarly associated with being
proving-oriented and having easier goals. Moreover, the importance of social net-
working features is strongly negatively associated with avoidance orientation towards
goals. (3) The perceived importance of quantified-self features appears to be associated
with being outcome-focused and with being oriented towards mastery as well as with
having specific goals. This section discusses the implications of these results from a
goal-setting perspective.
4.1 Goal foci
Regarding goal foci, our results clearly answer a question posed at the outset of this
study on whether motivational technologies can provide goal support either in the form
123
Table 5 Full results
β p 95% CI
Gamification (R2 = 0.187)

Goal focus Outcome 0.233 0.031 0.018 0.440
Process 0.156 0.170 − 0.072 0.373
Goal orientations Proving 0.192 0.025 0.025 0.357
Avoidance − 0.140 0.156 − 0.328 0.061
Mastery − 0.033 0.758 − 0.239 0.177
Goal attributes Difficulty − 0.213 0.044 − 0.416 −0.004
Specificity 0.121 0.282 − 0.101 0.338
Social networking (R2 = 0.186)
Goal focus Outcome 0.185 0.108 − 0.047 0.403
Process − 0.079 0.547 − 0.332 0.184
Goal orientations Proving 0.283 0.000 0.144 0.416
Avoidance − 0.321 0.000 − 0.459 −0.162
Mastery 0.023 0.824 − 0.183 0.225
Goal attributes Difficulty − 0.200 0.051 − 0.391 0.011
Specificity 0.122 0.245 − 0.080 0.329
Quantified-self (R2 = 0.231)
Goal focus Outcome 0.196 0.065 − 0.008 0.410
Process 0.067 0.581 − 0.177 0.293
Goal orientations Proving 0.113 0.153 − 0.034 0.270
Avoidance 0.041 0.675 − 0.157 0.226
Mastery 0.174 0.066 − 0.014 0.364
Goal attributes Difficulty − 0.043 0.655 − 0.224 0.154
Specificity 0.173 0.051 0.001 0.352
β standard regression coefficients, CI confidence interval
of making the goal attainment process more pleasant or by increasing the perceived
value of the outcomes achieved when goals are attained and thus affording support
for individuals with both outcome- or process-focused goals. The results indicate that
being outcome-focused was positively associated with the features of gamification and
Quantified-self designs, whereas being process-focused had no significant association
with any of the motivational designs. A weaker trend was observed between social
network features and focus on outcomes.
These results connect to a prevailing debate across the different motivational design
literature spheres. The literature is split between whether the effects of these designs
stem from either their ability to make activities more self-purposeful and intrinsically
meaningful (see e.g. Deterding et al. 2011; Dijkstra 2014; Hamari et al. 2015; Lieberoth
2015; McGonigal 2011; Vesa 17) or from providing extrinsic rewards for outcomes
of behavior rather than making the behaviors themselves more enjoyable (see e.g.
Christy and Fox 2014; Cruz et al. 2015; Hamari 2013; Hamari et al. 2014b, 2015;
123
J. Hamari et al.
Hamari and Koivisto 2015b; as examples of studies on rewards). One interpretation

of our obtained results is that these motivational designs do afford more goal-setting
support via rewarding achieved goals (e.g. badges and points in gamification, likes
and comments, from social features or activity reports and performance visualization
in quantified-self), rather than through making the goal attainment process more self-
purposeful (e.g. through making the experience more engaging or immersive). This
suggests that the rewards these technologies afford (e.g. earning of badges, social
status, or performance quantification) may be better aligned with outcome-focused
users. This explanation partly, therefore, lends support to the prevailing criticism of
these motivational technologies that canonically indicate that motivational design is
commonly too superficial and simple in that it does not necessarily change the activity
itself (Bogost 2015; Christy and Fox 2014; Cruz et al. 2015; Hamari et al. 2014b,
2015; Hamari and Koivisto 2015b; Landers et al. 2017).
Outcome-focused designs may be easier to design and implement since comple-
tion and concrete achievements are more easily quantifiable and rewardable, whereas
process-oriented design might require a more holistic design palette (Deterding 2015;
Hamari et al. 2014b; Nicholson 2012). Such design that attempts to make the process
of goal attainment more self-purposeful and enjoyable are present for example in the
case with “Zombies, run”,17 where narratives and audio stimuli are used to during
the exercise instead of only rewarding final outcomes such as finishing an exercise
episode, being healthier or weight-loss.
Both in the discussion around motivational technologies (Nicholson 2015, 2012;
Rigby 2014; Wang et al. 2015) as well as in the literature on goal-setting (Corpus et al.
2009; Freund et al. 2010; Latham 2003; Locke and Latham 2002), these issues have
been connected to the self-determination theory (Baard et al. 2004; Deci et al. 1999)
and specifically to the dichotomous conception of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.18
Generally within this literature, it is thought that the use of motivational design that
provides the so called extrinsic rewards or rewards that are not seamlessly integrated
into the activity itself may be detrimental to the autotelicy of the activity in the long
run since they may shift the focus from the process to the outcomes (Deci et al. 1999;
Elliot and Harackiewicz 1994; Ng et al. 2012) whereas the motivation that emerges
from the enjoyment of the activity itself is often considered more appropriate. To
counter these effects, self-determination theory (e.g. Deci et al. 1999) would indi-
cate that motivational designs that supported users’ autonomy, purpose, mastery, and
relatedness may be most successful. Such designs would foster long term engagement
with the goals individuals have and allow users the autonomy to choose between an
outcome or a process focus without them inferring some preferred foci from the design
of the motivational system.
17 https://zombiesrungame.com.
18 Intrinsic motivation is usually understood as a drive to pursue a behaviour for the sake of the autotelic
aspects of the behaviour itself (e.g. enjoyment, relaxation, skill development). Extrinsic motivation on the
other hand occurs when a behaviour is pursued for an extraneous reward or to avoid a consequence related
to the performance of the behaviour but not for the sake of the behaviour itself e.g. earning income, avoiding
imprisonment (Baard et al. 2004; Deci et al. 1999).
123
This theme of discussion is also connected to perhaps the most prevalent theoretical
development in information systems sciences: technology acceptance (e.g. Taylor
and Todd 1995; Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003). In the respective
literature, it is commonly conceived that utilitarian systems (Davis 1989) are used for
extrinsic reasons in the pursuit of extraneous outcomes, whereas hedonic systems are
used for the enjoyment of the system use—the process (Agarwal and Karahanna 2000;
Van der Heijden 2004); thus connecting outcome- and process foci (Corpus et al. 2009;
Freund et al. 2010; Latham 2003; Locke and Latham 2002) to technology acceptance
(e.g. Hamari and Koivisto 2015b; Van der Heijden 2004). If we follow this reasoning,
the results of this study may suggest that it is those users who are focused on extraneous
goals who still regard both gamification and quantified-self as important features.
Perhaps this is exactly because they feel they need motivational support. This might
not be surprising since, in the end exercise, education etc. often include extraneously
evaluated goals that people are attempting to attain. Additionally, a focus on the process
of goal attainment is already thought to engender engagement and enjoyment of goal
attainment, making the pursuit in itself motivational and enjoyable enough (Locke and
Latham 2002). Thus, individuals with process focused goals may not have recognized
the need or the potential benefit of the use of a hedonic motivational system.
4.2 Goal orientation
Concerning goal-orientation of users, the present study found intriguing results. Per-
haps the most clear and interesting finding is the rather strong negative relationship
between avoidance-orientation and the importance of social networking features. This
is understandable as avoidance-oriented users are afraid of failure and having others
informed about their failures. Therefore, social networking design is viewed nega-
tively. When users are afraid of failure in the pursuit of their goals, they may become
wary of comparing and sharing their accomplishments (or failures for that matter)
with others. Understandably, the perception of the magnitude of failure might become
much larger if the sub-par performance is shared with others and compared with the
possibly better performance of others (see e.g. Krasnova et al. 2013, 2015; Tandoc
et al. 2015 on envy on social networks).
In the same vein and in contrast, those users who are proving-oriented show an oppo-
site preference towards social networking features; those who are oriented towards
proving themselves to others, were more likely to perceive social networking features
important. These findings are canonical with prior studies that investigated the rela-
tionship between getting recognized and the use of SNSs and related services (Hamari
and Koivisto 2015a; Hernandez et al. 2011; Lin and Lu 2011; Mäntymäki and Islam
2016).
The importance of gamification was positively associated with the proving orienta-
tion of users. Although, gamification itself does not facilitate proving oneself to others
in the same manner as social networking features do, gamification features (badges,
levels and medals) are visible signifiers of achievement (Hamari and Eranti 2011;
Lehdonvirta 2009) on users’ profiles, which can increase the perceived prestige of a
user to others, and thus, increase the ability of a user to prove themselves to others
123
J. Hamari et al.
(Hamari and Koivisto 2015a; Lehdonvirta 2009). Quantified-self features, however, do

not seem to provide similarly direct prestigious indicators since its provided feedback
in terms of for example activity logs may not be always public and rather resemble raw
statistics of activities, and therefore, have less direct provenance value in themselves.
This may explain why quantified-self features were not significantly more important
for proving-oriented users.
The importance of quantified-self design appears positively associated with
mastery-orientation of users. QS as a design class provides continuous, precise mea-
sures of performance that can be used to evaluate one’s progress and skill development
which are useful indicators for self-regulation of progress towards the achievement of
mastery focused goals. Therefore, it can be said that users who are orientated towards
learning from and mastering challenges are perhaps more interested in accurate data
and quantified feedback rather than emotional or social support.
4.3 Goal attributes
With regards to goal attributes: users’ goal specificity appears to be positively associ-
ated with the perceived importance of quantified-self design. This is possibly because
users with higher goal specificity have a pre-determined criterion for performance
evaluations and regulation (Landers et al. 2017; Latham 2003; Locke and Latham
2002), and therefore, quantified-self features may provide feedback that is more suit-
able for such users for steering their goal-setting, progress and behavior—a quality
that is often encouraged by self-quantifiers (Choe et al. 2014). Vice versa, users with
less specified goals may not find quantified-self features as useful perhaps because the
actionability of data they receive through these features is lower.
The more difficult the goals are, the better individuals would be motivated towards
their achievement up to the ceiling of their skill set (Capa et al. 2008; Landers et al.
2017; Locke and Latham 2002; Lunenburg 2011). Surprisingly, however, our results
showed a negative association between goal difficulty and importance of gamification
as well as social networking design. We believe this may be because both gamification
and social networking designs are designed to rather similarly reward tasks regardless
of how skilled the user is in the activity. Both beginners and experienced athletes can
receive badges and are able to post their exercise to others regardless of the difficulty
level of the task/goal. Therefore, it can be conceived that users with less difficult goals
can benefit from gamification and social networking designs more. They categorically
receive more attention from others and get more badges per exertion unit. However, this
calls upon a wider issue with performance measurement; “you get what you measure”
and “gaming the system”. Therefore, it may be important to ensure that any rewarding
schemes are as accurately as possible based upon the metrics that realistically represent
progress and personal development.
4.4 Practical implications
Important aspects of system development, among others, are cost efficiency and suit-
ability of features for users and their needs. While it might be believed that offering
123
more features increases the likelihood that a single comprehensive design would cater
to the differentiated needs of users, research into consumer and social psychology
has shown that the abundance of features overwhelms users and may result in a dis-
satisfaction with a service (Willemsen et al. 2016) as well as poses a threat to the
economic feasibility of development. User modelling and user-adapted interaction are
key methods by which to address these aspects. Research indicates that tailored designs
(Bouvier et al. 2014; op den Akker et al. 2014) and a certain degree of personalization
in design (Dijkstra 2014) are usually more impactful compared to generic designs for
a wide user base in terms of motivational effects and sustained behavioural change. In
this paper, we have investigated the fit of motivational design with users’ goal-setting
related aspects.
The findings of the present study provide encouraging practical implications to
designers of services and information systems, who employ motivational designs: the
results suggest that the combination of gamification, social networking and quantified-
self can support almost all the different aspects of goal-setting (investigated in this
study); goal focus and orientation of users as well as goal attributes of users. This
implies that by employing these three classes of motivational design (and executing
them well), designers can rest assured that they are providing a meaningful motiva-
tional design to a wide range of audience. For users who seek to strive in an activity for
the sake of the activity itself and users who take on specific challenges, quantified-self
features are important, whereas users who are more concerned with the outcomes of
their activities, have easier challenges and who are concerned with proving themselves
to themselves and others, gamification and social networking can address their goal-
setting -related needs. An interesting exception, however, concerned the relationship
between having process focused goals and the different motivational designs: being
less or more process oriented did not seems to make any of the motivational designs
more important for users.
Moreover, while not the core contribution of the study, we have set one example of
how to measure the goal-setting aspects of the users of a software. The same or similar
measurement could be employed amongst the user base of any software or system
with the possible addition of other variables of interest for the developer. These tools
add to the repertoire of more classical practices such as market segmentation, user
analysis, product analysis etc. (Jonker et al. 2004). User centric approaches to systems
design (Norman and Draper 1986) emphasize the importance of understanding user
needs and goals from the use of a system and service and to use this understanding
as a guideline for design. In light of our results, we would recommend designers to
determine the expected foci, orientations to goal-setting and goal attributes of their
target audience.
Determining user goals could possibly also take place through participative design,
pilot testing, workshops focus groups and initial interviews with potential users carried
out with the objective to develop a profile of their goals. Once an initial understand-
ing of user goals is obtained, designers could next proceed to select design features
according to an intended fit between design features and user’s perceptions of the
features. This requires the derailment of design guidelines based on user goals. The
results of this study provide such an initial understanding as has been summarizing
in the introduction of this work. A fit is expected between users with goals identi-
123
J. Hamari et al.
fied as outcomes focused and gamification and quantified-self motivational design

classes. A fit is expected between users with a high proving-orientation and gami-
fication and social networking motivational design classes. Avoidance-orientation to
goal setting is expected to negatively fit with social networking design, a mastery-
orientation would be expected to fit within quantified-self motivation design. A misfit
is expected between users with difficult goals and gamification and social network-
ing motivational design, while goal specificity is expected to fit with quantified-self
motivational design. While we believe that these guidelines to the personalization of
motivational design are one of few currently reported in the literature, more work is
needed before detailed customization guidelines are available for motivational design
guided by user goals’ characteristics.
4.5 Limitations and future research
The data employed in this study was collected from a motivational service geared
towards exercise. We believe this context provided one of the best possible avenues
for this study as it is an area of interest for a wide range of users with different goal-
setting behavior and we identified an application in that context that uses all three
classes of motivational design, allowing for a comparison across their features. How-
ever, further studies should be conducted in other contexts such as in the context of
intra-organizational systems in order to investigate whether contextual factors have
an effect on how the goal-setting related aspects translate into perceived importance
and appreciation of motivational design classes. Future research could also explore the
interdependencies between the goal-setting aspects explored by this study (foci, orien-
tations towards goals and goal attributes) and the influence of these interdependencies
on the perception of classes of motivational design.
The data is based on a survey which implies that the data is cross-sectional and self-
reported. Naturally, it is likely that the reported measures do not necessarily reflect
how much the respondents actually use the different motivational features, but on the
other hand, actual use does not necessarily indicate how important or how much of
an effect the features of the design classes might have on the user. Therefore, the
self-reported measure of importance is not necessarily inferior relative to others but is
rather one that offers a different vantage point on the phenomenon under study. Future
studies are recommended to expand this enquiry through employing other measures to
provide complementary results such as analyses of behavioral data, net ethnography
or other qualitative techniques such as focus groups and user interviews. Moreover,
studies pursuing similar research questions could conduct experiments where users
were randomly assigned into version of a software including varying sets of features
and where the users’ goal setting related attributes were separately surveyed. While
the study did not measure adoption, perceptions of important features give insight
into what features users value the most and the likely subsequent adoption behavior.
Future researchers are encouraged to further investigate these variables of motivational
services use.
Further research could investigate whether there are more fine-grained aspects of
goal-setting such as goal commitment, self-efficacy, performance anxiety, individual
123
differences such as gender or appreciated forms of feedback, may mediate the relation-
ship between goal-setting and perception and adoption of the classes of motivational
design. The study of these variables may allow for the uncovering of more complex
relationships between goal-setting and motivational design classes, or may provide
further explanation or qualifications for the relationships uncovered by this study.
Such detailed research is expected to lead to the development of fine grained design
guidelines that guide designers as to the development of motivational services that
provide a fit between characteristics of user goals and motivational features.
Future research could also investigate whether the relationship between goal-setting
and perception of motivational design is moderated by factors related to individual
characteristics and personality types outside of goal orientation. For instance, as moti-
vational technology is strongly related to gamefulness (Deterding 2015; Hamari and
Koivisto 2015b; Huotari and Hamari 2017) and social networking (Boyd and Ellison
2007; Chen et al. 2014; Krasnova et al. 2015), aspects of users orientation towards
gameful interactions (Hamari and Tuunanen 2014; Kallio et al. 2011; Yee 2006; Yee
et al. 2012) or different attitudes towards social interaction online (Butler and Wang
2012; Chen et al. 2014; Jung et al. 2010) may have an additional impact on the per-
ceived importance or adoption of these features by users. Moreover, it should be noted
that the different goal-related variables only explained between 18.6 and 21.3% of
the variance of the importance of motivational technologies. Therefore, there remain
more aspect that explain the importance of these features to users.
5 Conclusion
In this paper, we investigated how the different goal-orientations (mastery, avoiding,

and proving), goal foci (outcome and process) and goals attributes (specificity and
difficulty) affect a user’s perceived importance of the features of the three principle
design classes (gamification, quantified-self and social networking). The study relied
on a survey of HeiaHeia a popular exercise encouragement application. In summary,
the results of our study revealed that (1) gamification features are perceived to be
more important by users whose goals are easy, outcome-focused and who are more
inclined towards proving themselves to others. (2) The perceived importance of social
networking features is mainly driven by the same factors, however, with the addition
that users with an avoidance orientation to goals, seem to be reluctant to share their
goals, progress, and achievements with others, and thereby, are less likely to appreciate
social networking features. (3) The perceived importance of quantified-self features is
similarly driven by users with outcome-focused goals, and users with mastery-oriented
goals. Being specific about one’s goals increases the likelihood of positively perceiving
the importance of quantified-self features. These findings help to design personalized
motivational systems, which can adapt the motivational techniques to use depending
on the user’s goal characteristics. There are many limitations to the study presented
here (see previous sections), and naturally more research will be needed to extend
the level of certainty in which we can safely generalize the results of this singular
study across domains beyond the context of the gamified exercise application under
investigation in the present study.
123
J. Hamari et al.
Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Finnish foundation for economic education (10-5562
and 12-6385), Hanken support foundation, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation
TEKES (40111/14, 40107/14 and 40009/16) and participating partners, as well as Satakunnan korkeak-
oulusäätiö and its collaborators. The authors wish to also express their gratitude to the editors and reviewers
for the fair, rigorous and meaningful review process.
References
Agarwal, R., Karahanna, E.: Time, flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about
information technology usage. Manag. Inf. Syst. MIS Q. 24(4), 665–694 (2000)
Alcivar, I., Abad, A.G.: Design and evaluation of a gamified system for ERP training. Comput. Hum. Behav.
58, 109–118 (2016)
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W.: The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and
goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika 49(2),
155–173 (1984)
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W.: Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-
step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103(3), 411–423 (1988)
Baard, P.P., Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M.: Intrinsic need satisfaction: a motivational basis of performance and
weil-being in two work settings1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34(10), 2045–2068 (2004)
Barker, C., Pistrang, N.: Research Methods in Clinical Psychology: An Introduction for Students and
Practitioners. Wiley, New York (2015)
Barrett, M.A., Humblet, O., Hiatt, R.A., Adler, N.E.: Big data and disease prevention: from quantified self
to quantified communities. Big Data 1(3), 168–175 (2013)
Bentler, P.M., Chou, C.P.: Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociol. Methods Res. 16(1), 78–117
(1987)
Bista, S.K., Nepal, S., Paris, C., Colineau, N.: Gamification for online communities: a case study for
delivering government services. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 23(02), 1441002 (2014)
Bittner, J.V., Schipper, J.: Motivational effects and age differences of gamification in product advertising.
J. Consum. Market. 31(5), 391–400 (2014)
Bogost, I.: Why Gamification is Bullshit 2, p. 65. In: Approaches, Issues, Applications, The Gameful World.
Cambridge: MIT Press (2015)
Bouvier, P., Sehaba, K., Lavoué, É.: A trace-based approach to identifying users’ engagement and qualifying
their engaged-behaviours in interactive systems: application to a social game. User Model. User-Adap.
Inter. 24(5), 413–451 (2014)
Boyd, D., Ellison, N.B.: Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. J. Comput. Mediat.
Commun. 13(1), 210–230 (2007)
Burke, B.: Gamify: How Gamification Motivates People to Do Extraordinary Things. Bibliomotion Inc,
Brookline (2014)
Burnette, J.L., O’Boyle, E.H., VanEpps, E.M., Pollack, J.M., Finkel, E.J.: Mind-sets matter: a meta-analytic
review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychol. Bull. 139(3), 655 (2013)
Butler, B.S.: Membership size, communication activity, and sustainability: a resource-based model of online
social structures. Inf. Syst. Res. 12(4), 346–362 (2001)
Butler, B.S., Wang, X.: The cross-purposes of cross-posting: boundary reshaping behavior in online dis-
cussion communities. Inf. Syst. Res. 23(3–part–2), 993–1010 (2012)
Chan, K., Prendergast, G.: Materialism and social comparison among adolescents. Soc. Behav. Personal.
Int. J. 35(2), 213–228 (2007)
Chen, A., Lu, Y., Chau, P.Y., Gupta, S.: Classifying, measuring, and predicting users’ overall active behavior
on social networking sites. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 31(3), 213–253 (2014)
Chin, W.W.: The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res.
295(2), 295–336 (1998)
Christy, K.R., Fox, J.: Leaderboards in a virtual classroom: a test of stereotype threat and social comparison
explanations for women’s math performance. Comput. Educ. 78, 66–77 (2014)
Choe, E.K., Lee, N.B., Lee, B., Pratt, W., Kientz, J.A.: Understanding quantified-selfers’ practices in
collecting and exploring personal data. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1143–1152. ACM (2014)
123
Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J.: Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55,
591–621 (2004)
Cialdini, R.B., Trost, M.R.: Social influence: social norms, conformity, and compliance. In: Gilbert, D.T.,
Fiske, S.T., Lindzey, G. (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2, 4th edn., pp. 151–192.
McGraw-Hill, Boston (1998)
Cruz, C., Hanus, M.D., Fox, J.: The need to achieve: players’ perceptions and uses of extrinsic meta-game
reward systems for video game consoles. Comput. Hum. Behav. 71, 1–9 (2015)
Capa, R.L., Audiffren, M., Ragot, S.: The effects of achievement motivation, task difficulty, and goal
difficulty on physiological, behavioral, and subjective effort. Psychophysiology 45(5), 859–868 (2008)
Chin, W.W.: The partial least squares approach for structural equation modelling. In: Marcoulides, G.A.
(ed.) Modern Methods for Business Research, pp. 295–336. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London
(1998)
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., Newsted, P.R.: A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for
measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail
emotion/adoption study. Inf. Syst. Res. 14(2), 189–217 (2003)
Corpus, J.H., McClintic-Gilbert, M.S., Hayenga, A.O.: Within-year changes in children’s intrinsic and
extrinsic motivational orientations: contextual predictors and academic outcomes. Contemp. Educ.
Psychol. 34(2), 154–166 (2009)
Csíkszentmihályi, M.: Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: Experiencing Flow in Work and Play. Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco (1975)
Cowley, B., Charles, D.: Behavlets: a method for practical player modeling using psychology-based player
traits and domain specific features. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 26(2–3), 257–306 (2016)
Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.
MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989)
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the work-
place. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22(14), 1111–1132 (1992)
Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R.M.: A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of
extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol. Bull. 125(6), 627 (1999)
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M.: The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination
of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11(4), 227–268 (2000)
Deterding, S.: The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: a method for gameful design. Hum. Comput. Interact.
30(3–4), 294–335 (2015)
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., Nacke, L.: From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining
gamification. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning
Future Media Environments, pp. 9–15. ACM (2011)
Dijkstra, A.: The persuasive effects of personalization through: name mentioning in a smoking cessation
message. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 24(5), 393–411 (2014)
Drach-Zahavy, A., Erez, M.: Challenge versus threat effects on the goal-performance relationship. Organ.
Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 88(2), 667–682 (2002)
Elliot, A.J., Harackiewicz, J.M.: Goal setting, achievement orientation, and intrinsic motivation: a media-
tional analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66(5), 968 (1994)
Elliot, A.J., McGregor, H.A.: A 2× 2 achievement goal framework. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80(3), 501 (2001)
ESA: Essential facts about the computer and video game industry: 2014 sales, demographic, and usage data
(2014). http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2014.pdf
Farzan, R., DiMicco, J.M., Millen, D.R., Brownholtz, B., Geyer, W., Dugan, C.: When the experiment is
over: deploying an incentive system to all the users. In: Symposium on Persuasive Technology (2008a)
Farzan, R., DiMicco, J.M., Millen, D.R., Dugan, C., Geyer, W., Brownholtz, E. A.: Results from deploying
a participation incentive mechanism within the enterprise. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 563–572. ACM (2008b)
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error:
algebra and statistics. J. Market. Res. 18(3), 382–388 (1981)
Fransella, F. (ed.): Personality: Theory, Measurement and Research, vol. 719. Routledge Kegan & Paul,
London (1981)
Freund, A.M., Hennecke, M., Riediger, M.: Age-related differences in outcome and process goal focus.
Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 7(2), 198–222 (2010)
Gartner: Gartner says by 2014, 80 percent of current gamified applications will fail to meet business
objectives primarily due to poor design (2012). http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2251015
123
J. Hamari et al.
Gurrin, C., Smeaton, A.F., Doherty, A.R.: Lifelogging: personal big data. Found. Trends Inf. Retr. 8(1),
1–125 (2014)
Hackel, T.S., Jones, M.H., Carbonneau, K.J., Mueller, C.E.: Re-examining achievement goal instrumenta-
tion: convergent validity of AGQ and PALS. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 46, 73–80 (2016)
Hair, J.F.J., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E.: Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th edn. Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River (2010)
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Market. Theory Pract. 19(2),
139–152 (2011)
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M.: A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, London (2016)
Hamari, J.: Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: a field experiment on gamification in a
utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 12(4), 236–245 (2013)
Hamari, J.: Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on effects of gamification. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 71, 469–478 (2017)
Hamari, J., Eranti, V.: Framework for designing and evaluating game achievements. In: Proceedings of
Digra 2011 Conference: Think Design Play, Hilversum, Netherlands, September 14–17 (2011)
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J.: Measuring flow in gamification: dispositional flow scale-2. Comput. Hum. Behav.
40, 133–143 (2014)
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J.: “Working out for likes”: an empirical study on social influence in exercise gamifi-
cation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 50, 333–347 (2015a)
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J.: Why do people use gamification services? Int. J. Inf. Manag. 35(4), 419–431
(2015b)
Hamari, J., Keronen, L.: Why do people play games? A meta-analysis. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 37(3), 125–141
(2017)
Hamari, J., Tuunanen, J.: Player types: a meta-synthesis. Trans. Digit. Games Res. Assoc. 1(2), 29–53
(2014)
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Pakkanen, T.: Do persuasive technologies persuade?—A review of empirical studies.
In: Spagnolli, A. et al. (eds.) Persuasive Technology, LNCS 8462, pp. 118–136. Springer, Cham (2014a)
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Sarsa, H.: Does gamification work?—A literature review of empirical studies on
gamification. In: Proceedings of the 47th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Hawaii, USA, January 6–9 (2014b)
Hamari, J., Huotari, K., Tolvanen, J.: Gamification and economics. In: Walz, S.P., Deterding, S. (eds.) The
Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications. MIT Press, Cambridge (2015)
Hamari, J., Shernoff, D.J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., Edwards, T.: Challenging games help stu-
dents learn: an empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Comput.
Hum. Behav. 54, 170–179 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045
Hanus, M.D., Fox, J.: Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: a longitudinal study on intrinsic
motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Comput. Educ. 80,
152–161 (2015)
Hassan, L., Nader, A.: Gamification design in action: the practical cases of gamification platforms for
employee work motivation and citizens’ civic engagement. In: Proceedings of the International Confer-
ence on ICT Management for Global Competitiveness and Economic Growthin Emerging Economies
(ICTM 2016), pp. 67–70. ISBN: 978-83-64389-62-7 (2016)
Hernandez, B., Montaner, T., Sese, F.J., Urquizu, P.: The role of social motivations in e-learning: how do
they affect usage and success of ICT interactive tools? Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(6), 2224–2232 (2011)
Hildebrand, C., Häubl, G., Herrmann, A., Landwehr, J.R.: When social media can be bad for you: community
feedback stifles consumer creativity and reduces satisfaction with self-designed products. Inf. Syst.
Res. 24(1), 14–29 (2013)
Hirschheim, R., Klein, H.K.: A glorious and not-so-short history of the information systems field. J. Assoc.
Inf. Syst. 13(4), 188 (2012)
Huotari, K., Hamari, J.: A definition for gamification: anchoring gamification in the service marketing
literature. Electr Mark. 27(1), 21–31 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z
Jones, B.A., Madden, G.J., Wengreen, H.J.: The FIT game: preliminary evaluation of a gamification approach
to increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in school. Prev. Med. 68, 76–79 (2014)
Jung, J.H., Schneider, C., Valacich, J.: Enhancing the motivational affordance of information systems:
the effects of real-time performance feedback and goal setting in group collaboration environments.
Manag. Sci. 56(4), 724–742 (2010)
123
Jonker, J.J., Piersma, N., Van den Poel, D.: Joint optimization of customer segmentation and marketing
policy to maximize long-term profitability. Exp. Syst. Appl. 27(2), 159–168 (2004)
Kim, E.A., Ratneshwar, S., Roesler, E., Chowdhury, T.G.: Attention to social comparison information and
brand avoidance behaviors. Market. Lett. 27(2), 259–271 (2016)
Koivisto, J., Hamari, J.: Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 35, 179–188 (2014)
Koivisto, J., Hamari, J.: The rise of motivational information systems: a review of gamification literature.
Working paper (2017)
Krasnova, H., Wenninger, H., Widjaja, T., Buxmann, P.: Envy on Facebook: a hidden threat to users’ life
satisfaction? Wirtschaftsinformatik 92, 1–16 (2013)
Krasnova, H., Widjaja, T., Buxmann, P., Wenninger, H., Benbasat, I.: Research note—why following friends
can hurt you: an exploratory investigation of the effects of envy on social networking sites among
college-age users. Inf. Syst. Res. 26(3), 585–605 (2015)
Latham, G.P.: Goal setting: a five-step approach to behavior change. Org. Dyn. 32(3), 309–318 (2003)
Landers, R.N.: Developing a theory of gamified learning: linking serious games and gamification of learning.
Simul. Gaming 45, 752–768 (2014)
Landers, R.N., Bauer, K.N., Callan, R.C.: Gamification of task performance with leaderboards: a goal
setting experiment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 71, 508–515 (2017)
Latham, G.P.: Motivate employee performance through goal setting. Handb. Princ. Org. Behav. 107, 119
(2000)
Lee, C., Bobko, P., Earley, P.C., Locke, E.A.: An empirical analysis of a goal setting questionnaire. J. Org.
Behav. 12(6), 467–482 (1991)
Lehdonvirta, V.: Virtual consumption. Turku School of Economics, No. A-11 (2009)
Lin, K.Y., Lu, H.P.: Why people use social networking sites: an empirical study integrating network exter-
nalities and motivation theory. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(3), 1152–1161 (2011)
Ling, K., Beenen, G., Ludford, P., Wang, X., Chang, K., Li, X., Resnick, P.: Using social psychology to
motivate contributions to online communities. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 10(4), 00–00 (2005)
Lieberoth, A.: Shallow gamification testing psychological effects of framing an activity as a game. Games
Cult. 10(3), 229–248 (2015)
Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P. (eds.): New Developments in Goal Setting and Task Performance. Routledge,
Abingdon (2013)
Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P.: Goal setting: a motivational technique that works!. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River (1984)
Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P.: Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year
odyssey. Am. Psychol. 57(9), 705 (2002)
Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M., Latham, G.P.: Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychol.
Bull. 90(1), 125 (1981)
Loock, C.M., Staake, T., Thiesse, F.: Motivating energy-efficient behavior with green IS: an investigation
of goal setting and the role of defaults. MIS Q. 37(4), 1313–1332 (2013)
Lowry, P.B., Gaskin, J.: Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and
testing behavioral causal theory: when to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun.
57(2), 123–146 (2014)
Lunenburg, F.C.: Goal-setting theory of motivation. Int. J. Manag. Bus. Admin. 15(1), 1–6 (2011)
Lupton, D.: The Quantified Self: A Sociology of Self-Tracking. Polity Press, Cambridge (2016)
Mamdani, A., Pitt, J., Stathis, K.: Connected communities from the standpoint of multi-agent systems. New
Gener. Comput. 17(4), 381–393 (1999)
Mann, T., De Ridder, D., Fujita, K.: Self-regulation of health behavior: social psychological approaches to
goal setting and goal striving. Health Psychol. 32(5), 487 (2013)
Mäntymäki, M., Islam, A.N.: The Janus face of Facebook: positive and negative sides of social networking
site use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 61, 14–26 (2016)
McGonigal, J.: Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World.
Penguin, London (2011)
Mealiea, L.W., Latham, G.P.: Skills for Managerial Success: Theory, Experience, and Practice. Irwin,
Toronto (1996)
Mehta, R.: The self-quantification movement-implications for healthcare professionals. SelfCare 2(3), 87–
92 (2011)
123
J. Hamari et al.
Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., Koivisto, J.: Gamification in crowdsourcing: a review. In: Proceedings of the
49th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii, USA, January
5–8 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.543
Morschheuser, B., Riar, M., Hamari, J., Maedche, A.: How games induce cooperation? A study on the
relationship between game features and we-intentions in an augmented reality game. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 77, 169–183 (2017)
Munson, S.A., Consolvo, S.: Exploring goal-setting, rewards, self-monitoring, and sharing to motivate
physical activity. In: 2012 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for
Healthcare (PervasiveHealth) and Workshops, pp. 25–32. IEEE (2012)
Nahrgang, J.D., DeRue, D.S., Hollenbeck, J.R., Spitzmuller, M., Jundt, D.K., Ilgen, D.R.: Goal setting in
teams: the impact of learning and performance goals on process and performance. Organ. Behav. Hum.
Decis. Process. 122(1), 12–21 (2013)
Nicholson, S.: A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification. In: Proceedings of
Games+Learning+Society 8.0 (GLS 8.0) (2012)
Nicholson, S.: A recipe for meaningful gamification. In: Gamification in Education and Business, pp. 1–20.
Springer, Berlin (2015)
Ng, J.Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., Duda, J.L., Williams, G.C.:
Self-determination theory applied to health contexts a meta-analysis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7(4),
325–340 (2012)
Norman, D.A., Draper, S.W.: User Centered System Design, pp. 1–2. Hillsdale, NJ (1986)
Nunnally, J.: Psychometric Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)
Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput.
17(6), 1223–1235 (2013)
op den Akker, Jones, V.M., Hermens, H.J.: Tailoring real-time physical activity coaching systems: a literature
survey and model. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 24(5), 351–392 (2014)
Orji, R., Vassileva, J., Mandryk, R.L.: Modeling the efficacy of persuasive strategies for different gamer
types in serious games for health. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 24(5), 453–498 (2014)
Parameswaran, M., Whinston, A.B.: Research issues in social computing. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8(6), 336
(2007)
Petkov, P., Köbler, F., Foth, M., Medland, R., Krcmar, H.: Engaging energy saving through motivation-
specific social comparison. In: CHI’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
pp. 1945–1950. ACM (2011)
Pintrich, P.R.: The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. Handb. Self Regul. 451, 451–502
(2000)
Presslee, A., Vance, T.W., Webb, R.A.: The effects of reward type on employee goal setting, goal commit-
ment, and performance. Account. Rev. 88(5), 1805–1831 (2013)
Raftopoulos, M.: Towards gamification transparency: a conceptual framework for the development of
responsible gamified enterprise systems. J. Gaming Virtual Worlds 6(2), 159–178 (2014)
Rasch, R.H., Tosi, H.L.: Factors affecting software developers’ performance: an integrated approach. MIS
Q. 16, 395–413 (1992)
Rawassizadeh, R., Price, B.A., Petre, M.: Wearables: has the age of smartwatches finally arrived? Commun.
ACM 58(1), 45–47 (2015)
Richter, A., Koch, M.: Functions of social networking services. In: Proceedings of International Conference
on the Design of Cooperative Systems, pp. 87–98 (2008)
Rigby, C.S.: Gamification and motivation. In: Walz, S.P., Deterding, S. (eds.) The Gameful World:
Approaches, Issues, Applications, pp. 113e137. MIT Press, Cambridge (2014)
Roskes, M., Elliot, A.J., De Dreu, C.K.: Why is avoidance motivation problematic, and what can be done
about it? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23(2), 133–138 (2014)
Santhanam, R., Liu, D., Shen, W.C.M.: Research note–gamification of technology-mediated training: not
all competitions are the same. Inf. Syst. Res. 27, 453–465 (2016)
Seaborn, K., Fels, D.I.: Gamification in theory and action: a survey. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 74, 14–31
(2015)
Swan, M.: Emerging patient-driven health care models: an examination of health social networks, consumer
personalized medicine and quantified self-tracking. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 6(2), 492–525
(2009)
Swan, M.: The quantified self: fundamental disruption in big data science and biological discovery. Big
Data 1(2), 85–99 (2013)
123
Tandoc, E.C., Ferrucci, P., Duffy, M.: Facebook use, envy, and depression among college students: is
facebooking depressing? Comput. Hum. Behav. 43, 139–146 (2015)
Taylor, S., Todd, P.A.: Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf. Syst.
Res. 6(2), 144–176 (1995)
Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., Niemivirta, M.: Stability and change in achievement goal orienta-
tions: a person-centered approach. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 36(2), 82–100 (2011)
Uhlmann, T.S., Battaiola, A.L.: Applications of a roleplaying game for qualitative simulation and coopera-
tive situations related to supply chain management. In: International Conference on HCI in Business,
pp. 429–439. Springer International Publishing (2014)
Van der Heijden, H.: User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Q. 28(4), 695–704 (2004)
VandeWalle, D.: Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educ. Psychol.
Measur. 57(6), 995–1015 (1997)
VandeWalle, D., Cron, W.L., Slocum Jr., J.W.: The role of goal orientation following performance feedback.
J. Appl. Psychol. 86(4), 629 (2001)
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal
field studies. Manag. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000)
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward
a unified view. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)
Vesa, M., Hamari, J., Harviainen, J.T., Warmelink, H.: Computer games and organization studies. Org. Stud.
38(2), 273–284 (2017)
Wack, S.R., Crosland, K.A., Miltenberger, R.G.: Using goal setting and feedback to increase weekly running
distance. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 47(1), 181–185 (2014)
Wang, X., Schneider, C., Valacich, J.S.: Enhancing creativity in group collaboration: how performance
targets and feedback shape perceptions and idea generation performance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 42,
187–195 (2015)
Whitson, J.R.: Gaming the quantified self. Surveill. Soc. 11(1/2), 163 (2013)
Willemsen, M.C., Graus, M.P., Knijnenburg, B.P.: Understanding the role of latent feature diversification
on choice difficulty and satisfaction. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 26(4), 347–389 (2016)
Webster, J., Martocchio, J.J.: Microcomputer playfulness: development of a measure with workplace impli-
cations. MIS Q. 16(2), 201–226 (1992)
Wright, B.E.: The role of work context in work motivation: a public sector application of goal and social
cognitive theories. J. Public Adm. Res. Theor. 14(1), 59–78 (2004)
Yee, N.: Motivations of play in online games. J. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 9, 772–775 (2006)
Yee, N., Ducheneaut, N., Nelson, L.: Online gaming motivations scale: development and validation. In:
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 2803–2806.
ACM (2012)
Zhang, P.: Technical opinion motivational affordances: reasons for ICT design and use. Commun. ACM
51(11), 145–147 (2008)
Zimmerman, B.J.: From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: a social cognitive career path. Educ. Psychol.
48(3), 135–147 (2013)
Zuckerman, O., Gal-Oz, A.: Deconstructing gamification: evaluating the effectiveness of continuous mea-
surement, virtual rewards, and social comparison for promoting physical activity. Pers. Ubiquit.
Comput. 18(7), 1705–1719 (2014)
Juho Hamari is a Professor of Gamification and a leader of the Gamification Group. Dr. Hamari and the
Gamification Group operate under Tampere University of Technology, University of Turku and University
of Tampere as well as a part of The Centre of Excellence in Game Culture Studies. Dr. Hamari received his
Bachelor and Master’s degree in Information Systems Science from the University of Jyväskylä in 2008
and 2010 and his Ph.D. degree in Information Systems Science from Aalto University Business School in
2015. Dr. Hamari has authored several seminal empirical, theoretical and meta-analytical scholarly articles
on gamification, games and online economy from perspectives of consumer behaviour, human–computer
interaction, game studies and information systems science.
Lobna Hassan is an information systems researcher at Hanken school of Economics and the Gamifica-
tion Group of the University of Tampere. Prior to that she received her Bachelor and Master’s degree in
Technology-Based Management, from the German University in Cairo, with high honours. Hassan held
123
J. Hamari et al.
various positions during her masters and Ph.D. studies including assistant lecturer. Her research interests
include gamification, motivational technology, social networking application and management of commu-
nal activities. She has published several articles in the fields of e-participation and gamification.
Antonio Dias received his master’s degree in 2017 from the department of Information and Service Econ-
omy of Aalto University Business School. His thesis work focused on gamification in health apps.
123
683581
research-article2016
SAGXXX10.1177/1046878116683581Simulation & GamingHassan
Article
Simulation & Gaming

1–19
Governments Should © The Author(s) 2016
Play Games: Towards Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
a Framework for the DOI: 10.1177/1046878116683581
journals.sagepub.com/home/S&G
Gamification of Civic
Engagement Platforms
Lobna Hassan1
Abstract
Background. Gamification is concerned with the utilization of motivational
affordances that create value-adding experience in the design of services.
It has many applications in different fields and has been shown to be a good
design methodology to influence motivation and behavioral change. Civic
engagement and its online platforms could benefit from gamification, as these
areas suffer from low engagement levels, thus defeating the purpose for which
they are created.
Purpose. There is a lack of understanding of how civic engagement platforms should
be gamified to sustain active engagement and assist in community building,
while also fulfilling their operational objectives. This article aims to provide a
theoretical framework and guidelines for the gamification of civic engagement
platforms.
Contribution. A theoretical framework for the gamification of civic engagement
platforms is presented, drawing upon self-determination theory and
democratic deliberation theory. Through this work, we also identify future
research directions and highlight the need for research on related subjects.
Keywords
civic engagement, civic participation, gamification, motivation
1Hanken School of Economics, Finland
Corresponding Author:
Lobna Hassan, Department of Management & Organization, Information Systems Sciences, Hanken
School of Economics, Arkadiankatu 22, 00100, Helsinki, Finland.
Email: [email protected]
2 Simulation & Gaming
Introduction
By nature, humans are social beings (Aristotle, Politika. 328 BC/1944”). They are not
expected to exist in complete isolation of one another; and for better or worse, they
form and belong to societies and communities, be it large or small (Chen, 2016;
Rothschild, 2016; Vinciarelli, 2009), virtual or physical (Bista, Nepal, Paris, &
Colineau, 2014; Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015; Vinciarelli et al., 2012). Governance
of these communities emerged to manage conflicting interests, to ensure efficient allo-
cation of limited resources, and to warrant the survival of the community and its indi-
viduals against external and internal threats (North, 1984; Williamson, 1996).
Democracy evolved as a popular method of governance that ensures the well-being of
communities through governance of the people, by the people and for the people
(Burns, 1997; Epstein, 2011; Rothschild, 2016). Hence, democratic governance
requires the involvement of those being governed in decision-making and community
planning, regardless of the size and nature of the community being governed
(Abdelghaffar & Sameer, 2013; Epstein, 2011; Fung & Wright, 2001; Rothschild,
2016; Sánchez-Nielsen & Lee, 2013; Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015). Accordingly, one
of the internal threats to democracy – as a form of human organization - is the lack of
civic engagement.
Civic engagement is the active participation of citizens in the shaping of the life of
their communities towards what the citizens perceive to be a better situation (Adler &
Goggin, 2005; Rothschild, 2016). It is believed to improve community planning,
reduce governance costs, and to increase the trust and perceived legitimacy of govern-
ments (Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago, 2014; Macintosh, 2004). However,
civic engagement is a practice that communities, non-governmental organizations and
governments globally attempt to foster, but with inconsistent results (Alharbi, Kang,
& Hawryszkiewycz, 2016; Bista et al., 2014; Cernuzzi & Pane, 2014; Coronado &
Urriago, 2014; Dargan & Evequoz, 2015; Eränpalo, 2014; Jin, Zhou, Lee, & Cheung,
2013; Mendonca & Alawadhi, 2015; Rothschild, 2016; Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015).
Many modern technologies offer a wide variety of methods to facilitate general com-
munity building and civic engagement (Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago, 2014;
Lee & Kim, 2014), These technologies so far include (but are not limited to) forums
and chat rooms (Komito, 2005; Lee & Kim, 2014; Phang & Kankanhalli, 2008), social
networking technologies (Abdelghaffar & Sameer, 2013; Sameer & Abdelghaffar,
2015), and games (Bista et al., 2014; Kahne, Middaugh, & Evans, 2009; Mayer, 2009).
The administrative purposes behind the development of civic engagement plat-
forms and the introduction of new technologies to enable two-way government-citizen
communication vary (Abdelghaffar & Sameer, 2013; Gordon, Walter, & Suarez, 2014;
Phang & Kankanhalli, 2008; Macintosh, 2004), but active participation (engagement)
on civic engagement platforms is essential for the platforms to reach their operational
and societal objectives (Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago, 2014; Jin et al., 2013;
Lee & Kim, 2014; Macintosh, 2004; Rothschild, 2016; Sánchez-Nielsen & Lee, 2013).
Unfortunately, it is frequently reported that governments worldwide are struggling to
maintain communities that are willing to actively engage with online civic
Hassan 3
participation channels (Alharbi et al., 2016; Bista et al., 2014; Cernuzzi & Pane, 2014;
Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago, 2014; Dargan & Evequoz, 2015; Eränpalo,
2014; Jin et al., 2013; Mendonca & Alawadhi, 2015). This is thought to be due to the
difficulty of meeting the users’ needs for enjoyment when they use an IT-based arti-
fact, and also the government’s need to introduce serious administrative applications
(Dargan & Evequoz, 2015). Researchers have accordingly examined many variables
that influence active civic engagement, including demographics and psychological
factors. Only a few have investigated the role that technological design methodologies
play in influencing participation and civic engagement (Alharbi et al., 2016; Lee &
Kim, 2014), but it is thought that many of the newly available technologies and design
methodologies could be used to increase active engagement in community building
and civic participation on online civic platforms (Abdelghaffar & Sameer, 2013;
Gordon et al., 2014; Komito, 2005; Mayer, 2009; Phang & Kankanhalli, 2008;
Rothschild, 2016; Sánchez-Nielsen & Lee, 2013).
One such promise is provided by Gamification (Asquer, 2014; Bista et al., 2014;
Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago, 2014; Gordon et al., 2014; Landers, 2014;
Nelson, 2012; Raphael, Bachen, Lynn, Baldwin-Philippi, & McKee, 2010; Stewart
et al., 2013), however, there is very little research on how gamification can influence
and sustain community building and civic engagement. Moreover, there is a lack of
theoretical or practical frameworks as guidelines for the gamification of civic engage-
ment platforms.
The gamification of civic engagement platforms should not be done randomly and
requires special attention. As a design practice, gamification should be done thought-
fully to ensure that it leads to sustainable long-term results (Bartle, 1996; Coronado &
Urriago, 2014; Deterding, 2012; Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014; Landers, 2014;
Nicholson, 2015; Rigby, 2015; Zuckerman & Gal-Oz, 2014). Additionally, civic
engagement platforms are governed by the rules of democratic deliberation as vital
requirements to be fulfilled, in order for effective civic engagement to take place
(Burkhalter, Gastil, & Kelshaw, 2002; Macintosh, 2004; Perote-Peña & Piggins, 2015;
Phang & Kankanhalli, 2008; Sameer & Abdelghaffar, 2015). This duality complicates
gamification design for civic engagement. It is therefore important to ensure that any
gamification of civic engagement platforms is done meaningfully, and that democratic
deliberations are functionally facilitated.
The aim of this article is to introduce a framework for community building and the
gamification of civic engagement platforms. The article aims to provide guidelines as
to how engagement and participation on civic engagement platforms platforms could
be influenced, whilst still fulfilling their functional objectives. Specifically, this aim
looks to answer the following question: “How can gamification influence engagement
on civic engagement platforms?”
Firstly, this article provides an introduction to gamification, self-determination
theory and the work of motivational researchers on the influences of behavior (engage-
ment). It then offers an introduction to civic engagement, a brief presentation of the
practical efforts that have been made to introduce gaming-based design to civic
engagement, and why these efforts present a need for the development of the
framework proposed by this study. Democratic deliberation theory is then discussed as

the core theory concerned with online civic engagement and community building.
This is followed by a presentation of the proposed conceptual framework, combining
the discussed theories. To our understanding, this is the first time that these theories
have been linked together in a comprehensive framework, in order to illustrate how the
gamification of civic engagement platforms could influence user engagement, while
still fulfilling the functional objectives of civic engagement platforms. We finish by
offering our conclusions and recommendations for future research.
Gamification
Defining Gamification
Gamification is a popular method for influencing motivation and engagement (Broer
& Poeppelbuss, 2013; Deterding, 2012; Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011;
Hamari, 2013; Hamari et al., 2014; Landers, 2014; Nicholson, 2015; Rigby, 2015;
Zuckerman & Gal-Oz, 2014). It is perceived as the use of elements taken from video
games in the design of non-gaming platforms, in order to increase user engagement
and to enhance the user experience (Deterding et al., 2011). Gamification has also
been conceptualized as a process of enhancing users’ value creation through the
employment of affordances for a gameful experience (Huotari & Hamari, 2016). The
definition of gamification proposed by Deterding et al. (2011) emphasizes the core
role of game elements as the design–base of gamification however, there is no agree-
ment in the literature on a defined set of game elements to be used in gamification.
Deterding et al. (2011) themselves raised the same concern when defining gamifica-
tion, suggesting limiting gamification to the use of “characteristic game elements”,
while at the same time acknowledging that the word “characteristic” is hard to define.
Many characteristic game elements such as those presented in Table 1 have been
widely adopted in the fields of communication (Farzan et al., 2008; Jung, Schneider,
& Valacich, 2010), education (Hamari et al., 2016; Landers, 2014; Landers & Callan,
2011), and health management (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015; Jones, Madden, &
Wengreen, 2014) amongst others as motivational affordances to improve user engage-
ment and enjoyment.
The superficial introduction of these game elements to system design has been
criticized as merely providing an artificial add-on layer that is not always able to mate-
rialize hypothesized benefits of gamification such as user enjoyment, increased
engagement and user retention (Bogost, 2015; Deterding, 2012; Hamari, 2013; Huotari
& Hamari, 2016; Landers, 2014; Nicholson, 2012, 2015). It appears that using charac-
teristic game elements in the design of gamified applications is not enough to reach
successful gamification. For gamification to have a lasting effect on user behavior,
motivation and value creation, it has to primarily engage the user in a meaningful
gameful experience that the user perceives as value creating. For these reasons, in this
study we adopt the definition of gamification offered by Huotari and Hamari (2016)
since it emphasizes gamification as a process that provides a gameful experience
Hassan 5
Table 1. Common Characteristic Game Elements Employed in Gamification.
Game element Definition

Points / Scores A unit of scoring users earn based on the actions they perform.
Missions A collection of mini-tasks that users need to collectively
accomplish.
Badges / achievement Marks of achievements received after accomplishing an objective
determined by the designer.
Leaderboards A ranking of players based on their points and achievements.
Figure 1. Process of gamification.
above all, regardless of whether it is provided exclusively by game elements or by

other motivational affordances gameful design.
The gameful experience is however subjective, and determined by the player’s
individual perspectives. Nonetheless, psychological theories have identified purpose,
mastery, autonomy, relatedness, suspense and other variables as psychological mental
states that facilitate the experience of gamefulness, and consequently behavioral
change (Deterding et al., 2011; Huotari & Hamari, 2016; Nicholson, 2012, 2015;
Rigby, 2015). Gamification is presented as a process in (Figure 1), and has three main
consecutive steps (Hamari et al., 2014). It starts with motivational affordances; e.g.
stimuli that affect the psychological states of users and motivate them to behave in
intended ways. These affordances facilitate psychological experiences that in turn
influence the behavioral outcomes of gamification.
In the context of this article, it is additionally important to emphasize the differ-
ences between gamification, games and serious games (see Landers, 2014 for a
detailed discussion). There is no single agreed upon understanding of what a game is,
however, it is commonly described as a system where artificial challenges and related
rules are presented, and desirable outcomes for meeting these challenges are pre-
known (Broer & Poeppelbuss, 2013; Gordon et al., 2014). More universally, games
have been introduced as the collective occurrence of a certain set of conditions (see
Juul, 2010), which are required to occur for a game to be considered as a game. A seri-
ous game is thus a system for non-entertainment purposes, where all the criteria of
full-fledged games are fulfilled (Deterding et al., 2011; Landers, 2014).
As previously discussed, gamification does not necessarily fulfill all the criteria of
full-fledged games, but rather it adopts game thinking in the development of serious
applications (Broer & Poeppelbuss, 2013; Deterding, 2012; Huotari & Hamari, 2016).
As this article is concerned with gamification, an examination of the psychological
variables that lead to the manifestation of engagement as illustrated by the process of
gamification (Figure 1) is needed.
Gamification and Motivation

Engagement is a directional expression of motivation, and offers a behavioral clue as
to what individuals are interested in and have the motivation to engage with (Rigby,
2015). The use of motivational affordances in the design of a service thus takes place
with the intention of affecting intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of the service users,
and in turn affecting the directional expression of this motivation in terms of any
behavioral change or increased engagement with the service (Bista et al., 2014; Broer
& Poeppelbuss, 2013; Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago, 2014; Deterding, 2012;
Deterding et al., 2011; Hamari & Koivisto, 2015; Hamari et al., 2014; Nicholson,
2015; Rigby, 2015; Zhang, 2008). Intrinsic motivation is an internal motivational
drive to behave in a certain way for the sake of the behavior itself and the internal
reward it provides. Extrinsic motivation on the other hand, is the pursuit of a behavior
for some other extrinsic reason, conditional to the conduct of the behavior (Broer &
Poeppelbuss, 2013; Deci & Ryan, 2004; Rigby, 2015; Zhang, 2008).
Gamification - through the use of stimuli and extrinsic rewards - has a direct influ-
ence on extrinsic motivation (Deterding et al., 2011; Farzan et al., 2008; Jin et al.,
2013; Jones et al., 2014; Nicholson, 2012; Rigby, 2015; Zuckerman & Gal-Oz, 2014).
Reward based gamification solely relies on the external provision of rewards to influ-
ence behavior, and thus behavioral change through this method tends to be conditional
on the continuous provision of extrinsic rewards, unless the motivation for the behav-
ioral change is internalized (Bogost, 2015; Nicholson, 2015). In situations where there
is a lack of intrinsic motivation for a certain behavior, and the behavior does not
require a tremendous amount of mental effort; reward-based gamification is expected
to be motivationally sufficient. Thus, reward-based gamification is effective for quick,
short termed behavioral change that lasts for as long as the rewards are available
(Bogost, 2015; Jones et al., 2014; Nicholson, 2015; Rigby, 2015; Zuckerman &
Gal-Oz, 2014).
However, organismic integration theory (Deci & Ryan, 2004) emphasizes the nega-
tive correlation between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Once gamification is
introduced as a mechanism of reward or as an extrinsic motivator, then long-term
levels of intrinsic motivation are adversely affected (Bogost, 2015; Broer &
Poeppelbuss, 2013; Nicholson, 2015; Rigby, 2015; Zuckerman & Gal-Oz, 2014). If
Hassan 7
the target is a longer-term behavioral change, then reward-based gamification may be

less effective as it would present a danger of replacing intrinsic rewards for behavior
with an unsustainable and ever-increasing reliance on extrinsic rewards (Hamari et al.,
2014; Nicholson, 2012; Zuckerman & Gal-Oz, 2014). In such situations, it is essential
to employ a different gamification design that provides intrinsic psychological rewards
to support the intended behavioral outcomes (Bartle, 1996; Deterding, 2012; Hamari
et al., 2014; Nicholson, 2015; Rigby, 2015).
Self-determination (identification) theory is a cornerstone macro theory of motiva-
tion, exploring the psychological needs that intrinsically motivate people to behave the
way they do (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Deci & Ryan, 2004). The theory proposes that
some of the core psychological needs behind intrinsically motivated behavior are: 1)
The drive to learn new skills to the point of excellence (mastery); 2) Free choice and the
potential to behave in accordance with one’s own personal wishes (autonomy); and 3)
Feeling that one is part of a community (relatedness). Researchers believe that sus-
tained engagement is a consequence of the fulfillment of these three basic needs (e.g.
Baard et al., 2004; Nicholson, 2012; Rigby, 2015; Zhang, 2008; Zuckerman & Gal-Oz,
2014). Furthermore, the satisfaction of these needs within the first month of gamifica-
tion is statistically predictive of user enjoyment, sustained engagement and motivation
(Rigby, 2015).
One further intrinsic variable that influences motivation, engagement and behav-
ioral change is purpose (Pink, 2009) as an expression of goal setting (Jung
et al., 2010; Landers, Bauer, & Callan, 2015; Landers & Callan, 2011; Latham, 2003;
Locke & Latham, 2002). Individuals have an innate need to know that they have a
mission to accomplish, and it is this sense of being on a mission and accomplishing
self-concurrent goals that works as an intrinsic drive of their motivation. It is believed
that the combinations of autonomy and mastery in the sense of a users’ mastery of
autonomously motivated goals, is the reason why games engage players for prolonged
periods of time (Hamari, 2013).
Figure 2 provides a summary of this discussion of the possible influence of gamifi-
cation on motivation, and its expression in engagement.
Nonetheless, the perception of the psychological experiences provided by games
and gamification that lead to intrinsic motivation remains subjective, and based on
individual perceptions and personalities (Deterding et al., 2011; Huotari & Hamari,
2016; Landers & Callan, 2011; Nicholson, 2012, 2015; Rigby, 2015). One categoriza-
tion of gamers’ personalities and what is of value to each personality type is provided
by Bartle (1996), who identifies four major types of gamers: 1) Achievers who value
accomplishments, purpose and mastery; 2) Explorers who value freedom and auton-
omy; 3) Socializers interested in social interactions and relatedness; and 4) Killers
who value competition, mastery and purpose, but unlike achievers enjoy breaking the
rules. It is probable that such a categorization of player’s personalities and other cate-
gorizations might not hold in all non-gaming contexts such as civic engagement as the
focus of this article. It is also probably that the perception of value creation would
differ for each of these groups in such a context. Thus, there is a need to study catego-
rization of players in the context of civic engagement and what would specifically
Figure 2. Influence of gamification on motivation and engagement.
provide them a psychologically rewarding experience and intrinsically motivate them

to be more civically active. Such a goal is however beyond the scope of this work.
Civic Engagement
Understanding Civic Engagement
The practice of introducing Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) to
civic life can be observed in most forms of governance that intend to improve democ-
racy, and enhance its perceived legitimacy and improve the outcomes of its decision
making (Alharbi et al., 2016; Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago, 2014; Macintosh,
2004; Phang & Kankanhalli, 2008; Rothschild, 2016; Sameer & Abdelghaffar, 2015;
Sanchez-Nielsen & Lee, 2013; Swezey et al. 2012; Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015;
Sánchez-Nielsen & Lee, 2013). Online and offline civic engagement platforms pro-
vide citizens with tools for interaction and collaboration amongst themselves, through
which they are able to positively impact their community and its governance
(Abdelghaffar & Sameer, 2013; Adler & Goggin, 2005; Lee & Kim, 2014; Sánchez-
Nielsen & Lee, 2013; Sano et al., 2012; Swezey et al., 2012). The reasons online
technologies were introduced to civic life were to keep up to speed with modern soci-
eties, and to increase the efficiency and speed of civic activities (Gordon et al., 2014;
Macintosh, 2004; Phang & Kankanhalli, 2008; Sánchez-Nielsen & Lee, 2013; Supendi
& Prihatmanto, 2015). Online tools further offer the advantage of transcending the
physical limitations of classical means of civic engagement, thus reducing the costs of
civic engagement initiatives, and extending governance inclusion to more people
(Gordon et al., 2014; Phang & Kankanhalli, 2008; Sánchez-Nielsen & Lee, 2013).
Hassan 9
Regardless of the administrative purpose or the technological design of civic

engagement platforms, sufficient volunteer citizen contribution is essential for their
survival and success in reaching their functional objectives (Coronado Escobar &
Vasquez Urriago, 2014; Jin et al., 2013; Macintosh, 2004; Rothschild, 2016). However
the ICTs we adopt to support civic engagement increasingly end up as having an
adverse effect on the civic engagement they were intended to facilitate, thus highlight-
ing the challenges of maintaining quality civic engagement through tools that are
mostly speedy and impersonal, and which de-emphasize the value of human interac-
tion (Gordon et al., 2014). Furthermore, online civic engagement platforms have a
significant turnover rate, and it has been seen that people who initially make a contri-
bution, rarely make another (Jin et al., 2013; Lee & Kim, 2014).
In spite of the worldwide increase in the number of people spending a large percent-
age of their time online (Lee & Kim, 2014), governments are struggling to maintain
active participation on their civic engagement platforms (Alharbi et al., 2016; Cernuzzi
& Pane, 2014). According to Ofcom (2015), internet users nowadays spend an average
of 20 hours per week online - twice as much time as was seen 10 years ago. However,
this online activity does not necessarily translate into a higher activity on civic engage-
ment platforms. The introduction of serious games and gamification to these platforms
might make them more engaging (Asquer, 2014; Bista et al., 2014; Gordon et al., 2014;
Mayer, 2009; Nelson, 2012; Raphael et al., 2010; Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015). The
following sections provide a discussion of these possibilities.
Serious-Games and Civic Engagement

In the last 40 to 50 years, policy makers have indicated that board games, serious
games, simulations and role-play have considerable benefits in terms of civic out-
comes (Eränpalo, 2014; Mayer, 2009). Engagement games are an emerging form of
serious games that facilitate civic learning, general civic engagement, and increase
trust in government (Gordon et al., 2014). An early study by Kahne et al. (2009) found
a positive correlation between teen’s playing of engagement games that simulate
engagement in political processes, and their subsequent levels of civic opinion expres-
sion and political activity.
Raphael et al. (2010) argue that real-world simulations and collaborative group
projects are some of the most effective tools for civic learning, and assist in knowledge
building, skill development, opinion expression, civic problem solving, and influence
governmental decision-making. CommunityPlanit is an example of a fully-fledged
serious game that intends to positively impact civic engagement, developed and evalu-
ated for local planning (Gordon et al., 2014). Through the game; citizens are firstly
educated on matters related to their communities, then asked to deliberate the matters
with each other, suggest solutions, and support (vote for) the solutions they most relate
to, so that the solutions might be funded by the government. The game has been used
in the city of Detroit, USA and in the republic of Moldova with great success.
Civic tools such as CommunityPlanit are considered as serious games when they
fulfill pre-determined criteria as fully-fledged games (see previous discussion).
However, fully-fledged games are not suitable for all contexts, and the turning of a
civic participation platform or an e-government service into a serious game is subject
to ethical debate, as not all such services can or should be gamified (Asquer, 2014;
Bista et al., 2014; Nelson, 2012). Thus, practitioners should carefully identify services
that could benefit from serious game design and those that would best benefit from
gamification, and those that may be better off left as they are.
Influencing motivation and engagement are not the main objectives of serious
games, however their goals are focused on the context they are used in; i.e. improving
learning, increasing productivity, developing certain civic skills. On the other hand,
the main goal of gamification is argued to be to increase motivation and engagement
with a target behavior, e.g. learner engagement, worker motivation, civic engagement,
etc. (Landers, 2014). Since the focus of civic engagement platforms is by definition on
engagement, and the focus of this article is on developing a framework for influencing
motivation and engagement on these platforms, we reemphasize the focus of this arti-
cle on the gamification of civic engagement platforms and not serious games. Relatedly,
we believe that serious games (in the context of civic engagement) have been studied
relatively more than the gamification of such services, even though the later topic may
be more suited to some services than serious games, and is therefore worthy of further
attention.
Gamification and Civic Engagement

Some initiatives have been implemented to build gamified applications, aimed at
improving civic engagement (Bista et al., 2014; Business Wire, 2015; Dargan &
Evequoz, 2015; Mendonca & Alawadhi, 2015; Stewart et al., 2013; Supendi &
Prihatmanto, 2015), although these types of initiatives are not always reported in sci-
entific literature. A designer that intends to use reward-based gamification to influence
civic engagement can build a platform that calculates a score for its users based on
their activities, provides friendly inter-user competition, and rewards users for their
interaction (Sánchez-Nielsen & Lee, 2013; Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015). One of the
few case studies available on the gamification of civic engagement platforms through
this technique is provided by Bista et al. (2014). They developed a gamified commu-
nity for welfare recipients who were encouraged to use it for a year to communicate
with each other and with the government to facilitate their transition from one welfare
system to another. The study reported very positive outcomes from the perspective of
gamification, and recommended further investigations to be undertaken.
It is important to reemphasize that in certain contexts, merely adopting some game
elements to gamify an online platform is not enough to effect long-term behavioral
change, or change behaviors that require considerable mental work as gamification in
such a situation may have adverse motivational effects that can lead to the failure of
the gamification efforts (Asquer, 2014; Bogost, 2015; Deterding, 2012; Hamari, 2013;
Huotari & Hamari, 2016; Landers, 2014; Mayer, 2009; Nicholson, 2012, 2015).
Additionally, a recent experiment by Hamari (2013) on the gamification of a utilitarian
peer-to-peer trading experiment concluded that considerations of context are essential
Hassan 11
for gamification success, and that not all services are equally suited to gamification.
Thus, the effectiveness of the adopted motivational affordances depends on their
application context, the purpose for which they are introduced, and their usage sce-
narios (Hamari, 2013; Zuckerman & Gal-Oz, 2014).
Several researchers believe that gamification in the context of civic engagement is
a possible means to positively influence active participation on online civic platforms,
enables the achievement of their functional objectives, and eliminates some of the
discussed problems of ICT use in civic engagement (Asquer, 2014; Bista et al., 2014;
Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago, 2014; Deterding et al., 2011; Nelson, 2012).
Asquer (2014) suggests that civic gamification designers should focus on understand-
ing and influencing the psychology (intrinsic motivation) of the users, for gamification
efforts to provide value. Unfortunately, gamification is still a relatively emergent area
of scientific enquiry, and consequently there is a lack of understanding of how such
goals could be materialized.
Deliberation Theory
One of the core theories of civic engagement is that of democratic deliberations, or
deliberation theory in short. It posits that democratic, societal discussions of political
matters are the preferred method to create informed individuals who actively partici-
pate in governance and political activism (Abdelghaffar & Sameer, 2013; Eränpalo,
2014; Fung & Wright, 2001; Min, 2007; Perote-Peña & Piggins, 2015; Sameer &
Abdelghaffar, 2015; Schlosberg, Zavestoski, & Shulman, 2009). Deliberations are thus
a crucial requirement for any civic engagement platform, without which it cannot be
expected to achieve its core functional objectives or any of the positive outcomes for
which civic engagement platforms are designed (Gordon et al., 2014; Sameer &
Abdelghaffar, 2015; Sánchez-Nielsen & Lee, 2013; Swezey et al., 2012).
There are different deliberation models that illustrate how online deliberations
should take place (see Burkhalter et al., 2002 and Perote-Peña & Piggins, 2015 for a
review of these models), and also frameworks and studies that operationalize these
models (see Macintosh, 2004 and Phang & Kankanhalli, 2008 for applications). It is
therefore difficult to adopt any single deliberation model as a general guideline for civic
engagement platform design (Abdelghaffar & Sameer, 2013; Perote-Peña & Piggins,
2015). However, the core features of these models are that citizens should be given
enough information about the civic matters presented on the platform (information pro-
vision), they should be encouraged to interact with each other and to express their
opinions whenever possible (interactivity), and the participants should reflect on their
experience, learn from it and provide their final opinions either through means of a vote
or other appropriate mechanism (reflection) (Burkhalter et al., 2002; Eränpalo, 2014;
Min, 2007; Perote-Peña & Piggins, 2015; Sameer & Abdelghaffar, 2015; Swezey et al.,
2012). A summary of these deliberation perquisites is presented in Figure (3).
These three core perquisites of deliberation are also important for gamification
design, but for different objectives. In gamification it is important to communicate to
players/users why gamification is being used, and why there is a need for sustaining
Figure 3. Summary of core concepts in deliberation models.
the behaviors reinforced by gamification (information provision). Interactivity is

encouraged when needed to facilitate the engaging experiences of competition or col-
laboration, and players are encouraged to reflect on their experience of the gamified
service to draw behacioral conclusions from it (Nicholson, 2012). While the core con-
cepts might be important for both gamification and deliberation purposes, in the con-
text of deliberation, these concepts are mainly concerned with the provision of
information related to real life concerns, interactivity is encouraged for civic delibera-
tion purposes, and reflections are encouraged on the contents (Burkhalter et al., 2002;
Min, 2007; Sameer & Abdelghaffar, 2015), Thus we believe that the introduction of
deliberations requirements to gamification design should expand the definitions of
information provision, interactivity and reflection in civic engagement platform
design, rather than be limited to the scope important for either deliberations or gamifi-
cation in isolation of each other.
Discussion: A Theoretical Framework for the

Gamification of Civic Engagement Platforms
Motivation is a keyword in gamification research, and there are several psychological
theories that explain motivation drivers beyond the limited discussion space of this
article. Nonetheless, the effects of gamification on motivation must be understood so
as to allow it to be used effectively, and to positively influence the levels of civic
engagement. We adopted self-determination theory, organismic integration theory and
other motivational research in order to develop a theoretical framework that explores
how gamified services could be designed to extrinsically and intrinsically motivate
individuals to engage more in deliberations, which are according to deliberation the-
ory, thought to form the core of civic engagement (Gordon et al., 2014; Min, 2007;
Perote-Peña & Piggins, 2015; Sameer & Abdelghaffar, 2015; Schlosberg et al., 2009).
The proposed theoretical framework presented in Figure 4 combines the elements pre-
viously shown in Figures 3 and 4. As such, this can also be understood as an expansion
of the gamification process presented in Figure 1) and as an instrumentalization of the
process in the new context of civic engagement.
The proposed framework puts forward that motivational affordances can be used to
provide a straightforward reward-based gamification, as a source of extrinsic motivation
Hassan 13
Figure 4. Proposed theoretical framework for the gamification of civic engagement

platforms.
for users to actively use civic engagement platforms. Gamification through these moti-
vational affordances could also be used to fuel intrinsic motivation and provide intrinsi-
cally rewarding gamification. Each of these gamification paths is important in the
context of civic engagement, depending on the goal of gamification and the time frame
in which results should be observed. Thus both paths should be given consideration.
The desired behavior (which in this case is civic engagement) should also be facili-
tated through deliberations. As previously discussed, there are many models and
guidelines on how deliberations should be conducted. In this framework, we adopt the
three most agreed upon guidelines for successful deliberations, in order to develop a
framework that can be adapted to as many civic engagement contexts as possible.
Researchers and practitioners should be able to expand upon these guidelines as
needed, so as to suite the context in which they wish to operate. This importance of
contextualization is emphasized by the allowance for the inclusion of “other perqui-
sites” in the proposed framework (Figure 4).
We believe that gamification (as an influencer of motivation and engagement, and
in combination with the facilitation of deliberations) would fulfill the functional
requirements of civic engagement platforms, and so offer a remedy to the challenge of
low levels of civic participation, and assist in community building. The achievement
of such goals would allow governments to reap more benefit from their investments in
civic engagement platforms, to increase the involvement of citizens in the governance
of their communities, to increase governmental legitimacy, and help to improve gov-

ernmental decision-making (Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago, 2014; Macintosh,
2004; Sánchez-Nielsen & Lee, 2013; Swezey et al., 2012).
This initial understanding of the gamification of civic engagement needs to be
expanded upon through empirical work that validates the proposed framework, and fur-
ther explores gamification in the context of civic engagement platforms. An empirical
understanding of how motivational affordances or gamification could be used to support
deliberations (as a basic requirement of civic engagement) is much needed. Future
researchers are therefore encouraged to conduct experimental work on different gamifi-
cation designs (e.g. competitive design, collaborative design, etc.) of civic engagement
platforms to identify those most suited for civic engagement and community building.
Studies should also test different motivational affordances in isolation and specific com-
binations, in order to determine their influence on civic engagement and community
building. Furthermore, both qualitative and quantitative empirical work is needed to
understand the contextual motivational sources of civic engagement beyond those dis-
cussed in this article, and to identify how the individual characteristics and personality
types of users influence gamification design in the context of civic engagement.
The design of successful governmental gamified platforms should also be studied,
especially those which have been acknowledged for their innovative design (e.g.
my.hawaii.gov: Business Wire, 2015). Longitudinal studies are also needed to exam-
ine the long-term effects of gamification on civic engagement, as researchers report
that the positive effects of gamification are only temporary and tend to wear off once
the application loses its novelty attraction (Asquer, 2014; Hamari & Koivisto, 2015;
Hamari et al., 2014; Jones et al., 2014). It is therefore important to conduct studies that
focus on the psychology of users, and the internalization of extrinsic motivation to
autonomous acts that sustain motivation.
Conclusion
A variety of public services and applications can be enhanced through gamification
(Asquer, 2014; Bista et al., 2014; Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago, 2014; Gordon
et al., 2014; Nelson, 2012; Raphael et al., 2010; Stewart et al., 2013). Motivational affor-
dances can be used to provide either reward-based gamification or intrinsically reward-
ing gamification, depending on the aims from the introduction of the motivational
affordance, and the context and methodology of their use (Asquer, 2014; Nicholson,
2012). However, it is unclear if and which motivational affordances can support civic
engagement, or how they can facilitate information provision, interactivity and reflec-
tion as core facets of civic engagement. It is also unclear how the mere existence of
motivational affordances in a civic engagement service would affect deliberations.
This lack of understanding of gamification in the context of civic engagement and
community building emphasizes the importance of the framework contributed by this
article. As such, the framework serves as an initial guideline as to how gamification and
deliberations may be brought about in the context of civic engagement. In its discus-
sions, the article identifies several research gaps and directions that researchers
Hassan 15
interested in gamification and civic engagement can address. However, it is clear that
there is a need for more first hand data that evaluates gamification of civic engagement
services, so that the behavioral outcomes of gamification may be better evaluated. There
are far more governmental gamification initiatives than have been identified in this par-
ticular study, however these are not easily identifiable, and are seldom empirically evalu-
ated and reported. As such, it is difficult to draw lessons from them. This calls for further
examination of the online services provided by governments, in order to determine if
gamification approaches have been utilized there, and what the effects they have.
The gamification of e-government services including civic engagement and com-
munity building platforms should be studied, keeping in mind that not all services can
or should be gamified (Asquer, 2014; Bista et al., 2014; Nelson, 2012). The interme-
diating role of political will and other political variables should be considered in the
gamification of civic engagement services, as they are assumed to have an impact on
levels of engagement on online governmental services (Sameer & Abdelghaffar, 2015)
and potentially their success and adoption.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the editors and reviewers of Simulation & Gaming for their valu-
able comments that have significantly contributed to the improvement of this work. Special
thanks are also due (in alphabetical order) to Bo-Christer Björk, Juho Hamari, J. Tuomas
Harviainen, Päivi Huttuka, Mikael Laakso, and Lena Jungall for their feedback on this work
during its compilation.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This article was supported through a personal grant to the author
from Hanken Support Foundation.
References
Abdelghaffar, H., & Sameer, L. (2013). The roadmap to E-democracy in Arab Spring countries
via social networks. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on E-Government, June.
Como, Italy.
Adler, R. P., & Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by “civic engagement.” Journal of
Transformative Education, 3(3), 236-253.
Alharbi, A., Kang, K., & Hawryszkiewycz, I. (2016). The influence of trust and subjective
norms on citizens intentions to engage in E-participation on E-government Websites. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1606.00746.
Aristotle. (1944). Aristotle in 23 Volumes (Vol. 21) (H. Rackham, Trans.). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Asquer, A. (2014). Not just videogames: Gamification and its potential application to public
services. In Digital public administration and E-government in developing nations: Policy
and practice, edited by E. F. Halpin. IGI Global, in press.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis
of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
34, 2045-2068.
Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDS. J MUD Res 1(1).
Retrieved from http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm.
Bista, S. K., Nepal, S., Paris, C., & Colineau, N. (2014). Gamification for online communi-
ties: A case study for delivering government services. International Journal of Cooperative
Information Systems, 23, 1441002.
Bogost, I. (2015). Why gamification is bullshit. In The gameful world: Approaches, issues,
applications, edited by S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (pp. 65-79). London, UK: The MIT press.
Broer, J., & Poeppelbuss, J. (2013). Gamification-a new phenomenon in information systems
research? In 24th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS) (pp. 1-13).
Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University.
Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw, T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model
of public deliberation in small face to face groups. Communication Theory, 12(4), 398-422.
Burns, J. M. (1997). Government by the people. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Business Wire. (2015, June 16). Hawaii delivers your government—Your way. Available from
http://www.businesswire.com/
Cernuzzi, L., & Pane, J. (2014). Toward open government in paraguay. IT Professional, 16(5),
62-64.
Chen, K. K. (2016). “Plan your burn, burn your plan”: How decentralization, storytelling, and com-
munification can support participatory practices. The Sociological Quarterly, 57(1), 71-97.
Coronado Escobar, J. E., & Vasquez Urriago, A. R. (2014, October). Gamification: An effec-
tive mechanism to promote civic engagement and generate trust? In Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 514-515).
Guimaraes, Portugal: ACM.
Dargan, T., & Evequoz, F. (2015, June). Designing engaging e-government services by com-
bining user-centered design and gamification: A use-case. In Proceedings of the 15th
European Conference on eGovernment 2015: ECEG 2015 edited by C. Adams (pp. 70-78).
Portsmouth, UK: Academic Conferences.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2004). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: Designing for motivation. Interactions, 19(4), 14-17.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to game-
fulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek
Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9-15). Tampere, Finland: ACM.
Epstein, R. A. (2011). Direct democracy: Government of the people, by the people, and for the
people. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 34, 819-826.
Eränpalo, T. (2014). Exploring young people’s civic identities through gamification: A case
study of Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian adolescents playing a social simulation game.
Citizenship, Social & Economics Education, 13(2), 104-120.
Farzan, R., DiMicco, J. M., Millen, D. R., Brownholtz, B., Geyer, W., & Dugan, C. (2008).
Results from deploying a participation incentive mechanism within the enterprise. In
Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (pp. 563-572). Florence, Italy: ACM.
Hassan 17
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participa-
tory governance. Politics & Society, 29(1), 5-42.
Gordon, E., Walter, S., & Suarez, P. (2014). Engagement games: A case for designing games to
facilitate real-world action. Boston, MA: EGL. Retrieved from http://engagementgamelab
.org/pdfs/engagement-gameguide.pdf
Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on
gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, 12(4), 236-245.
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015). “Working out for likes”: An empirical study on social influ-
ence in exercise gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 333-347. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2015.04.018
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014, January). Does gamification work? A literature
review of empirical studies on gamification. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 3025-3034). Hawaii, USA: IEEE.
Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2016).
Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immer-
sion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170-179. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2015.07.045
Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2016). A definition for gamification: Anchoring gamification in the
service marketing literature. Electronic Markets, 1-11.
Jin, X. L., Zhou, Z., Lee, M. K., & Cheung, C. M. (2013). Why users keep answering ques-
tions in online question answering communities: A theoretical and empirical investigation.
International Journal of Information Management, 33(1), 93-104.
Jones, B. A., Madden, G. J., & Wengreen, H. J. (2014). The FIT game: Preliminary evalua-
tion of a gamification approach to increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in school.
Preventive Medicine, 68(1), 76-79. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.04.015
Jung, J. H., Schneider, C., & Valacich, J. (2010). Enhancing the motivational affordance of
information systems: The effects of real-time performance feedback and goal setting in
group collaboration environments. Management Science, 56(4), 724-742.
Juul, J. (2010). A casual revolution: Reinventing video games and their players. Massachusetts,
UK: MIT Press.
Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., & Evans, C. (2009). The civic potential of video games. Massachusetts,
UK: MIT Press.
Komito, L. (2005). e-Participation and governance: Widening the net. The Electronic Journal
of e-Government, 3(1), 39-48.
Landers, R. N. (2014). Developing a theory of gamified learning: Linking serious games and
gamification of learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45, 752-768.
Landers, R. N., Bauer, K. N., & Callan, R. C. (2015). Gamification of task performance with
leaderboards: A goal setting experiment. Computers in Human Behavior.
Landers, R. N., & Callan, R. C. (2011). Casual social games as serious games: The psychology
of gamification in undergraduate education and employee training. In Serious games and
edutainment applications, edited by M. Ma, A. Oikonomou, & L. C. Jain (pp. 399-423).
London, England: Springer.
Latham, G. P. (2003). Goal setting: A five-step approach to behavior change. Organizational
Dynamics, 32(3), 309-318.
Lee, J., & Kim, S. (2014, January). Active citizen e-participation in local governance: Do
individual social capital and e-participation management matter? In 2014 47th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 2044-2053). Hawaii, USA:

IEEE.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
Macintosh, A. (2004, January). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In Proceedings
of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004 (p. 10).
Hawaii, USA: IEEE.
Mayer, I. S. (2009). The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: A review. Simulation &
Gaming, 40(6), 825-862.
Mendonca, J., & Alawadhi, N. (2015, May 29). Digital india: PM Modi to launch BJP’s flag-
ship programme likely in July. The Economic Times. Retrieved from http://economictimes.
indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/digital-india-pm-modi-to-launch-bjps-flagship-
programme-likely-in-july/articleshow/47463709.cms
Min, S. (2007). Online vs. face to face deliberation: Effects on civic engagement. Journal of
Computer Mediated Communications, 12(4), 1369-1387.
Nelson, M. J. (2012, October). Soviet and American precursors to the gamification of work.
In Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference (pp. 23-26).
Tampere, Finland: ACM.
Nicholson, S. (2012). A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification.
Games+Learning+Society, 8(1), 223-230.
Nicholson, S. (2015). A recipe for meaningful gamification. In Gamification in education and
business, edited by T. Reiners & L. C. Wood (pp. 1-20). Switzerland: Springer.
North, D. C. (1984). Government and the cost of exchange in history. The Journal of Economic
History, 44(2), 255-264.
Ofcom. (2015, May). Time spent online doubles in a decade. Retrieved from http://media
.ofcom.org.uk/news/2015/time-spent-online-doubles-in-a-decade/
Perote-Peña, J., & Piggins, A. (2015). A model of deliberative and aggregative democracy.
Economics & Philosophy, 31(1), 93-121.
Phang, C. W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2008). A framework of ICT exploitation for e-participation
initiatives. Communications of the ACM, 51(12), 128-132.
Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY:
Riverhead Books.
Raphael, C., Bachen, C., Lynn, K. M., Baldwin-Philippi, J., & McKee, K. A. (2010). Games for
civic learning: A conceptual framework and agenda for research and design. Games and
Culture, 5(2), 199-235.
Rigby, C. S. (2015). Gamification and motivation 4. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.),
Gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications (pp. 113-138). London, UK: The MIT
press.
Rothschild, J. (2016). The logic of a co-operative economy and democracy 2.0: Recovering the
possibilities for autonomy, creativity, solidarity, and common purpose. The Sociological
Quarterly, 57(1), 7-35.
Sameer, L., & Abdelghaffar, H. (2015, June). The use of social networks in enhancing e-rule-
making. Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on E-Government. Portsmouth, UK.
Sánchez-Nielsen, E., & Lee, D. (2013, January). eParticipation in practice in Europe: The case
of “puzzled by policy: Helping you be part of EU.” In 2013 46th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 1870-1879). Hawaii, USA: IEEE.
Hassan 19
Schlosberg, D., Zavestoski, S., & Shulman, S. (2009). Deliberation in e-rulemaking? The prob-
lem of mass participation. In Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice, edited by
T. Davies & S. P. Gangadharan (pp. 133-148). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Stewart, J., Bleumers, L., All, A., Mariën, I., Schurmans, D., Van Looy, J., . . .Centeno, C.
(2013). The potential of digital games for empowerment and social inclusion of groups at
risk of social and economic exclusion: Evidence and opportunity for policy (JRC Scientific
and Policy Report). Sevilla, Spain: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint
Research Center, European Commission.
Supendi, K., & Prihatmanto, A. S. (2015, December). Design and implementation of the asses-
ment of publik officers web base with gamification method. In 2015 4th International
Conference on Interactive Digital Media (ICIDM) (pp. 1-6). Malaysia: IEEE.
Swezey, R. M., Sano, H., Hirata, N., Shiramatsu, S., Ozono, T., & Shintani, T. (2012, August).
An e-participation support system for regional communities based on linked open data,
classification and clustering. In 2012 IEEE 11th International Conference on Cognitive
Informatics & Cognitive Computing (ICCI* CC) (pp. 211-218). Kyoto, Japan: IEEE.
Vinciarelli, A. (2009). Capturing order in social interactions [social sciences]. IEEE Signal
Processing Magazine, 26(5), 133-152, 04 September.
Vinciarelli, A., Pantic, M., Heylen, D., Pelachaud, C., Poggi, I., D’Errico, F., & Schroeder, M.
(2012). Bridging the gap between social animal and unsocial machine: A survey of social
signal processing. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3(1), 69-87.
Williamson, O. E. (1996). The mechanisms of governance. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Zhang, P. (2008). Motivational affordances: Reasons for ICT design and use. Communications
of the ACM, 51(11), 145-147. doi:10.1145/1400214.1400244
Zuckerman, O., & Gal-Oz, A. (2014). Deconstructing gamification: Evaluating the effective-
ness of continuous measurement, virtual rewards, and social comparison for promoting
physical activity. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(7), 1705-1719.
Author Biography
Lobna Hassan is a doctoral candidate at Hanken school of Economics, conducting experimen-
tal research on gamification design and its impact. Her interests also extend to social networking
applications, motivational design, and two-way government-citizens communications.
Contact: [email protected], lobnahassan.com
First-hand experience of why gamification projects fail
and what could be done about it
Lobna Hassan
Information Systems Sciences, Hanken School of Economics, Finland.
Gamification Group, University of Tampere, Finland.
[email protected]
Benedikt Morschheuser
Gamification Group, Tampere University of Technology, Finland.
[email protected]
Nader Alexan
Dreidev, Egypt.
[email protected]
Juho Hamari
Gamification Group, Tampere University of Technology, Finland.
Gamification Group, University of Turku, Finland.
Gamification Group, University of Tampere, Finland.
[email protected]
Abstract: A plethora of services, applications and scholarly research has emerged related to gamification.
Regardless of the optimistic onset of this hype around the technology trend, designing gamification has proved
to be a challenging endeavor; requiring multidisciplinary work that is often hindered by multiple theoretical
and challenges.. Problem-driven, theory-advancing approaches to gamification research could assist
a practical challenges
in the addressment of gamification design challenges and accelerate the growth of the gamification field
however not all such approaches have been equally utilized or understood. This paper presents the case of
MANGO: a project to design a gamified e-participation tool through Action Design Research (ADR). The
paper reflects on the challenges of gamification design and development and possible strategies to address
them. It additionally reflects on the ADR process; an under-utilized and hence possibly a superficially
understood approach to gamification research. The paper is hence a guide for researchers and practitioners as
to possible challenges they can face with gamification research and design and how to counteract them.
1. Introduction
During the last years, an increased interest has been observed in gamifying information systems in
attempts to positively impact engagement and motivation (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014; Koivisto
& Hamari, 2017; Nicholson, 2012, 2015; Rigby, 2015). Gamification refers to designing systems,
services and processes to provide positive, engaging experiences similar to the ones games provide
(Huotari & Hamari, 2017). What a large stream of this gamification research and practice
acknowledges, however, is that gamification is challenging to design and implement (Deterding,
2012; Deterding, 2015; Hamari et al., 2014; Hassan & Nader, 2016; Koivisto & Hamari, 2017;
Morschheuser et al., 2017a; Nicholson, 2012; Rigby, 2015). Gamification design not only require
attention to the operational requirements of the gamified system, but also to the psychological needs
of its target users (Burke, 2014; Morschheuser et al., 2017a; Nicholson, 2012, 2015) and the
GamiFIN Conference 2018, Pori, Finland, May 21-23, 2018 141

organizational and environmental context in which gamification is being introduced (Deterding,
2012; Hamari et al., 2014; Hassan, 2017; Hassan & Nader, 2016). The theoretical and practical
understanding of gamification is however often observed to lag behind with regards to the
understanding of gamification design and development (Deterding, 2012; Hassan & Nader, 2016;
Morschheuser et al., 2017a; Nicholson, 2015). Fortunately, problem-driven, theory-advancing
research approaches to gamification have the potential to simultaneously increase both our theoretical
and practical understanding of gamification design and development, hence accelerating the growth
of the gamification field on these two angles.
The case study of MANGO, reported on in this paper focused on contextualized gamification
design and development in the area of e-participation through Action Design Research (ADR); a
problem-drive, theory-advancing research approach. MANGO involved research work with various
participants with different roles (civil servants, citizens, designers, etc.). It aimed to advance our
theoretical and practical understanding of the gamification of e-participation and to answer: how to
design and develop gamified e-participation? While MANGO contributed a gamification design
based on the theoretical framework for the gamification of e-participation by Hassan (2017) and has
additionally, theoretically extended previous research on the gamification of e-participation, the
empirical research did not fully go as planned and the project was terminated before practical
implementation. Hence, the main goal of the present paper is to examine why gamification projects
fail and what could be done about it? The paper contributes lessons learned and suggested strategies
to mitigate the possible failure of practical gamification projects based on examining the case of
MANGO. The paper additionally demonstrates the possible value of problem-driven, theory-
advancing approaches such as through ADR that could ensure a contribution for gamification projects
at least on one end: theoretical or practical if not on both. Overall, the paper aims to provide a guide
for future gamification projects and research towards increased chances at success.
2. Case study – MANGO (Motivational Affordances iN Governmental Organizations)
Project MANGO was to involve the research, design and development of an IT-artefact for gamified
e-participation to answer how to design and develop gamified e-participation? It hence had a dual
theoretical and practical focus and involved contextualization, iterative and participatory work.
Action Research (AR) is a problem-driven, theory advancing, iterative research approach that allows
work in context with multi-actors on the development of theory, and practical guidelines (Baskerville
& Myers, 2004; Blum, 1955; Brydon-Miller, Greenwood, & Maguire, 2003; Järvinen, 2005),
However, AR employs an emergent research process that lacks guidelines for the design and
evaluation of IT-artefacts, which is a core research goal in MANGO. Design Science Research
(DSR), however, allows for the systematic and controlled design, development and evaluation of
theoretical and practical artefacts (Hevner, March, Park, & S, 2004; Iivari, 2007, 2015; March &
Smith, 1995). Nonetheless, DSR is not always able to introduce artefacts that meet their predefined
criteria of utility due to environmental factors often unaccounted for in the DSR controlled research
environment (Iivari, 2007; March & Smith, 1995; Markus, Majchrzak, & Gasser, 2002). On the other
hand, the emergent design of AR is often volatile (Järvinen, 2005). It hence appeared at the outset of
MANGO that it and possibly projects like it, need to utilize research approaches that possibly
combine the strengths of AR and DSR, while attempting to water down their shortcomings. Action
Design Research (ADR) is one such approach (Coenen, Donche, & Ballon, 2015; Iivari, 2015; Sein,
Henfredsson, Purao, Rossi, & Lindgren, 2011).
2.1. Case methodology
ADR emphasizes complementarity between design and theory, interaction between research
participants, contextualized design, and it provides guidelines as to navigate such a research and

design process. While it appears that gamification as a domain and ADR as a method may have a
high degree of complementarity, as both recognize the importance of contextualized, inclusive,
iterative, and theory advancing design, merely three studies joining them have appeared in the
literature (Coenen, 2014; Klapztein & Cipolla, 2016; Schacht & Maedche, 2015). This dearth in
gamification research through ADR regardless its possible merits or demerits emphasizes the need
for further work to be conducted through ADR to understand how it can affect the development,
introduction and success or failure of gamification. The methodology may prove useful to
gamification research if carried out properly as it can rapidly advance contextualized gamification
theory and practice, hence, increasing the probability that the gamified artifacts developed through it
would meet their design objectives. Caution however is preached (Coenen, 2014) as the result of this
union between AR and DSR in the form of ADR may lead to the rapid, rudimentary development of
interventions and artefacts, jeopardizing the interests of project stakeholders as happened to be the
case of MANGO.
In this research, we adopted an understanding of Action Design Research (ADR) (Figure 1)

according to (Sein et al., 2011) who provide the most utilized guide to ADR. ADR is conducted
through four stages: Stage (1): problem formulation, Stage (2): building, intervention & Evaluation
(BIE), Stage (3): reflection & learning and Stage (4): formulation of learning. The stages are guided
through seven research principles.
Figure 1: Action Design Research (ADR) approach followed

ADR stage (1): During stage (1), researchers are to identify both a theoretical and a practical
problem for their research. The theoretical problem of MANGO was identified through literature
reviews and discussions with academics as recommended by (Sein et al., 2011). The theoretical
problem pertained to a lack of theory as a base for understanding and guide gamified e-participation
design and development. The theoretical aim hence became to investigate how to design and develop
gamified e-participation? Through literature study, concept analysis and discussions with academics,
we development a theoretical framework for the gamification of e-participation (Hassan 2017). The
framework employs the self-determination theory (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004) as a psychological
base for understanding intrinsic motivation and gamification design, and the deliberations theory
(Min, 2007; Perote-Peña & Piggins, 2015) as the normative base for civic participation. The
framework additionally employs practical research bridging gamification and civic engagement (e.g.
(Bista et al., 2014; Dargan & Evequoz, 2015)) and research bridging gamification and employee
engagement (Alcivar & Abad, 2016; Morschheuser, Maedche, & Walter, 2017b; Schacht & Maedche,
2015). The peer-reviewed and published framework was next employed to guide the subsequent

practical work of MANGO. The practical problem however required more conceptualization i.e. what
are the specific practical objectives of this research? Accordingly, we worked closely with a small-
sized governmental unit and through discussions and documentations with a middle level manager,
we identified that the organization needed a customized IT-artefact to assist civil servants in the
creation, filling and discussion of service quality surveys with citizens in order to improve the services
provided by the organization. Gamification was imperative in the IT-artefact as it would incentives
engagement with the artefact and with the underlying imitative to improve the quality of the services
the unit offers, through the intrinsically rewarding experience of gamefulness rather than through
extrinsic rewards although these were initially considered. Finally, Burke (2014) was employed as a
guiding design process to guide the project designer through how to design gamification.
ADR stage (2): emphasizes the iterative, participative and reciprocated nature of research
under ADR. This stage involved cooperative work for approximately more than eighteen months
between several stakeholders: the authors – acting as researchers, designers, and project coordinators
- a middle level manager from the cooperating unit, a developer, as well as research funders. First, 2
personas (Morschheuser et al., 2017a) and 89 user stories were developed to provide descriptions of
the two main target groups of the intervention (civil servants, and citizens) along with a description
of their expected level of technological literacy and expected user goals in order to ensure a
gamification design-user fit (Hamari, Hassan, & Dias, 2018). Furthermore, a list of technical
requirements outside gamification was developed. Iterative brainstorming and theory examination
took place and each participant had a clear role in the process dictated by their title, and expertise and
their involvement was sought accordingly. Eight prototype wireframes were developed to
communicate finalized designs the developer and the stage ended with the settlement of a Minimum
Viable Product (MVP); an artefact with working core features that is ready for evaluation in its
intended use context. The outcome intervention also included plans for training sessions and publicity
campaigns.
ADR stage (3): This stage is rather a longitudinal one, running in parallel to most of the other
stages. Researchers are advised to actively reflect on the research process and to document learnings
as they might contain valuable research and design insight (Sein et al., 2011). Research logs, emails,
informal notes, and archives of designs and meetings minutes were maintained throughout all stages
of this research for these purposes and were actively reflected on to discern changes that occurred to
the IT-artefact and the overall intervention. These documentations were of course beneficial to study
the design and development process and discern where challenges occurred as communicated in this
paper.
2.2. Case summary results
ADR stage (4): The final stage (4) is intended to formalize and communicate generalizable learning
through reflecting on the research problems and their addressment. Examining the actual impact of
MANGO was not possible as the project was terminated, and the developed MVP was never
evaluated, yet during the process, MANGO and its theory-driven focus contributed 2 peer-reviewed
publications (Hassan 2017) and this present paper. Additionally, MANGO contributed a Minimum
Viable Product based on a completed design both of which could be implemented in other contexts
with a few modifications. The lessons in this paper from the design and development process guided
by the ADR approach are valuable as this is one of the few gamification research approaches utilizing
ADR additionally this is one of the few gamification papers that reflect on failure and how it can be
mitigated.

3. Discussion and lessons learned
The emergent design process of ADR was valuable in that its iterations allowed for the evolution of
the gamification design through increments, allowing for quick inexpensive design changes. For
example, the initially competitive gamification design that was though appropriate for the artefact
was changed to a mix competitive-cooperative design after discussions of personas. Similarly, a mix
solitary/multiplayer gameplay was adopted instead of only solitary to widen the appeal of the artefact
to users with different preferences. Such changes to the design may not have been as quick through
a controlled design process. A summary of these design decisions and later changes is in Table 1. On
the other hand, this emergent process led to the introduction of gamification elements or the lack of
elements that were later deemed unneeded or needed, thus lengthening development time.
Adversely, the general lack of controlled lab testing of artefacts, increases the likelihood that
they enter operation without intensive evaluation, failing to meet real expectations. This risk was
addressed in MANGO, although perhaps not effectively enough, through iterations of Proofs of
Concepts during which the IT-artefact was evaluated by the participants however it was not possible
within the time and budget allocated to MANGO to carryout user evaluations of the artefact as
recommended by user-centric approaches to gamification design (Deterding, 2015; Morschheuser et
al., 2017a; Nicholson, 2012, 2015). The iterative and user-centric nature of gamification design,
appear to lengthen projects and place needs for multidisciplinarity and resources that should be
accounted for from the initial planning phases of a gamification project.
Problem-driven, theory-advancing approaches to research emphasize the importance of

identifying and documenting a theoretical and a practice problem to guide research work (Brydon-
Miller et al., 2003; Iivari, 2015; Sein et al., 2011). The determined research problems at the start of
this project guided the possible gamification design that could be developed in practice. While the
initial design evolved through the ADR iterations, no changes were permitted to the scope of the
identified problems to reduce conflicts between the research participants, Documentations of the
research problems served to control expectations during the various research stages and to resolve
conflicts between the research participants. It appears however that an occasional revision of these
research objectives may be valuable in light of any significant changes to the available resources or
environment. We chose not to revise the objectives of MANGO in light of changing circumstances
leading to the lengthening of the project and an overdraft of its budget, however similar research
projects may wish to avoid these consequences by revising the project objectives and possibly
downsizing the scope and complexity of the work or dropping the gamification design angle in favor
of at least delivering a non-gamified but operational artefact within a reasonable time and budget.
This tradeoff is however subjective to the researchers and research circumstances.
Conflicts occasionally rose due to differences between participants’ backgrounds, goals, and
understanding of gamification. For example, there was a common perception that gamification would
merely entail the addition of elements such as badges and points to an application, while, another
understanding of gamification is that it is a holistic design process that involve the consideration of
how all elements in a system could add to an overall game-like, enjoyable experience Various studies
exist on the effectivity or infectivity of these approaches to gamification with merits and criticism
attached to each, however, having different intentions for design creates discrepancies between the
individuals involved in it, leading to misallocation of time and resources during the design iterations.
It is hence important to agree at the start of a project on what gamification is to all the parties involved.
Additionally, documentations and having a coordinator between the research participants assists in
resolving conflicts and ensuring valuable involvement of all participants when needed.

Table 1: Summary of the implemented design and design reelections
Design Reasoning Implementation Reasoning for change (if any)
Play- Solitary Number of users is small to facilitate multiplayer. Multiplayer Options are available if players wish to play in groups.
journey
Game-play Competitive A popular design able to drive activity Collaboration Next to competition to widens play appeal to various player types
Storyline Superhero Civil servants as Heroes on a mission to improve their No theme Design difficulties and fears that the target audience may perceive the
theme country. Citizen as Side-kicks who assist the Heroes. theme too playfully rather than serious lead to abandoning themes.
Points Base tool to facilitate gamification - -
Ranks Titles To communicate a hierarchy, progress, and mastery Numerical levels Easier to implement since the theme was abandoned
Missions Weekly To provide a purpose and reignite engagement Monthly added Monthly missions for civil servants as their tasks requires more time
Leader- Weekly To showcase mastery, provide purpose and fuel Monthly added Monthly leaderboards for civil servants as their tasks requires time
boards competition Intra and across groups leaderboards to encourage collaboration.
Badges Systematic Awarded upon milestones to show mastery & purpose Purchasable Points as a currency to purchase badges and provide autonomy
Avatars Creatable To increase autonomy, and identification with artefact Provided list Programing difficulties led to the adoption of an easier to implement.
Rewards Available Conversion of earned points to redeemable Mobile Not implemented Abandoned due to the unsustainable nature, notice boards for
minutes “employee of the month” was suggested instead.
Deliberation (Context specific) elements
Newsfeed To facilitate information provision - -
Survey To facilitate information provision on the underlying - -

Descriptions political matters
Commenting To facilitate interactivity and reflections Forums Allows for a more lengthy and structured deliberations and reflections
Sharing To market the artifact to non-users Internal sharing Options added to facilitate share of posts on the artefact
Extended For the easy identification, specially of civil servants to - -

profiles increase trust in government and accountability

ADR (Sein et al., 2011), and gamification research (Burke, 2014; Deterding, 2012, 2015;
Hamari et al., 2014; Nicholson, 2012, 2015) emphasize the importance of contextualized design and
development of interventions so that the interventions influence and are influenced by their use
context. While it was relatively easy for MANGO to be influenced by its organizational context, it
was more difficult for it to influence its environment. Nonetheless, through the iterations, we realized
the need for a larger organizational intervention to accompany the gamified IT-artefact through
initiating an organizational culture that emphasizes the importance of the IT- artefact and the need
for a formal introduction of the artefact through trainings. Additionally, we identified the need to
reward frequent users of the IT-artefact with their announcement as “employee of the month” through
notice boards in their workplace. Additionally, a publicity plan was thought to be needed to market
the artefact specifically to citizens to ensure its diffusion and adoption.
While MANGO intentionally adopted a minimalistic layout for the gamified IT-artefact as
the future users of the IT-artefact were thought to possess limited computer literacy skills, aesthetics
do play an integral role in the perception and acceptance of gamified application. Figure 2 presents a
sample wireframe of the artefact and how it was minimally implemented as part of the developed
Minimum Viable Product. As the IT-artefact neared completion, the IT-artefact was, however,
perceived as, too minimalistic, and unengaging. Simple aesthetics such as colors and musical chimes
could add to the perceived gamefulness of an IT-artefact without demanding higher use skills and are
sometimes of intuitive importance to experiencing gamefulness.
Figure (2): A sample wireframe of the IT-artefact and its implementation.

5. Conclusion
A dominant way of coming up with best practices and frameworks is through examining successful
projects and lessons learned from them. However, equally can be learned from unsuccessful
endeavors as they shed the light on what can fail and what should be avoided and how. This should
be an especially pertinent learning approach in the realm of gamification where it is projected that
most gamification projects will fail. While this research work has struggled, it benefited from utilizing
a problem-driven, theory-advancing approach to research that allowed it to contribute an
operationalizable design and design reasonings as to the selection of gamification elements in the
design of a gamified artefact. The research additionally offers learnings on practical ADR work and
gamification design for e-participation which respectively are relatively unexplored method and
gamification design area. The afore discussed observations and learnings were actively presented and
discussed in academic seminars and conferences and provide techniques as to the operationalization
of the ADR principles and the possible positive and negative outcomes at each ADR stage and how
they can be reached or mitigated. This operationalization may facilitate the implementation of further
theory-drive, problem-oriented gamification research by providing one understanding of its
implementation, implications and benefits. Utilizing these learnings in future projects might increase
their chances at success. Future research is recommended to continue exploring the utilization of
ADR in various research fields to further provide guidelines to ensure its successful utilization,
Researchers are also encouraged to evaluation the gamified e-participation design contributed by
MANGO and to develop it further as such evaluations were not possible yet.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Finnish foundation for economic education (grants number 10-5562
and 12-6385).
References
Alcivar, I., & Abad, A. G. (2016). Design and evaluation of a gamified system for ERP training. Computers
in Human Behavior, 58(2016), 109–118.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic Need Satisfaction: A Motivational Basis of
Performance and WeilBeing in Two Work Settings1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045–
2068.
Baskerville, R., & Myers, M. D. (2004). Special issue on action research in information systems: Making IS
research relevant to practice: Foreword. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 28(3), 329–335.
Bista, S. K., Nepal, S., Paris, C., & Colineau, N. (2014). Gamification for online communities: A case study
for delivering government services. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 23(3).
Blum, F. H. (1955). Action research--A scientific approach?. Philosophy of Science, 22(1), 1–7.
Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? Action Research, 1(1), 9–
28.
Burke, B. (2014). Gamify: How gamification motivates people to do extraordinary things. Bibliomotion, Inc.
Coenen, T. (2014). The design and evaluation of a pervasive engagement game in a city neighborhood.
Proceedings of the 18th International Academic MindTrek Conference on Media Business, Management,
Content & Services - AcademicMindTrek (pp. 221–228). ACM.
Coenen, T., Donche, V., & Ballon, P. (2015). LL-ADR: Action design research in living labs. In
Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol. 2015–March, pp.
4029–4038).

Dargan, T., & Evequoz, F. (2015). Designing Engaging e-Government Services by Combining User-
Centered Design and Gamification: A Use-Case. Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on
eGovernment 2015: ECEG 2015 (p. 70). Academic Conferences Limited.
Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: designing for motivation. Interactions, 19(4), 14–17.
Deterding, S. (2015). The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: A method for gameful design. Human–Computer
Interaction, 30(3–4), 294–335.
Hamari, J., Hassan, L., & Dias, A. (2018). Gamification, quantified-self or social networking? Matching
users’ goals with motivational technology. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. 28(1), 35-74.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? – A literature review of empirical
studies on gamification. In proceedings of the 47th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (pp. 3025–3034). Hawaii, USA: IEEE.
Hassan, L. (2017). Governments Should Play Games: Towards a Framework for the Gamification of Civic
Engagement Platforms. Simulation & Gaming, 48(2), 249–267.
Hassan, L., & Nader, A. (2016). Gamification design in action: the practical cases of gamification platforms
for employee work motivation and citizens’ civic engagement. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on ICT Management for Global Competitiveness and Economic Growthin Emerging Economies
(ICTM 2016) (pp. 67–70).
Hevner, A., March, S. T., Park, J., & S, R. (2004). Design Science Research in Information Systems. MIS
Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 28(1), 75–105.
Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2017). A definition for gamification: Anchoring gamification in the service
marketing literature. Electronic Markets, 27(1), 21–31.
Iivari, J. (2007). A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian Journal
of Information Systems, 19(2), 39-64.
Iivari, J. (2015). Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research. European Journal
of Information Systems, 24(1), 107–115.
ärvinen, P. (2005): Action research as an approach in design science, Working paper D-2005-2, Department
of Computer Sciences, University of Tampere, Presented at the EURAM (European Academy of
Management) Conference, Munich, May 4-7.
Klapztein, S., & Cipolla, C. (2016). From game design to service design: A framework to gamify
services. Simulation & Gaming, 47(5), 566-598.
Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2017). The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification
literature.
March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology.
Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266.
Markus, M. L., Majchrzak, A., & Gasser, L. (2002). A design theory for systems that support emergent
knowledge processes. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 26(3), 179-212.
Min, S. (2007). Online vs. Face to Face Deliberation: Effects on Civic Engagement. Journal of Computer
Mediated Communications, 12(4), 1369–1387.
Morschheuser, B., Hassan, L., Werder, K., & Hamari, J. (2017a). How to design gamification? A method for
engineering gamified software. Information and Software Technology. 95.
Morschheuser, B., Maedche, A., & Walter, D. (2017b). Designing Cooperative Gamification:
Conceptualization and Prototypical Implementation. In CSCW (pp. 2410–2421).

Nicholson, S. (2012). A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification. In Proceedings of
Games+Learning+Society 8.0 (GLS 8.0).
Nicholson, S. (2015). A recipe for meaningful gamification. In Gamification in Education and Business (pp.
1–20). Springer International Publishing.
Perote-Peña, J., & Piggins, A. (2015). A model of deliberative and aggregative democracy. Economics and
Philosophy, 31(1), 93–121.
Rigby, C. S. (2015). Gamification and motivation. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), Gameful World:
Approaches, Issues, Applications (pp. 113–138). Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Sanchez-Nielsen, E., & Lee, D. (2013). eParticipation in Practice in Europe: The Case of“ Puzzled by Policy:
Helping You Be Part of EU.” Proceedings of the 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS) (pp. 1870–1879). IEEE.
Schacht, S., & Maedche, A. (2015). Project knowledge management while simply playing! gaming
mechanics in project knowledge management systems. In Gamification in Education and Business (pp. 593–
614). Springer International Publishing.
Sein, M., Henfredsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action Design Research. MIS
Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 35(1), 37–56.

,QIRUPDWLRQDQG6RIWZDUH7HFKQRORJ\²
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Information and Software Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/infsof
How to design gamification? A method for engineering gamified software

Benedikt Morschheusera,b,f,*, Lobna Hassanc,d, Karl Werdere, Juho Hamarid,f,g
a
Institute of Information Systems and Marketing, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
b
Corporate Research, Robert Bosch GmbH, Germany
c
Information Systems Sciences, Hanken School of Economics, Finland
d
Gamification Group, University of Tampere, Finland
e
Paluno – The Ruhr Institute for Software Technology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
f
Gamification Group, Tampere University of Technology, Finland
g
Gamification Group, University of Turku, Finland
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Context: Since its inception around 2010, gamification has become one of the top technology and software
Gamification trends. However, gamification has also been regarded as one of the most challenging areas of software en-
Software engineering gineering. Beyond traditional software design requirements, designing gamification requires the command of
Design science research disciplines such as (motivational/behavioral) psychology, game design, and narratology, making the develop-
Persuasive technology
ment of gamified software a challenge for traditional software developers. Gamification software inhabits a
Gameful design
Playfulness
finely tuned niche of software engineering that seeks for both high functionality and engagement; beyond
Game design technical flawlessness, gamification has to motivate and affect users. Consequently, it has also been projected
that most gamified software is doomed to fail.
Objective: This paper seeks to advance the understanding of designing gamification and to provide a compre-
hensive method for developing gamified software.
Method: We approach the research problem via a design science research approach; firstly, by synthesizing the
current body of literature on gamification design methods and by interviewing 25 gamification experts, pro-
ducing a comprehensive list of design principles for developing gamified software. Secondly, and more im-
portantly, we develop a detailed method for engineering of gamified software based on the gathered knowledge
and design principles. Finally, we conduct an evaluation of the artifacts via interviews of ten gamification ex-
perts and implementation of the engineering method in a gamification project.
Results: As results of the study, we present the method and key design principles for engineering gamified
software. Based on the empirical and expert evaluation, the developed method was deemed as comprehensive,
implementable, complete, and useful. We deliver a comprehensive overview of gamification guidelines and shed
novel insights into the nature of gamification development and design discourse.
Conclusion: This paper takes first steps towards a comprehensive method for gamified software engineering.
1. Introduction and practitioner reports signal optimistic stance towards gamification

and what it can achieve (see e.g. [2,17] for reviews), the understanding
During recent years, the enhancement of software via design fea- of how to successfully design gamified software is yet in its infancy
tures borrowed from (video) games, also known as “gamification” [1], [16,18].
has become a notable development in many software engineering Business analysts suggest that more than half of all organizations
projects [2,3]. Gamification primarily aims at increasing users’ moti- would have had gamified parts of their organizational software and
vations towards activities or use of technology, and thereby, increasing internal practices by 2015 [19,20]. However, it has also been predicted
the quantity and quality of the output of these activities [1,3,4]. Ga- that a majority of these gamification implementations are doomed to
mification has since been employed in a variety of fields such as in failure due to poor understanding of the gamification design process
education [5–8], health management [9–11], enterprise systems [18]. This gap canonically often manifests as modest gamification
[12–14] and governmental services [15,16]. While literature reviews software that commonly only consist of simple, superficial introduction
*
Corresponding author at: Institute of Information Systems and Marketing, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (B. Morschheuser), Lobna.hassan@hanken.fi (L. Hassan),
[email protected] (K. Werder), juho.hamari@tut.fi (J. Hamari).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.10.015
Received 14 April 2017; Received in revised form 20 October 2017; Accepted 24 October 2017
$YDLODEOHRQOLQH2FWREHU
(OVHYLHU%9$OOULJKWVUHVHUYHG
B. Morschheuser et al. ,QIRUPDWLRQDQG6RIWZDUH7HFKQRORJ\²
of game mechanics (such as points, badges, and leaderboards) to pre- Taking the example of enterprise systems, game design elements
existing software [2,3,17]. Designers engaging in these practices pay including ranking lists, points, badges, leaderboards, challenges, and
perhaps too little attention to the underlying psychological dynamics progress evaluations have been introduced to various forms of intranet
that primarily make games and gamification engaging to users [16,21] systems and enterprise social software with the intention to increase
thus risking the success of the software they develop. knowledge sharing, usage of these systems and productivity within
Gamification is difficult to design for a variety of reasons, the most organizations [12–14]. Similar game design elements were introduced
prominent of which is that: 1) the inspirational source of gamification in educational environments and systems [5–8] to increase the moti-
design; games, are complex, multifaceted, and therefore, difficult to vation of learners and their learning performance or in fitness software,
generally design and let alone transfer to other environments [1,21,22]; to support people doing exercise [9,11]. Various studies report positive
2) the goal of gamification is to affect behavior and not only to en- psychological and behavioral outcomes of using gamification, for in-
tertain – as it is primarily the intention of games [1,2]. Thus, designing stances on motivation, social interaction and performance
gamified software should not be equaled with developing games. [2–5–8,9,17].
Otherwise, transferring game design features to the engineering of With the aim to identify the game features designers might employ
serious software may lead to the design of software that provides a level when engineering gamified software, several studies produced lists of
of entertainment, but might not lead to a behavioral change as is in- the most commonly used game elements in gamification of software
tended from gamification; 3) the serious context in which gamification (see [2,3,17] for overviews). All of these reviews revealed a recurring
is applied provides requirements, which may limit the design space use of the same game elements, such as points, badges, and leader-
drastically compared to games [22,23] and thus adds another level of boards. However, by drawing on these typical elements many gamifi-
complexity; 4) to affect behavioral change, gamification involves mo- cation projects fail to invoke gaming-characteristic hedonic experiences
tivational information system engineering [1,4] which entails the un- [16,22,35], since the gameful experience in games emerge from not
derstanding of a host of (motivational) psychology and requires ap- only singular game elements, but rather from the dynamics that the
propriate competencies in the development team. These four design more holistic assemblage of game features gives rise to [1,36]. Com-
challenges collectively along with many others add layers of software prehensive challenges in the design process, little research on methods
engineering complexities into the scope of gamification design. for designing gamified software and missing guidelines as for how to
These engineering challenges along with the relative novelty of the ensure the behavioral impact of the gamification design may be reasons
research field and the reported lack of understanding as to how to that discourage designers from using the full potential of games and
successfully gamify software as discussed, inhibit organizations from thus failing to successfully engineer gamified software [22]. Conse-
designing and adopting effective gamified software. Thus far, only a quently, further research is needed to address the key challenges of
few sources exist that provides methodological insights into how to designing gamified software and to provide guidance for the im-
gamify (e.g. [22,24–26]) or practical guidance on designing gamifica- plementation of gamification projects.
tion (e.g. [23,27–30]). However, most of these frameworks have been
developed in a vacuum, and, very few of them pay comprehensive at- 2.2. Challenges of designing gamified software
tention to the previously outlined challenges of engineering gamifica-
tion as is detailed in coming sections of this study. In this sense, the Game engineering is a complex process that involves multi-
frameworks do not draw on each other but rather inhabit separate disciplinary work across psychology, design, programming to name
areas. As the theoretical and practical field of gamification continues to only a few disciplines, thus making games multifaceted artifacts that
grow, there is a constant need to develop gamification engineering are not only hard to define and understand [1,21,22], but additionally
methods that comprehensively tackle gamification challenges as they hard to successfully design [37]. We have begun to understand that the
grow. stimulation of human needs [1,21] the application of goals, rule sys-
Therefore, in this paper, we seek to advance the understanding of tems and challenges [14,22,38] are key characteristics of games and
the best practices related to the engineering of gamified software. We probably responsible for their rich motivational experiences. However,
approach the research problem via a design science research approach since successful game approaches commonly employ manifold game
[31,32]; firstly, by synthesizing the current body of literature on ga- designs [17,38], by utilizing many of these components, it is mostly
mification design methods and by interviewing 25 gamification experts difficult to unambiguously relate psychological outcomes to specific
thereby producing a comprehensive list of design principles for devel- game features. The interplay of such design features and psychological
oping gamified software. Secondly, and more importantly, we develop a processes characterize games [1,21], but is also responsible for their
detailed method for engineering of gamified software, based on the complexity. Engineering of gamification aims to invoke similar enga-
gathered knowledge and design principles. Finally, we conduct an ging experiences as games to motivate users towards specific behavior
evaluation of the artifacts via interviews of 10 gamification experts and through the employment of design features from games to other en-
via implementation of the engineering method in a gamification pro- vironments [1,2,21,22], it thus inherits the same design complexity of
ject. games.
Adding to this complexity, the goal of gamifying a software is to
2. Background affect behavior and not only entertainment as is the primary goal of
games [1,4]. For example, if we consider gamified enterprise systems
2.1. Gamification [12,13,39], we see that these systems have been enriched with gami-
fication in order to make the use of such utilitarian software hedonic
Gamification refers to the enrichment of software with design fea- and more enjoyable. However, this is one side of the coin. Typically,
tures known from games in order to invoke similarly engaging experi- designers that implement gamification want to achieve a more frequent
ences as games do [1,22,33]. The software we use in our lives are de- utilization of a system thus ensuring better facilitation of the underlying
veloped for many purposes, the most dominantly either to be utilitarian workflows [2,17]. A gamified software thus has the double require-
or hedonic [34]. Recently, however, utilitarianism and hedonism have ments of being 1.) operationally well designed to function as intended,
increasingly become interwoven in modern software, as users increas- 2.) facilitate engagement with the software so as to ensure manifesta-
ingly expect that software is not only useful but is also enjoyable to use tion of appreciated behaviors and behavioral change.
[2,4,33]. Therefore, designers increasingly apply gamification in soft- Games typically achieve engagement by providing challenges mat-
ware development projects; turning to games for inspiration on how to ched to players’ skill level to provide opportunities for the experience of
enrich utilitarian software with hedonic elements. feelings, such as achievement or mastery that keep players engaged

with the game for longitudinal periods of time [1,21,40]. The difficulty developed and evaluated two artifacts that build on each other. The
of the challenges may occasionally vary towards easier ones in order to first artifact is a list of design principles for engineering gamified software.
ensure a continuous challenging and a diverse experience that keeps Design principles, according to Gregor and Jones [43], provide high-
players in a “flow” state: an optimal experience in which the individual level design guidance. In a similar vein, Zhang suggests that design
is fully immersed in the task they are performing that they are not principles “remind designers of what issues may exist and why” [44].
aware of other externalities [40,41]. Gamification attempts to mimic However, since design principles still provide no answer to the question
these experiences by employing challenges that are matched in design of how to design something [44], we developed a second artifact that
and presentation to game challenges [1,40]. However, the context in incorporates the first; a method for engineering gamified software that
which gamification is applied adds complexity on the design of enga- provides comprehensive guidance to the process of how gamified
ging challenges, as the context provides operational requirements that software could be designed developed.
limit the unlimited design space that typically games have. Gamifica- To develop such a method to the engineering of gamified software,
tion designers should thus be aware that the gamified software should we employed method engineering within our DSR approach. In
meet these operational requirements for the software to have opera- Information Systems (IS) research the method engineering methodology,
tional value to necessitate engagement with it, as is the aim of applying which is defined as “the engineering discipline to design, construct and
gamification. adapt methods, techniques and tools for the development of informa-
The prevailing opinion is that games invoke motivation and influ- tion systems” [45], has been established for developing methods in
ence behavior because they satisfy user's intrinsic needs, such as the software engineering [46–48,49]. A common practice in method en-
needs for relatedness, mastery, or autonomy [1,16,21,33]. The fulfill- gineering is the assembly of situational methods for specific engineering
ment of basic human needs has been highlighted as a key justification projects based on fragments, synthesized from existing method
for the psychological and behavioral outcomes of games in many stu- knowledge [45,46,50,51]. Gamification provides a concrete software
dies [1,14,16,21,42]. However, designing software that satisfies spe- engineering scenario that requires situational adaptations of a standard
cific human needs is complex. Designers need to be aware of motiva- approach unique to every software project. As discussed above, gami-
tional psychology and motivational design. This adds another layer to fied software is not limited to operational requirements, but requires an
the complexity of designing gamified software. in-depth understanding of human psychology. Gamification relies on
games and game design in its engineering methods in order to affect
3. Artifacts development user behavior. Hence, a general understanding of the gamification
process as an extension of established engineering approaches is im-
As discussed in the previous sections, engineering of gamified perative to the development of functional and successful gamified
software is challenging, requires multidisciplinary knowledge and has software. Such a situated process of gamified software engineering re-
extensively been conducted through methods that do not draw on each quires situational aspects as dictated by the projects characteristics and
other, but rather have been developed in a vacuum by individual ga- its operational context. Thus, we are aiming to develop a situational
mification experts. Thus, the aim of this research is to synthesize the method [45] for gamification projects that provide general guidance for
current body of literature on gamification design methods, as well as engineering gamified software and could be used as method base for
the design principles to answer the following research question: further developing situational methods for specific gamification pro-
RQ: How should gamified software be engineered? jects at hand in an iterative method engineering process [52].
Given the study's focus, we opt for a design science research (DSR) Fig. 1 provides an overview of our method engineering procedure.
approach [31,32]. DSR emphasizes the systematic development and According to Brinkkemper [45], essential aspects of method en-
evaluation of artifacts intended to solve practical problems. Therefore, gineering are: i), the development of a comprehensive method base that
the research process consists of two primary modes of investigation and includes all resources needed for the development of a new method; ii),
their interplay: 1) developing/ building theory-ingrained artifacts and the assembly of the so-called “method fragments” from the method base
2) evaluation of the developed artifacts. More specifically, we in order to construct a new situational method [45,48,52,53]; iii),
Fig. 1. Situational method engineering approach followed for artifacts development.

evaluation of the method in a specific project that can provide knowl- occupation. In particular, an expert has real-world gamification ex-
edge for further developments of situational methods [52]. The initial perience and shows strong interest in the subject matter, as indicated by
knowledge and method base could come from interviews with experts one of the following cues: i) speaks at an international gamification
on the phenomenon understudy or through literature reviews or pre- conference (e.g. the Gamification World Congress), ii) is a member of a
ferably both (Fig. 1). gamification association, or iii) is an active gamification “influencer” on
social media channels1). We contacted over 90 gamification experts, 25
3.1. Knowledge base of whom are located in 17 different countries (Table 2) participated in
the study [I1-I25].
In order to develop a holistic perspective on the subject matter, the The interviews conducted were semi-structured in order to ensure
method base of this study relies on two aspects: i) scholarly experiences the collection of the most relevant answers from the experts, and yet
from the literature on gamification and ii) professional experiences give room for further probing to reach rich answers to unscripted in-
from experts through interviews. The coming subsections describe the terview questions when the need was presented [63]. The first part of
sources of data for both, deriving principles for engineering gamified the interview focused on the extraction of design principles for en-
software and developing a comprehensive gamification method. gineering gamified software while the latter part focused on en-
gineering methods of gamified software. The interviews were con-
3.1.1. Literature review ducted via Skype in English and German. All interviews lasted an
In order to study the currently available gamification design average of 30 to 45 minutes and were recorded and transcribed with the
methods, we conducted a hermeneutically-oriented iterative review permission of the interviewees.
[54] that is a literature review process that employs two cycles of re- The knowledge we gathered by conducting the literature review and
view; the first involves the identification of relevant sources, keywords, analyzing the transcribed interviews was structured in tables and or-
and initial literature pieces, the second cycle involves interpretation ganized along reoccurring method activities and deliverables.
and evaluation of the obtained results from to determine their relevance
and identification of new sources. The familiarization towards the topic 3.2. Design principles for engineering gamified software
is essential for the correct operationalization and execution of method
engineering. Thus, we aimed to review all relevant literature sources We first focused the identification and collection of key design,
and included gray literature and practical outlets. which gamification methods should cover. Therefore, we synthesized
The review process was conducted in November 2015 and included the knowledge we gathered during the review and the expert interviews
the following databases: ProQuest, ACM Digital Library, AIS Electronic and compared the theoretical view with the lived experience. We
Library, IEEE Xplore Digital Library. As outlined, the first step of a summarized the result into 13 most important principles for designing
hermeneutically-oriented iterative review included the identification of gamification, presented in Table 3.
design related keywords for a systematic literature search, resulting in In the following, we describe each design principle in further depth:
the following search strings: (gamify OR gamification) AND (framework
OR model OR design OR approach). Our systematic review next iden- • DP1: A profound understanding of the users, their motivation, and
tified 468 items. In the following step, we removed duplicates and ex- needs, as well as the characteristics of the operational context, is
cluded results based on title, resulting in 247 items. A review of the fundamental for engineering gamified software. A common design
abstracts reduced the number of articles to 35. Through a backward and principle we found in the literature and interviews is, therefore, a
forward search [55] of the identified paper on the same selected da- profound analysis of the target users and the operational context in
tabases, we identified another 26 potentially relevant articles. We ap- which the software should be applied. Most of the experts re-
plied the same inclusion and exclusion criteria to focus on articles that commend focusing on users’ needs instead of business goals and
present either a process model, articulate specific design principles or stressed the importance of user involvement especially in the idea-
present other relevant information for the design of gamification. tion and design phases to ensure that a gamification design ad-
Consequently, another 6 articles were added to the literature pool. dresses actual user needs and invokes motivational experiences.
Thus, we consider a list of 41 articles (35 from the literature search + 6 • DP2: The objectives of a gamified software should be clearly de-
from back and forward searches) that include relevant information fined. We found that clear project goals are essential to (1) evaluate
about gamification. From these articles, we extract the descriptions of the success of the gamification dimension of software and (2) guide
methods, phases, activities, deliverables, and requirements. the overall engineering project. Both aspects can be found in the
In total, we found 17 gamification methods in the identified sources. literature and were mentioned frequently during the interviews.
The examination of these methods pointed towards seven main phases • DP3: Experts and literature recommend testing gamification ideas
of engineering gamified software; (1) Project preparation: All activities frequently and as early as possible so as to determine early on
that have to be executed before the project starts; (2) Analysis: whether the design underway is appropriate for the users and the
Activities that are used to identify the necessary knowledge of users, usage context or whether changes are necessary before more pro-
processes and the project itself; (3) Ideation: Activities to come up with found investments are undertaken.
ideas for gamification designs; (4) Design: Designing gamification and • DP4: Engineering gamification is seen as iterative development
creation of prototypes; (5) Implementation: deployment of a gamified process as to allow agility, relatively continuous addressment of
software; (6) Evaluation: Evaluation and testing of the software; (7) design fails, and their quick rectification, as well as continuous
Monitoring: Monitoring the performance of the software after the re- optimization of the user experience. The literature recommends
lease. These phases would be further expanded upon in the coming continuous monitoring and optimization of gamification projects as
section of this study. A summary of the identified 17 methods to en- a prerequisite for long-term success.
gineer gamified software according to these phases is presented in • DP5: The interviews canonically highlighted that gamification de-
Table 1. signers need profound knowledge in game / gamification design and
human motivation. Design methods found in the literature are a
3.1.2. Expert interviews helpful start, especially for novices, but the experts emphasized that
In order to compare and comprehend the gathered knowledge for
engineering gamified software, we also conducted interviews with ga-
mification experts. Within this study, we consider an individual an 1
The social media activity was analyzed with the service “Rise” https://www.rise.
expert based on their publicly available information about their global/gurus based on the data from October 2015.

Table 1
Summary description of gamification methods identified through the literature review.
Method Preparation Analysis Ideation Design Implementation Evaluation Monitoring Method evaluation
[56] - - Case study
[57] - No evaluation
[22] - Development workshops, case study
[29] - - No evaluation
[42] - Case study
[24] Case study
[23] No evaluation
[59] Two case studies
[61] Case study
[25] - - - No evaluation
[26] - - - No evaluation
Table 2 context, some experts stressed that gamification should be designed

Overview of interviewed experts. holistically without falling into the pitfall of using typical gamifi-
cation mechanics, such as points, badges or leaderboards, due to
Gender Frequency Locations Frequency
missing knowledge about game design and a lack of creativity. A
Male 23 USA 5 frequently applied principle is thus the work with interdisciplinary
Female 2 Germany 3 teams.
Australia
Switzerland
2
2
• DP6: Before engineering gamified software, it should be assessed
Profession Frequency Austria 1
whether gamification is the right solution for the problem at hand.
Director of a gamification 13 Argentina 1 Some practitioners mentioned that not every problem can be solved
consultancy with gamification. Especially, problems in the culture of an orga-
UX designer/gamification 7 Canada 1 nization or technical problems, such as usability obstacles, are not
consultant
necessarily correctable by the use of game features alone. On the
Gamification researcher 5 China 1
Great Britain 1 other hand, we have also to highlight that some experts did not
Finland 1 agree with such limitations, they argue that only the creativity of the
France 1 designer limit the solution space.
Israel
Italy
1
1
• DP7: According to the interviews, development projects of gamified
software often fail due to a lack of involving key stakeholders in the
Netherlands 1
Saudi Arabia 1 engineering process of gamified software, as well as a lack of un-
Singapore 1 derstanding of gamification potentials and suitability amongst key
Slovak Republic 1 stakeholders. It is thus a key principle to involve and receive the
support of stakeholders as early as possible and to ensure that all
stakeholders in the engineering process share a common under-
these methods cannot replace the knowledge, creativity, and ex-
standing of gamification and the goals of the gamified software.
perience needed to design solid gamification. The literature men-
tions this point often not explicitly but provides overviews of mo- • DP8: During ideation and design, designers of gamified software
should focus on the needs and goals of the users instead of the
tivation theories and game design principles (e.g. [23,28]). In this

Table 3
Design principles for engineering gamified software.
Design principles Literature % Interviews %
DP1. Understand the user needs, motivation and behavior, as well as the characteristics of the 22; 23; 26–30; 42; 56–58; 72 I2; I3; I4; I6; I7; I9; I11; I13; I14; 76
context 62; 64 I16-I20; I21-I25
DP2. Identify project objectives and define them clearly 23; 26–28; 30; 42; 56–58; 67 I3; I8; I11; I13; I16; I19; I21; I22; 40
60; 61; 64 I24; I25
DP 3. Test gamification design ideas as early as possible 22; 23; 27; 28; 56; 57; 60; 50 I1; I3; I4; I9; I11; I14; I18; I19; I22; 40
62; 64 I24
DP 4. Follow an iterative design process 22; 25; 27; 28; 30; 42; 57; 50 I2; I9; I10; I11; I17; I22; I18; I19 32
60; 62
DP 5. Profound knowledge in game-design and human psychology 24; 59 11 I1-I4; I6; I9-I16; I18; I20-I22; I25 72
DP 6. Assess if gamification is the right choice to achieve the objectives 23; 24; 26; 27; 42; 57 33 I1; I10; I13; I14 32
I17; I19; I22; I25
DP 7. Stakeholders and organizations must understand and support gamification 23; 57 11 I2; I3; I9; I10; I12; I13; I15-I17; I18; 48
I24; I25
DP 8. Focus on user needs during the ideation phase 23; 27; 28; 30; 57; 58 33 I6; I11; I16; I18; I22; I25 24
DP 9. Define and use metrics for the evaluation and monitoring of the success, as well as the 22; 23; 27; 28; 30; 42; 57; 50 – 0
psychological and behavioral effects of a gamification approach 58; 64
DP 10. Control for cheating / gaming-the-system 23; 26; 27; 30; 42; 57; 64; 44 – 0
65
DP 11. Manage and monitor to continuously optimize the gamification design 22; 23; 26; 28; 30; 57; 62 39 I19 4
DP 12. Consider legal and ethical constraints in the design phase 23; 27; 30; 42 22 – 0
DP 13. Involve users in the ideation and design phase – 0 I1; I4; I11; I19; I22 20
% relative proportion to the number of considered sources within the literature or the interviews
organizational or business needs behind. Often there is a mismatch 3.3. Method base
between user goals and organizational goals however it is important
again to emphasize that the motivational outcomes of gamification According to method engineering [45] and the research process
depend especially on the fulfillment of user needs. followed by this work as indicated in Fig. 1, we utilized the thus far
• DP9: Metrics should be identified at the start of the engineering gathered knowledge base of methods and developed a list of design
process and utilized to evaluate the performance of the gamified principles to be utilized in the construction of a structured method base.
software. Clear metrics are important to be able to evaluate and In the method base, we first documented a corresponding process-de-
monitor the effects of gamification features and to determine whe- liverable-diagram (PDD) [45,47,48] for each identified method in the
ther adjustments in the game mechanics are needed (e.g. to prevent literature. A PDD describes the activities and phases of a design method
cheating or to balance mechanics). In addition, metrics are im- on the left side and corresponding deliverables as outcomes of those
portant to evaluate the success of a gamification feature with regard activities on the right side. The PDDs were supported by tables sum-
to the intended objectives. Some interviews revealed that in practice marizing the activities and deliverables involved in each design
gamification projects are often planned with a small budget and method. In addition to these PDDs, we also developed a PDD for each
limited timeframe. In these cases, practitioners typically focus on gamification engineering procedure described in the conducted expert
the ideation, design and development phases to develop a minimum interviews. The constructed PDDs were next analyzed, consolidated and
viable product. However, also in these cases, metrics should not be compared.
neglected to be able to evaluate the success and effects of gamifi- In total, we collected 57 activities from scientific literature, 64 ac-
cation features. tivities from practical outlets and grey literature, and 38 activities from
• DP10: The literature [23,26,27,30,42,57,64,65] recommends con- the conducted expert interviews. Each activity was allocated to a par-
trolling and curbing for cheating/gaming the system as it can re- ticular process phase and lead to a deliverable or a partial deliverable.
verse the effects of gamification and discourage users. However, Following a top-down approach, we first compared the phases of the
some experts reported that cheating could also help to better un- analyzed methods and then the activities of these phases. Next, we
derstand the users and to optimize gamification designs accordingly. developed several comparison tables in which we grouped and ag-
• DP11: Continuous monitoring and optimization of the gamified gregated similar phases and activities. Further, we printed all devel-
software is a common principle to ensure that the gamification de- oped PDDs, activities, their phases, and source and clustered them vi-
sign continues to be relevant to the needs for the growing and sually to support the analyses taking place. Additionally, we visually
changing user base of the gamified software. Needs of the users may identified and highlighted the occurrence of the identified design
change as they tenure and as new groups start to utilize the devel- principles the phases and activities being analyzed.
oped software. Based on the gathered method fragments and previously derived
• DP12: Gamified software could fail if legal and ethical constraints design principles, we assembled our new method for gamification en-
are not considered in the design phase. This is essential to ensure no gineering as a synthesis of the identified phases and activities in the
infringements to for example the intellectual rights of others, as is method base. While assembling the method, we ensured that the pre-
the case in any development work. Especially, when gamification is viously identified design principles are reflected in the method (see
applied in enterprise software, literature highlight that development Table 3 for the design principles and Table 4 for their mapping to the
projects should focus such constraints [23,27,30,42]. new method phases). As seen in Table 4, some design principles were
• DP13: Involvement of users during the ideation and design phases reflected in more than one method phase depending on the activities of
possibly through regular user tests was mentioned as an often-ap- the method phase in question.
plied design principle so as to ensure that the design is tailored to
the needs of the users. This principle is strongly related to the 3.4. Assembled method for engineering gamified software
principles (1) and (3) but was highlighted by some interviewed
experts as a separate point. It became clear from our knowledge base, that most methods to
engineer gamified software follow similar phases, with substantial

Table 4 be focused on user needs and motivational problems, rather than on

Mapping of identified design principles (DPs) to phases of contributed gamification en- business objectives [I18, I19]. In accordance to DP6, in this phase, it
gineering method.
should be assessed whether gamification is applicable and suitable to
Method phase Design principles reflected in the method achieve the identified objectives in the given situation.
phase The identified objectives should be used to guide the engineering
process and manage expectations [I10, I12, I16, I17, I21]. The inter-
1. Project preparation DPs: 2, 6, 7, 9.
views indicated that a project plan with defined objectives, require-
2. Analysis of context and users DP: 1.
3. Ideation DPs: 8, 13. ments and conditions, such as budget, duration, project team etc. is a
4. Design DPs 3, 4, 5, 12, 13. typical outcome of this phase [I15, I16, I20, I21, I22, I24]. Some re-
5. Implementation of design DPs 4, 11, 13. searchers [39,62] further emphasize the creation of a vision statement
6. Evaluation DP: 9. and initial sketches to better communicate the software objectives
7. Monitoring DPs: 9, 10, 11.
among the stakeholders (DP7). The knowledge we gathered from lit-
erature and experts further revealed that soft factors, such as the as-
differences in the engineering details across them. As illustrated in surance of support from relevant stakeholders [I3, I10, I14, I21] and
section (3.1); the activities of the methods extracted from the literature expectation management [I10, I12, I16, I17, I21] should be clarified
and next reflected upon through expert interviews can be divided into from the beginning of the engineering process.
seven phases: (1) Project preparation, (2) Analysis, (3) Ideation, (4) According to the interviews, this phase should always be applied
Design, (5) Implementation, (6) Evaluation, (7) Monitoring. We have when developing gamified software. Although the outcomes – in terms
accordingly constructed a method for engineering gamified software by of the defined objectives for each project and the project condition –
drawing on the key principles we identified above and the method can differ significantly between various gamification projects, this en-
fragments in the method base. The final method, including an overview gineering step is generally present in all projects and commonly needs
of its activities and deliverables, can be found in the Appendix. no further situational adaption [I13, I16, I17, I21, I22].
3.4.1. Project preparation

3.4.2. Analysis (of context and users)
Development projects for gamified software should start with the
According to DP1, a profound understanding of the target group of
project preparation and the creation of a project plan. Fig. 2 illustrates
the gamified software, as well as the contextual characteristics of the
activities that are part of this phase. In line with DP 2, the main purpose
software to be gamified is of particular importance to design gamified
of this phase is to clarify the objectives of the gamification project.
software (Fig. 3). Relevant literature provides detailed guidelines to
Eleven gamification methods in the reviewed publications and nearly
support the activities of the user and context analysis
all interviewed experts recommend deriving goals that could be used to
[22,23,27–29,57,62]. Most of the reviewed literature on the design of
measure the success of the gamified software as is communicated in
gamification has put significant emphasis on understanding the users,
DP9. Therefore, activities such as the definition, ranking, and justifi-
but it has largely neglected the importance of understanding the con-
cation of project objectives are recommended (cf. [27]). Nearly all
text-specific requirements of the gamified software. Only a few studies
experts confirmed these procedures in practice and emphasized that
provide details on the analysis of the serious application area (e.g.
“many companies have a rough idea of what they want to do, but such a
[22,56,61]). Furthermore, we found that the definition of success me-
rough idea should be clearly defined in terms of what the objectives
trics should be conducted in this phase. Metrics provide ways through
from gamification are and how they can be measured” [I17]. The in-
which the performance of gamified software could be quantified in
terviews highlighted that defining clear objectives are important and an
order to evaluate its actual performance [22] such as metrics for player
essential activity when engineering gamified software (Table 3). Some
activity, behavioral measures or extent of behavioral change [57].
experts additionally highlighted that the identification of goals should
User analysis should focus on the definition and characterization of
Fig. 2. Activities of the preparation phase. Fig. 3. Activities of the analysis phase.

target groups, to collect and analyze information about the potential obtained, the next step is to develop a gamification design. Surprisingly,
users of the gamified system, several methods were suggested. These we found that several published methods as indicated in Table 1, do not
including user interviews [22], observations [I8, I2, I18], measure- describe this core activity in detail. Most of the gamification methods
ments of actual user behavior [27], [I18, I22], analysis of behavior identified promote gamification through the creation of engaging
chains [22], surveys [62] diaries and focus groups [25], [I21]. All of challenges by the use of design feature known form games (e.g.
these methods were also brought up by the interviewees of our study. [24,27,28,58,60,61]). Usually, game elements such as points, badges or
Following user analysis, a typical outcome is the segmentation and leaderboards are considered as game features. In addition, some au-
description of the target group of the gamified software. Different ap- thors also consider game mechanics such as rules and dependencies that
proaches could be utilized to describe and cluster user groups, such as define the gameplay, game dynamics that form the interaction between
creating personas (fictional characters that represent specific user a user and a game, as well as narrative aspects [1,36]. DP 8, drawn from
types) [28,30,62] or categorizations according to known player (gamer) the majority of identified methods, emphasizes the selection of game
types [26]. In addition to the identification of the demographic char- features - particularly game elements - which match previously iden-
acterization of the target group [25], the identification of motivational tified user needs and promote desired user behavior as a core approach
factors, needs, and user goals has been especially highlighted in nearly for engineering gamified software. Some argue for the use of game
all gamification methods and expert interviews. The interviews confirm features, such as rewards, points, badges, leaderboards or storytelling,
that the development of user personas is a common practice [I12-I14, as building blocks [30], and assume that the combination of these
I18, I21, I23] (e.g. [27–29,57,62]) and that user groups segmentation building blocks with goals of the real context would invoke engaging
through the use of segmentation frameworks, such as player types [66] challenges and motivate goal-oriented behavior (e.g. do activity X to
or the Octalysis Framework2 could be beneficial for determining the unlock badge Y). Furthermore, some authors recommend aligning
characteristics and intrinsic motivational needs characterizing the tar- several game features, in order to promote repeated performance
geted user group. Experts, however, caution that the target user groups (“engagement loops”) along with a “player journey” [23,27,30]. How-
may be very large and heterogenic, which can result in an ineffective ever, the detailed process of selecting and combining gamification
user analysis [I8, I25]. In such cases, the experts recommended con- building blocks in order to design a gamified software often lacks de-
ducting a user analysis without the development of personas that fo- scriptive details and only a few authors provide information on the
cuses on general user needs and motivations, such as the need for mapping of game features to user's needs [22,28]. However, as the
competence satisfaction [1,22] (see Appendix A). majority of the interviews showed that in practice gamification is a
On the other hand, context analysis is characterized by the identi- creative and iterative design process, we believe that the use of fra-
fication and understanding of the context, where gamification should meworks that define strict guidelines for the use of gamification
be applied. This analysis is particularly important in organizational building blocks may harm the needed creativity for its design.
contexts where the understanding of business processes, corporate The interviews, on the other hand, indicated that the design of ga-
culture, and technological constraints is often mentioned as a key re- mification is a creative process that requires an ideation phase. The
quirement to successfully design suitable gamified software [I6, I12, interviewees suggested that practice pays more attention to this crea-
I15, I17, I24]. An interviewee suggested the creation of process models tive process, and thus practitioner tend to develop comprehensive lists
and scenario analysis as approaches to context analysis in gamification of gamification design ideas during their work. The interviews indicate
engineering (I17, cf. [67]). Another interviewee recommended the that the first step to developing such lists is typically an iterative
creation of user journeys in order to better understand and plan the brainstorming activity (with the goal to come up with a large amount of
behavior of the users within a given context ([I22], cf. [54]). However, ideas) [I17, I19] cf. [22,23,60]. Explorative brainstorming has been
the experts interviewed agreed that context analysis seems to be more highlighted as an important approach to understand the so-called
important in practice than it is emphasized upon in the academic lit- “design space” (i.e. the space of possible design alternatives) [I17, I19,
erature. Even so, an expert highlighted that industry partners often do 7]. Some experts stressed the importance of coming up with an epic
not fully understand why a user analysis should be conducted [I17]. theme or a narrative to guide brainstorming and glue design elements
Many experts mentioned that a thorough context and user analysis is a together ([I1, I7, I8, I11, I21, I24], cf. [28]). Some interviewees re-
key activity when designing gamified software (Table 3). However, commended focusing brainstorming on the fulfillment of user's needs,
both activities are interwoven. For example, depending on the context, desired behavior, and target outcome, rather than on the technology or
a designer has to determine the granularity of the user analysis and game elements to be employed by the gamified software [I11, I14, I22,
segmentation. Furthermore, the investigation of the context can reveal I24]. This view has also been adopted in current theoretical and con-
much information about the user and vice versa. A novel approach, ceptual views of gamification [1]. Eventually, ideas are usually con-
called “activity-challenge-motivation triplets” proposed by [22] at- solidated in order to create a list of ideas for the upcoming design phase
tempts to combine both user and context analysis and focuses on the [I17, I19, I22] [22,62] (Fig. 4).
identification of challenges and user motivation within a given context Nearly all interviewed experts reported that they follow frame-
thus emphasizing the importance of both types of analyses (user and works, such as the User-Centered Design framework [25,68], Design
context analysis). Thinking [I2, I11, I15, I16-I22, I25] [23], the Octalysis Framework3 [I6,
Both, the user and the context analysis are essential activities in any I11, I12, I21], the Playful Experience framework (PLEX) [69] [I19],
gamification project (DP1). However, their execution can be strongly Lazzaro's 4 Keys 2 Fun4 [I16, I21] or the Person-Artifact-Task (PAT)
influenced by situational factors. For instance, the feasibility to identify model [42,70] in order to guide ideation. Five experts additionally
user needs and to develop personas, as introduced above differs de- mentioned the importance of user involvement in the ideation phase, in
pending on the size and complexity of the gamification project. order to ensure the focus on user needs (cf. DP13). Interviewees also
Therefore, designers should carefully evaluate whether the activities of mentioned the use of creative techniques, such as “brainwriting”, or
this phase can be performed as outlined or need to be adapted to the “proxy thinking” and “bodystorming” where a prototype of gamified
respective context of their project [45]. software is imagined to already have been implemented in order to
perceive the implications of its use in its intended use context. Such
practices could be carried out in workshops with users, designers and
3.4.3. Ideation
Once an analysis of user and context characteristics has been
3
http://octalysisgroup.com.
2 4
http://octalysisgroup.com. http://www.nicolelazzaro.com/the4-keys-to-fun/.

Fig. 4. Activities of the ideation phase.
other stakeholders [I15-I17, I20].

To support designer, we supplemented this phase of the engineering
process with an overview of the techniques, tools, and frameworks that
may support the ideation, presented in Table 5. For example, five ex-
perts mentioned that the playing of games and the discussion of me-
Fig. 5. Activities of the design phase.
chanics in board and video games could stimulate ideation. The lit-
erature provides additional approaches. For instances, [22] proposes
the use of “innovation stems” that inspire prompts to guide and engage system design in order for the designers to be able to understand all
brainstorming (e.g. “How might we spark a sense of pride in an as- dimensions of this phase and to effectively communicate with all sta-
sembling process?”). keholders coming from diverse backgrounds. As the activities in the
ideation and design phase are multifaceted, collaboration in inter-
disciplinary teams is a common principle (Table 3), particularly in these
3.4.4. Design phases.
After collecting ideas, concrete gamification designs for the software
can be developed. This step is strongly related to the ideation phase and
focuses on the elaboration of “playable” prototypes to evaluate the ef- 3.4.5. Implementation of a design
fectiveness of a particular gamification idea. DP3 reflects the literature The majority of the methods in the reviewed body of literature
and interviewees, recommending the rapid development of prototypes contain an implementation phase (Fig. 6). However, little information
(e.g. in form of paper prototypes, sketches or wireframes [22,59,60]), about the details of its execution is found. It can be summarized that the
[I7, I8, I14, I19, I21, I22] and several sources as reflected in DP4 purpose and outcome of this phase are the carrying out of a pilot, which
highlight that successful gamification arises from an iterative design can be used for field evaluation of the gamified software [42], [I15, I22,
process (Table 3), in which ideas and designs are frequently tested and I24]. The interviews suggest that proceeding within this phase is de-
improved until they seem to be efficient and promising to reach the termined by the decision to either (A) develop the gamified software
previously defined goals in accordance with DP13 [22,25,56]. While through an in-house team, (B) employ external developers or (C) adapt
the type of the developed and evaluated prototypes in this phase can the design to an existing off-the-shelf gamification platform. While
vary depending on the considered context, most experts preferred such various platform solutions for different enterprise scenarios exist, such
an iterative proceeding for any kind of gamification project. as innovation communities, enterprise social software or employee
The literature [42,62] and 3 experts [I3, I17, I22] suggested training, other cases may require the development of individual solu-
creating a development concept as the outcome of this phase (Fig. 5). tions. Most experts reported that they usually build gamification solu-
This development concept should contain all the relevant information tions within their own team. Some reported that they use external de-
for the implementation of the gamified software designed. The inter- velopers [I10, I17, I21, I22] or the developers of a client [I10, I13, I14,
viewees also reported that sometimes an engineering transition takes I17, I21, I22]. A few times, the use of available gamification platforms
place at the end of this phase, during which, the gamification designer was mentioned ([I22], cf. [59,60]). The decision depends on the con-
hands the project over to a team of developers to continue the process sidered context; thus, it might be suitable to adapt the activities of this
[59]. DP12 additionally dictates the consideration of legal and ethical phase to a particular project scenario [45]. While platform solutions
constraints that affect the design. Due to the different activities in this typically provide pattern and best practices for the implementation of
phase (Fig. 5), several experts mentioned that gamification designer gamification features in a specific scenario, several sources recommend
requires interdisciplinary skills, such as communicated by DP5, in- an iterative procedure (DP4) in development cycles to ensure quick
dicating that gamification design requires a profound understanding of identification and assessment of technical issues when developing in-
human motivation, game design, business processes and information dividual gamification solutions [27,60]. In the latter, continued user
Table 5
Ideation toolbox used in practice.
Tools Purpose
Board and video games Playing of games and discussion of game mechanics can stimulate general ideation [I1, I2, I10, I14, I25], [62].
Design lenses Design lenses [22] provide a special perspective on a design space to guide ideation and design in a particular direction [I2, I6, I11, I16].
Design cards Design cards mostly contain design lenses, such as basic human needs that are to be fulfilled by the software under development. Designers
usually utilize them randomly and playfully during brainstorming to come up with ideas [I2, I8, I11, I16, I17, I19], cf. [69].
Visualizations Visualizations (e.g. process models) are used to simplify, visualize and understand the relationships between users and their behavior in the
considered environment [I11], cf. [67].
Game design patterns Commonly recurring designs in games are often used as a foundation to develop ideas for gamification [I7, I8, I9] (see [2,17,28,30]).
Story cubes Story dices are dices with different icons, which are typically used to support storytelling in general. The story narrated through these dices,
in turn, can be used as starting point to develop gamification themes and subsequent design [I8, I11], cf. [28].
Canvases Canvases can help to communicate ideas, identify weaknesses and compare gamification designs in a systematic manner. [I5, I16, I17, I22]
(e.g. [29]).
Decision trees They provide decision support and guidance for the selection of game elements and mechanics [I18], cf. [25].
Best practice/gamification patterns Best practices and recurring gamification design patterns are used as starting points for ideation [I14, I22, I24], cf. [23,24,27,30,57].

Fig. 8. Activities of the monitoring phase.
that practitioners often see gamified software as classical software en-

gineering projects with a clear start and end [I17]. Therefore, mon-
Fig. 6. Activities of the implementation phase. itoring and management are often not planned or budgeted for in
practice [I12, I14, I15, I21]. However, this is not an ideal practice as the
and playtesting after development cycles, is a recommended practice to impact of game features may vary, based on the user characteristics and
evaluate and optimize the designed gamification, ensuring its effec- the usage duration [71]. More than half of the experts emphasize that
tivity and success (DP11). An interviewee additionally emphasized the gamification projects should not be considered as typical software en-
importance of project management practices and recommended the gineering projects with a clear end. “A successful gamification project
involvement of gamification experts within the development process should never end because it will become part of how the organization
[I14]. works” [I3]. Most experts recommend a monitoring phase during which
system usage is investigated in regular intervals. The collected data is
used to evaluate the implemented gamification design, to identify ir-
3.4.6. Evaluation regularities and to check whether the desired user behavior is achieved
The aim of the evaluation phase (Fig. 7) is to investigate, whether in accordance with DP9. Based on the gathered insights, gamification
the developed gamified software meets its predefined objectives from mechanics, rules and contents should be tweaked in order to keep the
phase (1) and to use the set metrics for gamification evaluation in ac- system engaging and adaptive to changing objectives and user needs.
cordance with DP9. Several approaches to evaluate a gamification de- One way gamified software should be tweaked or adapted is to ensure
sign can be found in the literature. These range from quantitative to that activities that lead to cheating the systems are controlled (DP10). A
qualitative approaches [24,42,58,61,62]. The interviewed experts re- typical outcome of this phase (Fig. 8) is a list of improvements (e.g.
ported that they typically conduct interviews [I9, I12, I19, I21, I22, adaption of parameters in the implemented software [I4, I21] or a plan
I25], surveys [I1, I22, I25] of users, to analyze their perception and for a new release [I2, I14]). Furthermore, the use of A/B-testing has
interpret usage data [I19] or conduct A/B-testing [I18, I23], to de- been mentioned and can be utilized to continuously optimizes the
termine the differences between a gamified and a non-gamified version parameters of gamification [I11, I19].
or to evaluate the effects of different gamification interventions.
Moreover, playtesting was one of the most mentioned evaluation
4. Artifacts evaluation
methods. Playtesting refers to the observation of users while under-
taking a task in a game [22,42]. Several experts have highlighted that
observing user behavior is more effective than interviewing them about We evaluated the developed artifacts in a twofold manner: 1) we
their behavior, as users experience difficulties in accurately describing conducted expert interviews [31] and 2) we utilized the developed
their lived experiences verbally [I7, I11, I18, I21]. These difficulties method in a software engineering project as a case study -oriented
may include the inability to articulate experience or the unintentional evaluation, following Runeson and Höst [72].
communication of perceptions different from the reality of what the
users have experienced. Another evaluation technique is the use of a 4.1. Experts evaluation
service quality model to measure the effectiveness of the gamified
software as a service provided to end users [58]. Unfortunately, the 4.1.1. Participants
experts stressed that in commissioned work, evaluation is often done in All the 25 interviewed gamification experts who participated in the
a lean manner or omitted altogether, since often no budget is set aside interviews for the method development were invited to participate
for the evaluation phase [I15-I17, I21, I22]. In these cases, the pilot is again in a method evaluation interview. Ten experts agreed to evaluate
just launched. the developed method [E1-E10]. Table 6 gives an overview of the
participants.
3.4.7. Monitoring
While gamification may be perceived as a (never-ending) iterative 4.1.2. Procedure
process of design, development, evaluation, monitoring, and adaption The interviews were conducted via Skype and lasted for approxi-
[28] in accordance with DP11, the reviewed gamification methods have mately 30 min. The interviews commenced with a comprehensive in-
largely omitted this aspect. Most simply recommend a launch and post- troduction to the developed design principles, as well as the developed
launch monitoring (see [22] for an overview). The interviews indicate method and then, both artifacts were extensively discussed with the
experts. The interview discussions contained both, structured questions
to generally evaluate the method as a unit and semi-structured ques-
tions through which the developed gamification method and the design
principles were discussed more in-depth through probing.
The structured questions were based on established frameworks for
the evaluation of method quality [73,74]. According to Kitchenham
Fig. 7. Activity of the evaluation phase.
et al. [73], we focused the methods’ semantic quality (feasible

Table 6 appropriate solution.

Overview of interviewed experts in the evaluation of the method. The evaluation of the method via expert interviews revealed posi-
tive quality results regarding all three evaluated dimensions of
Gender Frequency Locations Frequency
Kitchenham et al. [73]. All interviewees confirmed that the developed
Male 9 USA 2 method is understandable and the selected presentation format supports
Female 1 Australia 1 its comprehensibility. However, two experts highlighted that a funda-
Switzerland 1
mental understanding of gamification is required before following this
Argentina 1
Profession Frequency Canada 1 method at hand [E4, E9]. Nine of ten experts agreed that the con-
Director of a gamification 6 China 1 tributed method is complete and contains all relevant steps. Two experts
consultancy criticized the method for providing little assistance in the choice of
UX designer/gamification 3 Israel 1 gamification elements [E4, E9]. However, as the majority of the in-
consultant
terviews showed that in practice gamification is a creative and iterative
Gamification researcher 1 Saudi Arabia 1
Slovak Republic 1 design process, we suggest that the use of frameworks that define strict
guidelines may harm the creative design process. If more support is
sought, we refer to the overview of methods, tools, and frameworks
completeness and validity), pragmatic quality (feasible comprehension collected in Table 5. Small recommendations from the experts included:
and understandability) and practical utility. First we asked the inter- i) the need to emphasize the importance of the user journey in order to
viewees if they believed that the method covers the whole gamification invite designers to think about long-term engagement with the gamified
engineering process comprehensively (feasible completeness); second we software [E8], ii) the aspect that problems during implementation can
checked whether the experts perceive the method and its statements as lead to a new design iteration [E2], or iii) that budget should be con-
correct and valid (feasible validity); third we asked if the method pro- sidered during the ideation phase to ensure realistic ideation [E4]. In
cedures are easy to understand (feasible understandability); fourth we general, the artifacts received positive feedback with three experts
evaluated whether the method is presented in an understandable form willing to test them in their work or compare their typical proceeding
(feasible comprehension); fifth we asked the experts if they would use the with the developed method [E2, E6, E7]. Nine out of ten experts agreed
method in their work or for education (practical utility). Based on the that a gamification engineering project is likely to be successful using
transcribed interviews we comprehensively analyzed the participants’ the method - assuming that it was executed correctly - and confirmed its
overall agreement or disagreement with these questions and the more high practical utility.
open discussion of the design principles, the method, and its fragments.
4.2. Case study evaluation of the method
4.1.3. Evaluation results
Overall, the experts who participated in the evaluation confirmed The method developed in this paper can be seen as a method of
that the identified design principles in Table 3, approved them as best methods since it synthesizes prior frameworks and knowledge on ga-
practices and agreed that they were incorporated into the developed mification design that has accumulated during the past 5–7 years. This
method. Most discussions were centered around DP4 which argues that fact may not have necessitated the empirical validation of the method
engineering gamified software should follow an iterative design process as it already is composed of elements and methods fragments validated
and DP7 that states that stakeholders and organizations must under- in a prior stream of accumulated knowledge on designing gamification.
stand and support gamification. The experts agreed that design and However, the most crucial aspect that warranted a practical validation
development should be iterative, however, two experts highlighted that next to the expert evaluation is the need to evaluate the holistic prac-
commissioned work does not always allow an iterative procedure [E8, ticality of the assemblage.
E10] and instead, mainly recommended adherence to DP3 that ad-
vocates the testing of gamified software early. When discussing DP7, 4.2.1. Case study design and objectives
one expert highlighted that it is more important that stakeholders To conduct a practical evaluation of the method as described, we
support gamification rather than understand it [E4]. This expert re- utilized it in a gamified software engineering project, that has been
ported that they typically involve stakeholders in the design process conducted in cooperation with a large German engineering company. In
(DP13) consequently providing an introduction to stakeholders as to selecting the company and subsequently the case study, we aimed to
what gamification is and what it is not [E4]. Two experts completely identify an environment in which there was a need to develop a ga-
disagreed with DP7 and stated that “often the organizations don't even mified software and allowed a research cooperation under which we
want to know what will be done in detail, they are just interested in could evaluate the developed method. The aim of the software devel-
achieving specific goals with gamification” [E2; E9]. All other experts opment project was to develop a gamified crowdsourcing application
highly agreed that DP7 is important. Experts additionally agreed that it that motivates people to share parking space information and create an
should be determined whether gamification is the appropriate design or interactive map of parking spots, allowing people to easily see the lo-
not at the outset of a project (DP6). However, different opinions were cation and conditions of on-street parking spaces across a city. We
expressed about the situation where this activity should be carried out. chose this context since the sharing of parking information is a task that
[E4] mentioned that in some cases the decision to gamify software is is not fundamentally engaging while very effective in city management
often made before a project starts hence the project is already estab- and could facilitate an integral aspect of the daily life of drivers. We
lished with that purpose. [E1] highlighted that the current position of hence identified a need to employ motivating mechanics through ga-
the “assess if gamification is applicable” activity in the method is cor- mification in order to positively influence the sharing of parking in-
rect, but in some cases, context knowledge might be needed in order to formation. Consequently, the engineering of a gamified software for
assess if gamification is the right choice. Therefore, he noted that de- such a challenging context can thus easily show whether an approach to
pending on the situation, this activity might also be carried out after the its engineering is effective or not by evaluating the extent to which it
context analysis. Thus, situating the developed method to a particular provided enough engagement for users to participate in such a service.
project might be needed with regards to the sequencing of some pro-
cedures that are part of the method. Another expert shared the opinion 4.2.2. Procedures
that software can be gamified almost always [E2] as the creativity of The project was conducted by an interdisciplinary team of seven
the designer creates the borders and hence the expert did not perceive a members, including two designers, three programmers, one software
need for an activity to determine whether gamification is the architect, one marketing/ business development expert, and one project

manager. One of the authors of this paper was involved in the project to determined that gamification was a suitable solution as that was the
examine the applicability of the method. According to the contributed criteria for selecting the case study. That meant that in line with some
gamification engineering method, the team started with the preparation experts, activity parts of stage one of the method could take place be-
phase. The team carried out a workshop with three stakeholders of the fore the start of the project or the utilization of the method. Holistically,
engineering company (two business development experts and a user- the expert interviews and the practical evaluation of the method in-
experience expert), two car drivers and a local retailer. In this work- dicate that the method is useful, easy to use and implement in practice
shop, the team has identified, prioritized and justified the project ob- as well as that the assemblage and organization of the method can re-
jectives. Subsequently, the team developed a project plan including an levantly and appropriately guide a gamification software projects stages
estimated budget, an overview of the required skills in the development and proceedings.
team, and an initial milestone list. Further, the team clarified the re-
quirements of personal data collection, operational success criteria, the 4.3. Threats to validity
possible use of open source tools and libraries and the possible em-
ployment of the app by the stakeholders of the case company. A closer The main objective of the present study was to bring validity, re-
look at the company culture was not relevant for the project. liability, and rigidity to the emerging and sprawling discussion on how
Next, the team conducted the context and user analysis phase. In gamification should be designed and implemented. In order to rigor-
that phase, the design context of on-street parking mapping in colla- ously ground this pursuit of unified knowledge in the field, this study
boration with city-planners of several large German cities was carefully conducted the most comprehensive review of prior design frameworks
analyzed. Existing solutions were analyzed by reviewing 13 existing as well as interviewed recognized experts of the area. Through careful
parking apps and services, as well as by a survey of 117 potential users processes of qualitative analysis and design science (see Fig. 1), a ga-
of the app. This investigation of the gamification context assisted in the mification engineering method was produced which combines aspects
identification of different user groups and in the characterization of of the prior discussions that have been regarded as the most important
potential contributors that might share parking information in the app aspects of gamification design. The method was further evaluated
(see e.g. [17,75] on gamified crowdsourcing). Further, the team con- through both its use in a real gamification initiative as well as through
ducted user surveys and interviews with focus groups to understand more expert interviews. However, it is also important to assess the
potential users of the app and in particular their needs and motivations. validity and reliability of the present study; its research procedures and
Based on the insights from the user and context analysis, the team results [76]. The study consisted of four points of gathering data (before
developed four personas (altruists, drivers, gamers, tinkerer). As part of assembling the method: 1. expert interviews and 2. systematic literature
the ideation phase, the team conducted several workshop sessions. The search as well as after assembling the method; 3. expert interviews and
playing and analysis of especially context-related board and video 4. a case study of applying the method in a real-world gamification
games, such as Monopoly® or SimCity, along with the examination of design scenario) and five points of separable data analysis portions (A.
typical gamification design patterns helped the team to come up with a analysis of expert interview data before the assemblage, B. literature
list of gamification ideas. Based on the consolidated ideas, the team analysis, C. the assembly of the method itself, D. expert interview data
iteratively developed prototypes following an agile scrum approach. In analysis after the assemblage and E. analysis of the case study).
the first iteration, the team developed and evaluated a paper prototype Both, the data gathering and data analysis, conducted as part of this
with printouts of maps, post-its, paper money and lego-figures. Next, study present threats to the validity of the results [77,78]. Threats to
the team developed several sets of wireframes and an initial app pro- the generalizability of results can arise from data collections that are
totype using HTML and JavaScript.5 Finally, the project was transferred not conducted systematically and representatively. Thus, we conducted
to a professional team of game developers, who are currently working a hermeneutically-oriented systematic literature review and inter-
on a market-ready pilot of the app.6 According to the initially identified viewed a broad international group of experts with different profes-
operational requirements for the application, the developed prototypes sions. However, as the participants were self-selected, the population of
were tested regularly: first through a small test group with 10 users and interviewees might represent a population with a strong positive affi-
qualitative feedback, and afterward through a larger field test. nity toward sharing their experiences. This may have prevented us from
gathering data on methods that are considered by their authors as
special intellectual property or not to sharable in a research setting.
4.2.3. Analysis and findings Further, the nature of interviews as data collection methods [77] and
Overall, we found that the method developed through this research common issues in interpersonal communication may have influenced
showed great promise in the gamification software project it was im- the collected data and the procedure of its collection [77,79]. To ensure
plemented in. The developed gamified application was successful in a correct mutual understanding of the interviewer and the interviewees,
meeting its development objectives of creating a map of parking in- we have used open questions, allowing for clarification discussions to
formation through crowdsourcing. In a three-month period, a total of emerge and both parties have dug deeper in the discussion of the an-
372 users in several large German cities used the gamification appli- swers if it was needed.
cation developed. Parking information (e.g. price information, location, The analysis of the gathered data by the interviews and literature
restrictions) for more than 7000 street segments have been shared by review was conducted meticulously and systematic. However, as typical
the users of the app, which indicates that the proposed method indeed in qualitative research the gathered data has to be interpreted, which to
supported us to develop functional gamified software.5 some degree influence the results of the analysis and thus the devel-
With regards to the practicality, order, and structure of the method, opment of the method. To control for internal validity, first, the analysis
the development team along with the business partners experienced a was conducted by multiple researchers to minimize the influences of
sense of ease and understanding of what is to take place next with re- individual biases through a collective process, as proposed by [77].
gards to the management of the project. The procedures of the method Second, the research process and results were continuously assessed,
were followed in order and a need was not uncovered to change the not only to ensure internal validity but to further ensure the reliability
structure or flow of the method. The only exception being that at the of the research and findings. Third, we evaluated our results through
first stages of the project and utilization of the method, it was already interviews with independent experts and through a practical validation
with a large, German company. This adds to the internal and external
5
See http://parking-app.de for more information about the first app prototype and its
validity of the research, especially that practitioners specifically would
field test. be concerned with the utility and practicality of our findings. Moreover,
6
See https://parkineers.com more information about the pilot. the situational nature of the method allows practitioners to adapt the

method to context, making this method a scaffold method of methods, elements and game mechanics to employ in gamification is often
which is generic enough to be tailored to various situated needs, which thought of as a creative and brainstorming-based activity in practice,
adds to the external validity of the results. unlike what is advised in prior literature [22]. Compared to previously
The conducted method evaluation itself further presents some va- published methods that often lack a detailed description of the creative
lidity and reliability threats although it was employed to control some ideation and design phases (e.g. [24,25,27,30,58,61]), we have sepa-
threats. Since the primary evaluation of the method was done by in- rated the ideation phase in our method from the design phase to further
terviews, the same threats appeared as discussed in the context of data emphasize its importance and we have collected a set of tools and
collection through expert interviews. The case study evaluation adds to frameworks that have been employed in practice to assist with brain-
the generalizability of the results but also provides some threats. In storming, ideation and design without providing a strict procedure so as
order to control for the reliability of the results, only one of the authors to allow for designer creativity (Table 5). We further highlighted that
of this paper was involved in the case evaluation to examine the ap- developers designing gamification are urged to attain a holistic, mul-
plicability of the method in addition to other six members who have tifaceted and profound understanding of game design during gamifi-
been involved in carrying out the project associated with the evaluation cation engineering, rather than relying on pre-defined lists of possible
of the method. game mechanics they can merely introduce to their software.
Overall, the literature review, expert interviews and practical vali- Engineering gamification should be seen as a situational and itera-
dation conducted as part of this research shed novel insights on the tive development process with a high degree of user involvement and
overall nature of gamified software engineering discourse in both, early testing of design ideas [22,25,27,28,30,42,57,60,62]. While
academia and practice. However, as with any research work, the lim- iterative and user-centric designs are hardly novel approaches in soft-
itations of this work provide various avenues for future research: First, ware development in general, our data is canonical about the im-
the evaluation of the method took place in one context only, further portance of situationally and iterativeness, since gamification applica-
research is recommended to continue on the practical evaluation of the tions are exceedingly complex information systems. Iterative
method in order to draw more insight on their practicability and their development and early testing, as in our method, can support the design
situated nature. It would further be interesting to compare evaluations of complex game approaches. Due to the early evaluation of design
of the artifacts in various software areas and to see whether they are ideas, possible psychological and behavioral outcomes could be iden-
universally applicable or whether special considerations and mod- tified, even if the underlying psychological processes are not completely
ification may be needed for their use depending on the software en- clear to the designer.
gineering area. We hence recommend research to further uncover It is not enough to execute the gamification design in a technically
guidelines that would assist in the utilization of this gamification en- stellar manner but also the manifold and multidimensional aspects of
gineering method in different contexts. Secondly, evaluation of the use context, user psychology and engagement have to guide the design
of the contributed design principle as spate guidelines for the en- [1,22]. The objective of gamification - affecting human behavior - re-
gineering of gamification software did not take place. Future research quires a comprehensive understanding of the user, the desired behavior
could explore the extent to which the design principles could on their and the context in which the user behavior take place. Therefore, be-
own be usefully employed to develop successful gamified software and sides the user analysis that can be found in most previous methods, the
whether they hold across an engineering contexts. Third, while the present method particularly emphasized the importance of the context
contributed engineering method is a scaffold method of methods, analysis as a separate activity in engineering gamification. Our eva-
comparative research could be conducted to evaluate its utility against luation indicates that working with a multidisciplinary team, bringing
current popular methods of gamification engineering. Finally, more together technical, game-design and psychological competencies during
research studies and possibly action and design research is needed to be the analysis, ideation and design process, has been suitable in user and
conducted utilizing our contributed method and design principles to context understanding. In the practical evaluation, we were able to
further provide evidence as to their utility. confirm that the identified approach to gamification seems appropriate
to meet the challenge. Furthermore, we found that analyzing the con-
5. Conclusions and reflections text can help to specify and understand possible target groups, their
needs, and design limitations.
The chief objective of the present study was to advance the holistic Overall, the developed method can be seen as a method of methods
understanding of how gamified software should be designed and im- that accumulates frameworks and knowledge on gamification design
plemented by developing a method for engineering gamification. We from prior literature. The artifact is thus providing a holistic view on
tackled this research problem with a design science research approach; the topic and addresses many of the challenges of engineering gamified
firstly, by rigorously synthesizing prior design frameworks as well as software, which has been overlooked in previous research.
interviewing recognized experts of the area. Secondly, by developing a
method for the engineering of gamified software based on the gathered
knowledge and design principles from the previous step. Thirdly, we Acknowledgments
evaluated the method through expert interviews and a practical eva-
luation in the form of a case study. As a result, the present research This work was supported by the Robert Bosch GmbH, the Finnish
contributes a method for gamification engineering as well as a more foundation for economic education (10-5562), the Finnish Funding
confined treatise of overall design principles for gamification. Agency for Technology and Innovation (TEKES - project numbers
The evaluation of the developed method indicated that the method 40111/14, 40107/14 and 40009/16) and participating partners, as well
is comprehensive, complete and provides practical utility as well as that as Satakunnan korkeakoulusäätiö and its collaborators. The authors
it addresses several crucial points that have not been catered for in prior wish to thank the editors, reviewers and proofreaders for their time and
attempts to formalize gamification engineering or in many gamification effort. Further, the authors thank Julian Abe for his support in this
initiatives in practice. For instance, the selection of game-design research project.

Appendix
A: The full method as process-deliverable-diagram before evaluation

B: Activities table
Phase Activity Description
Project preparation Identify and list objectives Identify all the objectives of all involved stakeholder and list all of them in a LIST OF OBJECTIVES.
Rank objectives The objectives have to be ranked and prioritized in LIST OF OBJECTIVES, as not all objectives can be reached
in one project.
Justify objectives To have a clear understanding of what the objectives are and how they benefit the organization and the
stakeholders the objectives should be justified in LIST OF OBJECTIVES.
Assess gamification applicability With the ranked and justified objectives, it can be assessed and documented in the GO DECISION document,
whether Gamification is suitable for the project or another concept would be better.
Identify requirements All the necessary PROJECT CONDITIONS have to be identified and documented.
Context analysis Identify context Identify the context of the project and document the identified context in CONTEXT CHARACTERISTICS.
Understand context Conduct further research to understand the context in greater depth and elaborate more details within
CONTEXT CHARACTERISTICS.
Define success metrics The metrics which will be used to measure the success of the project have to be defined as part of the
CONTEXT CHARACTERISTICS.
User analysis Define target users The target users have to be identified and information about them has to be gathered in PERSONAS /
SEGMENTATION.
Identify user needs The user needs and objectives should be identified to enrich the PERSONAS / SEGMENTATION with this
information.
Identify user motivations After identifying the needs of the users, it is important to translate the needs in user motivations and to specify
them in PERSONAS / SEGMENTATION.
Create personas The identified information is used to create PERSONAS / SEGMENTATION which include all necessary
information to create an engaging design.
Ideation Brainstorm ideas The identified information provides the basis for the brainstorming of ideas that are documented in LIST OF
IDEAS. The identified frameworks and tools can help to create concepts for gamification.
Consolidate ideas The initial broad LIST OF IDEAS has to be condensed to a reduced and possible prioritized LIST OF
CONSOLIDATED IDEAS, which will be designed and evaluated. Besides cost and usefulness estimations, the fit
between the idea and the user and context characteristics should be considered when consolidating the ideas.
Design Create user journey Develops a USER JOURNEY in order to plan the long-term engagement with the gamified software and to be
able to derive precise requirements.
Design prototype The consolidated and selected ideas from the ideation phase have to be conceptualized in DESIGN CONCEPT
(e.g. by through initial mock-ups and wireframes).
Create prototype The DESIGN CONCEPTS form the bases for further development of (playable) PROTOTYPES (e.g. paper
prototypes, app prototypes, gamification plugins).
Evaluate prototype The PROTOTYPE should be evaluated using playtesting with actual users so feedback can be gathered
resulting in PROTOTYP EVALUATION.
Plan development When the design is fixed the DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT has to be created which includes the specification of
the implementation, budget and possibly other project management information for the implementation.
Implemen-tation Decide implementation Before the implementation, a decision about the TYPE OF IMPLEMENTATION has to be made. The
implementation can be developed externally, in-house, or by utilizing an available platform.
Prepare development Depending on the prior decision, further preparation needs to be conducted (e.g. granting permission to use
the APIs and information of the company or acquiring additional knowledge about gamification and its
application in the specific context).
Advise and manage The gamification expert has to check and advise the implementation to ensure that the gamification is done
implementation right.
Implement design In several cycles, the implementation of the design leads to developed GAMIFICATION FEATURES.
Playtesting The GAMIFICATION FEATURES are created in cycles with playtesting after each cycle to check if the desired
results are achieved by the developed gamification elements. In this activity, FEEDBACK needs to be collected
for evaluating the effectiveness and functionality of the developed GAMIFICATION FEATURES.
Pilot When the development of GAMIFICATION FEATURES is finished, the finale gamified software will be piloted
with a small group of users. If successful, this step leads to a GAMIFIED PRODUCT.
Evaluate success In order to check whether the initially defined objectives are met by the GAMIFIED PRODUCT, a success
evaluation is conducted. This evaluation using qualitative or quantitative methods leads to SUCCESS
EVALUATION.
Release project The project can be released if the evaluation was successful. There are also different ways to release the
project like "Big Bang" or gradually expand the pilot.
Monitoring and management After the project is released it should be monitored and also re-designed if necessary to attend for possible
future changes that are captured in a LIST OF IMPROVEMENTS.

C: Deliverables table
Concept Description
LIST OF OBJECTIVES List of ranked and justified project objectives.

GO-DECISION Decision if gamification is fitting or the project should be aborted.
PROJECT CONDITIONS Important project conditions along legal & ethical, budget, deadline, desired actions, company culture, human resources, constraints, and
success criterion.
PROJECT PLAN A detailed plan for the gamification project that summarizes the objectives of the project and identified project conditions. The project plan can
be used to communicate the vision of the project to the project stakeholder.
CONTEXT CHARACTERISTICS Detailed overview of the context to be gamified, including technical characteristics and limitations of the context, as well as a clear
understanding of how people behave in this context.
PERSONAS/SEGMENTATION Artificial character that represents a user group with specific attributes, such as age, gender, activities, job level, motivation, needs, interests,
preferences, player type, behavior.
SUCCESS METRICS Documents different key performance indicators (KPIs) and their measurement method.
LIST OF IDEAS Broad list of ideas for gamification design features, including user interaction elements, rules, mechanics, narrations.
CONSOLIDATED IDEAS List with selected ideas for further design.
PROJECT ANALYSIS Synthesizes and analysis CONTEXT CHARACTERISTICS, SUCCESS METRICS, and PERONAS / SEGMENTATION.
SET OF CONCEPTS Aggregates the LIST OF IDEAS and the CONSOLIDATES LIST OF IDEAS in one document.
USER JOURNEY Documents the long-term user engagement from onboarding to mastery. Often in combination with a visualization of flow curves.
DESIGN CONCEPT Specific concept for gamification which can be turned into (playable) prototype.
PROTOTYPE Prototype as an early sample which can range from simple mockups till more complex prototypes that are used for early playtesting.
PROTOTYPE EVALUATION Evaluation results of playtesting with the prototype with feedback on the usage and experience.
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Document with information for the development of the product including a specification sheet and development budget.
DESIGN DOCUMENT Summarizes the DESIGN CONCEPT and the DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT. Further, it includes wireframes, prototypical implementations and the
documentation of the USER JOURNEY.
TYPE OF IMPLEMENTATION Selection of the implementation type (external development, in-house development, or based on a platform) that will be used in the project.
ADAPTED DESIGN An adapted version of the design for the considered platform.
GAMIFICATION FEATURES Parts of a gamified product with enough functionality to be tested and which will be improved in cycles.
FEEDBACK Feedback of the playtesting session from actual users.
IMPLEMENTED PRODUCT A releasable product, pilot or a minimum viable product that could be used and evaluated by potential users. The implemented product is
gamified and thus contain several iteratively developed GAMIFICATION FEATURES.
GAMIFIED PRODUCT End result of the project.
SUCCESS EVALUATION Evaluation results of the gamified product which will determine the further course of the project.
LIST OF IMPROVEMENTS List of improvements in the form of adaptation parameters or features for future releases.

D: The full method as process-deliverable-diagram with feedback from the evaluation

References research, MIS Q. 28 (2004) 75–105.

[32] W. Kuechler, V. Vaishnavi, A framework for theory development in design science
research: multiple perspectives, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13 (2012) 395.
[1] K. Huotari, J. Hamari, A definition for gamification: anchoring gamification in the [33] S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, L. Nacke, From game design elements to ga-
service marketing literature, Electron. Mark. 27 (2017) 21–31, http://dx.doi.org/ mefulness, Proc. 15th Int. Acad. MindTrek Conf. Envisioning Futur. Media Environ.
10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z. Tampere, Finland, ACM Press, 2011, pp. 9–15, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/
[2] J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, H. Sarsa, Does gamification work?–a literature review of 2181037.2181040.
empirical studies on gamification, Proc. 47th Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci. Hawaii, [34] H. Van der Heijden, User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems, MIS Q.,
IEEE, 2014, pp. 3025–3034, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377. 2004, pp. 695–704.
[3] O. Pedreira, F. García, N. Brisaboa, M. Piattini, Gamification in software en- [35] I. Bogost, Gamification is bullshit, Gameful World Approaches, Issues, Appl. (2011),
gineering – a systematic mapping, Inf. Softw. Technol. 57 (2015) 157–168, http:// pp. 65–80.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.08.007. [36] R. Hunicke, M. LeBlanc, R. Zubek, MDA: a formal approach to game design and
[4] J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, Why do people use gamification services? Int. J. Inf. Manage. game research, Proc. Assoc. Adv. Artif. Intell. Work. Challenges Game Artif. Intell.
35 (2015) 419–431, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.006. 2004, p. 4.
[5] P. Denny, The effect of virtual achievements on student engagement, Proc. SIGCHI [37] R. Brookey, Hollywood gamers: Digital Convergence in the Film and Video Game
Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - CHI ’13, New York, New York, USA, ACM Press, Industries, Indiana University Press, 2010.
2013, pp. 763–772, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470763. [38] J. Juul, A Casual Revolution: Reinventing Video Games and Their Players, MIT
[6] L. Hakulinen, T. Auvinen, A. Korhonen, Empirical study on the effect of achieve- press, 2010.
ment badges in TRAKLA2 online learning environment, Learn. Teach. Comput. Eng. [39] P. Herzig, S. Strahringer, M. Ameling, Gamification of ERP systems-exploring ga-
Macau, IEEE, 2013, pp. 47–54, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/LaTiCE.2013.34. mification effects on user acceptance constructs, Multikonferenz
[7] J. Hamari, D. Shernoff, E. Rowe, B. Coller, T. Edwards, Challenging games help Wirtschaftsinformatik (2012) 793–804.
students learn: an empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game- [40] J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, Measuring flow in gamification: dispositional flow scale-2,
based learning, Comput. Human Behav 54 (2016) 170–179, http://dx.doi.org/10. Comput. Human Behav. 40 (2014) 133–143, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
1016/j.chb.2015.07.045. 2014.07.048.
[8] R.N. Landers, Developing a theory of gamified learning: Linking serious games and [41] M. Csikszentmihalyi, Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: Experiencing Flow in Work and
gamification of learning, Simul. Gaming. 45 (2014) 752–768, http://dx.doi.org/10. Play, Jossenyass, San Francisco, 1975.
1177/1046878114563660. [42] Z. Fitz-Walter, Achievement Unlocked: Investigating the Design of Effective
[9] J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, Working out for likes”: an empirical study on social influence Gamification Experiences For Mobile Applications and Devices, Queensland
in exercise gamification, Comput. Human Behav 50 (2015) 333–347, http://dx.doi. University of Technology, 2015.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.018. [43] S. Gregor, D. Jones, The anatomy of a design theory, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 5 (2007)
[10] B.A. Jones, G.J. Madden, H. Wengreen, The FIT Game: preliminary evaluation of a 312.
gamification approach to increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in school, [44] P. Zhang, Toward a positive design theory: principles for designing motivating in-
Prev. Med. (Baltim) (2014) 76–79. formation and communication technology, in: M. Avital, R.J. Boland,
[11] A. Matallaoui, J. Koivisto, J. Hamari, R. Zarnekow, How effective is D.L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Des. Inf. Organ. With a Posit. Lens (Advances Appreciative
“Exergamification”? a systematic review on the effectiveness of gamification fea- Inq. Emerald Group Publishing Limite, 2007, pp. 45–74.
tures in exergames, Proc. 50th Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci. Hawaii, 2017. [45] S. Brinkkemper, Method engineering: engineering of information systems devel-
[12] B. Morschheuser, C. Henzi, R. Alt, Increasing intranet usage through gamification – opment methods and tools, Inf. Softw. Technol. 38 (1996) 275–280, http://dx.doi.
insights from an experiment in the banking industry, Proc. 48th Hawaii Int. Conf. org/10.1016/0950-5849(95)01059-9.
Syst. Sci. (HICSS), Kauai, HI, IEEE, 2015, pp. 635–642, , http://dx.doi.org/10. [46] S. Brinkkemper, M. Saeki, F. Harmsen, Meta-modelling based assembly techniques
1109/HICSS.2015.83. for situational method engineering, Inf. Syst. 24 (1999) 209–228, http://dx.doi.
[13] J. Thom, D. Millen, J. DiMicco, Removing gamification from an enterprise SNS, org/10.1016/S0306-4379(99)00016-2.
Proc. ACM 2012 Conf. Comput. Support. Coop. Work, Seattle, Washington, USA, [47] I. van de Weerd, S. Brinkkemper, J. Souer, J. Versendaal, A situational im-
ACM Press, 2012, pp. 1067–1070, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145362. plementation method for web-based content management system-applications:
[14] B. Morschheuser, A. Maedche, D. Walter, Designing cooperative gamification: method engineering and validation in practice, Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 11
conceptualization and prototypical implementation, Proc. 20th ACM Conf. Comput. (2006) 521–538, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/spip.294.
Coop. Work Soc. Comput. (CSCW 2017), Portland, OR, USA, ACM, 2017, pp. [48] I. van de Weerd, S. Brinkkemper, Meta-modeling for situational analysis and design
2410–2421, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998272. methods, in: M. Rahman, S. Nessa (Eds.), Handb. Res. Mod. Syst. Anal. Des.
[15] S.K. Bista, S. Nepal, C. Paris, N. Colineau, Gamification for online communities: a Technol. Appl. IGI Global, 2008, pp. 35–54, , http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-
case study for delivering government services, Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 23 (2014) 59904-887-1.ch003.
1–25, http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218843014410020. [49] K. Werder, B. Zobel, A. Maedche, PDISC – Towards a method for software product
[16] L. Hassan, Governments should play games: towards a framework for the gamifi- DISCovery, in: A. Maglyas, A.-L. Lamprecht (Eds.), Int. Conf. Softw. Bus. Springer
cation of civic engagement platforms, Simul. Gaming. 48 (2017) 249–267 International Publishing, Cham, 2016, pp. 47–62, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-
1046878116683581. 3-319-40515-5.
[17] B. Morschheuser, J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, Gamification in crowdsourcing: a review, [50] M. Heym, H. Österle, Computer-aided methodology engineering, Inf. Softw.
Proc. 49th Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci. (HICSS), Hawaii, IEEE, 2016, pp. 4375–4384, Technol. (2004) 131–150, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18542-7_7.
, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.543. [51] M. Farwick, C.M. Schweda, R. Breu, I. Hanschke, A situational method for semi-
[18] Gartner, Gartner says by 2014, 80 percent of current gamified applications will fail automated enterprise architecture documentation, Softw. Syst. Model.. 15 (2016)
to meet business objectives primarily due to poor design, (2012). 397–426.
[19] Gartner, Gartner Says By 2015, More Than 50 Percent of Organizations That [52] B. Henderson-Sellers, J. Ralyté, Situational method engineering: state-of-the-art
Manage Innovation Processes Will Gamify Those Processes (2011), http://www. review, J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 16 (2010) 424–478.
gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1629214 (accessed April 14, 2017). [53] I. van de Weerd, WEM: A Design Method for Cms-Based Web Implementations,
[20] IEEE, Everyone's a gamer: IEEE experts predict gaming will be integrated into more (2005), pp. 1–112. Tech. Rep. UU-CS-2005.
than 85 percent of daily tasks by 2020, http://www.ieee.org/about/news/2014/ [54] S.K. Boell, D. Cecez-Kecmanovic, A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature
25_feb_2014.html, (2014) (accessed April 14, 2017). reviews and literature searches, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 34 (2014) 257–286.
[21] S. Rigby, Gamification and motivation, in: S.. Walz, S. Deterring (Eds.), Gameful [55] J. Webster, R. Watson, Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a lit-
World Approaches, Issues, Appl. The MIT press, London, 2015, pp. 113–138. erature review, MIS Q. (2002) xiii–xxiii.
[22] S. Deterding, The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: a method for gameful design, [56] J. Brito, V. Vieira, A. Duran, Towards a framework for gamification design on
Human–Comput. Interact. 30 (2015) 294–335, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ crowdsourcing systems: the G.A.M.E. approach, Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Inf. Technol. -
07370024.2014.993471. New Gener. Las Vegas, NV, IEEE, 2015, pp. 445–450, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
[23] M. Herger, Enterprise Gamification: Engaging People by Letting Them Have Fun, ITNG.2015.78.
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Leipzig, 2014. [57] B. Burke, Gamify: How Gamification Motivates People to Do Extraordinary Things,
[24] R.W. Helms, R. Barneveld, F. Dalpiaz, A method for the design of gamified train- Bibliomotion, Brookline, MA, 2014.
ings, Proc. Pacific Asia Conf. Inf. Syst. Singapore, AIS, 2015, p. 59. [58] A. Francisco-Aparicio, F.L. Gutiérrez-Vela, J.L. Isla-Montes, J.L.G. Sanchez,
[25] C. Marache-Francisco, E. Brangier, Process of gamification, Proc. 6th Centric, Gamification: analysis and application, in: V.M.R. Penichet, A. Peñalver, J.A. Gallud
IARIA, Venice, Italy, 2013, pp. 126–131. (Eds.), New Trends Interact. VR Model. Springer, London, 2013, pp. 113–126, ,
[26] K. Robson, K. Plangger, J.H. Kietzmann, I. McCarthy, L. Pitt, Is it all a game? http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5445-7_9.
Understanding the principles of gamification, Bus. Horiz. 58 (2015) 411–420, [59] P. Herzig, M. Ameling, B. Wolf, A. Schill, Implementing gamification: requirements
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.03.006. and gamification platforms, in: T. Reiners, L.C. Wood (Eds.), Gamification Educ.
[27] K. Werbach, D. Hunter, For the Win: How game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Bus. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015, pp. 431–450, , http://dx.doi.
Business, Wharton Digital Press, Philadelphia, PA, 2012. org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_22.
[28] J. Radoff, Game on: Energize Your Business With Social Media Games, Wiley [60] K.M. Kapp, The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and
Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, 2011. Strategies for Training and Education, Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA, 2012.
[29] A. Dignan, Game frame: Using games As a Strategy For Success, Free Press, New [61] M. Klevers, M. Sailer, W.A. Günthner, Implementation model for the gamification of
York, NY, 2011. business processes a study from the field of material handling, Proceeding 46th Int.
[30] J. Kumar, M. Herger, Gamification At Work, Interaction Design Foundation, 2013. Simul. Gaming Assoc. Conf. Kyoto, Japan, 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.
[31] A. Hevner, S. March, J. Park, S Ram, Design science in information systems 1.2313.2006.

[62] R. Schmidt, C. Brosius, K. Herrmanny, Ein Vorgehensmodell für angewandte [71] J. Koivisto, J. Hamari, Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gami-
Spielformen, HMD Prax. Der Wirtschaftsinformatik. 52 (2015) 826–839, http://dx. fication, Comput. Human Behav. 35 (2014) 179–188, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
doi.org/10.1365/s40702-015-0180-y. chb.2014.03.007.
[63] M.D. Myers, M. Newman, The qualitative interview in IS research: examining the [72] P. Runeson, M. Höst, Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in
craft, Inf. Organ. 17 (2007) 2–26, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2006.11. software engineering, Empir. Softw. Eng. 14 (2009) 131, http://dx.doi.org/10.
001. 1007/s10664-008-9102-8.
[64] E.N. Webb, Gamification: when it works, when it doesn't, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Des. [73] B. Kitchenham, S. Linkman, S. Linkman, Experiences of using an evaluation fra-
User Exp. Usability(DUXU), Las Vegas, NV, USA, Springer, 2013, pp. 608–614, , mework, Inf. Softw. Technol. 47 (2005) 761–774, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39241-2_67. infsof.2005.01.001.
[65] K. Knaving, S. Björk, Designing for fun and play, Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Gameful Des. [74] O. Lindland, G. Sindre, A. Solvberg, Understanding quality in conceptual modeling,
Res. Appl. Stratford, ON, Canada, ACM Press, 2013, pp. 131–134, , http://dx.doi. IEEE Softw 11 (1994) 42–49, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/52.268955.
org/10.1145/2583008.2583032. [75] B. Morschheuser, J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, A. Maedche, Gamified crowdsourcing:
[66] R. Bartle, Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: players who suit MUDs, J. MUD Res. 1 Conceptualization, literature review, and future agenda, Int. J. Comput. Stud. 106
(1996) 19. (2017) 26–43, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.04.005.
[67] B. Morschheuser, C. Hrach, R. Alt, C. Lefanczyk, Gamifizierung mit BPMN, HMD [76] C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Höst, M.C. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, A. Wesslén,
Prax. Der Wirtschaftsinformatik. 52 (2015) 840–850, http://dx.doi.org/10.1365/ Experimentation in Software Engineering, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.
s40702-015-0188-3. [77] T. Diefenbach, Are case studies more than sophisticated storytelling?:
[68] S. Nicholson, A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification, Methodological problems of qualitative empirical research mainly based on semi-
Proc. Games+Learning+Society 8.0, WI, Madison, 2012, pp. 223–229. structured interviews, Qual. Quant. 43 (2009) 875, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
[69] J. Arrasvuori, M. Boberg, J. Holopainen, H. Korhonen, A. Lucero, M. Montola, s11135-008-9164-0.
Applying the PLEX framework in designing for playfulness, Proc. 2011 Int. Conf. [78] U. Schultze, M. Avital, Designing interviews to generate rich data for information
Des. Pleasurable Prod. Interfaces, Milano, IT, ACM Press, 2011, , http://dx.doi.org/ systems research, Inf. Organ. 21 (2011) 1–16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1145/2347504.2347531. infoandorg.2010.11.001.
[70] C.M. Finneran, P. Zhang, A person–artefact–task (PAT) model of flow antecedents in [79] C. Cassell, G. Symon, G. Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational
computer-mediated environments, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 59 (2003) 475–496, Research, Sage, 2004.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00112-5.

LOBNA HASSAN
MEANS TO GAMEFUL ENDS:
322 EKONOMI OCH SAMHÄLLE
ECONOMICS AND SOCIETY
For a long time, information systems have been de- gle to provide comprehensive guidance for the gamifica-
signed to provide organizational utility, efficiency, and tion design process.
cost reduction. As technological advancement took place, This dissertation employs the goal-setting theory, show-
information systems grew to further facilitate personal pro- casing how gamification design can suit the preferences
ductivity and entertainment. Out of modern systems, games of different users. The dissertation additionally investigates
have an extraordinary reach in modern society. That reach contextualized gamification design by employing the de-
eventually became too significant to ignore without system- liberation theory and researching design for collective,
atic study. While many individuals recognize the value of group engagement such as is seen in the context of civic
and need for hard work in life, many—perhaps all—do not engagement. Finally, the dissertation contributes a holistic
wish to live in a universe of pure work or passive engage- gamification design method that incorporates the design
ment with their life’s activities. In that light, scholars began knowledge currently gathered in the gamification fields, as
investigating game design as a means to attain enjoyment well as lessons learned from the failure of gamification pro-
and motivation in mundane life activities, giving birth to the jects. The contributions complement each other and pro-
gamification movement as we know it today. vide a multi-dimensional gamification design knowledge
As a design and research stream, gamification refers to on how gamification should be designed.
the design of systems, services, and processes to provide While this dissertation has theoretically and practically
“gameful” experiences—psychological experiences, simi- contributed to the knowledge on gamification design, there
lar to those provided by games—to positively influence en- is more to be researched before gamification design can
gagement with mundane life activities. While the user ben-
efits reported from implementing gamification showcase
its potentially positive impact, the understanding of how to
come close to being perfect. The journey to gamify is mere-
ly commencing. Not only is this pursuit of how to gamify
essential to understand a phenomenon and the human be-
MEANS TO GAMEFUL ENDS
LOBNA HASSAN – MEANS TO GAMEFUL ENDS

design gamification is still in its infancy. Some gamification havior around it, but it is also essential to create a gameful
designs may be suitable to some users or in certain con-
texts, but the same designs may not have the same results
reality, one not of pure work but of enjoyment, motivation,
persistence and flow.
for different users or in different contexts. Furthermore, cur-
rent methods to design gamification have been developed
in isolation, each reinventing the wheel, and hence strug-
LOBNA HASSAN
HANKEN
SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
HELSINKI
ARKADIANKATU 22, P.O. BOX 479
00101 HELSINKI, FINLAND
PHONE +358 (0)29 431 331
978-952-232-368-2 (printed) VAASA

978-952-232-369-9 (PDF) KIRJASTONKATU 16, P.O. BOX 287
ISSN-L 0424-7256 65101 VAASA, FINLAND
ISSN 0424-7256 (printed) PHONE +358 (0)6 3533 700
[email protected]
JUVENES PRINT, HELSINKI HANKEN.FI/DHANKEN

322 - Lobna Hassan PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

322 - Lobna Hassan PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

322 - Lobna Hassan PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LOBNA HASSAN

MEANS TO GAMEFUL ENDS:

LOBNA HASSAN – MEANS TO GAMEFUL ENDS

978-952-232-368-2 (printed) VAASA

Skrifter utgivna vid Svenska handelshögskolan

Lobna Sameer Mostafa Mostafa Hassan

Means to Gameful Ends

Key words: Gamification, gamefulness, motivation, e-participation, civic engagement

© Hanken School of Economics & Lobna Hassan, 2018

Lobna Sameer Mostafa Mostafa Hassan

Hanken School of Economics

ISBN 978-952-232-368-2 (printed)

Juvenes Print – Suomen Yliopistopaino Oy, Helsinki 2018

This PhD journey initiated a profound dismantling and reconstruction of my reality

x Research advisors, alphabetically: Dr. Juho Hamari, Dr. J. Tuomas

7.4. Summary of Paper 4 ......................................................................................... 45

%-  (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((3-

-'"&! ! (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((.3

1.1. Positioning the dissertation

While playing games, individuals are usually captivated in a state of positive

1.2. Research problem and questions

Some gamification designs might be suitable to some users or in certain contexts,

learning. Alongside these user- and context-specific gamification design challenges,

How should gamification be designed?

With regard to the gamification design-user fit: Gamification design, observably,

RQ (1): Which classes of gamification design do different users prefer?

With regard to the gamification design-context fit: What is needed in gamification

leading to many failed implementations. Based on literature reviews, the gamification

Studying the gamification of civic engagement provides insight into gamification

RQ (2): How should gamification be designed considering its use context?

With regard to a comprehensive gamification design method to guide the

RQ (3):How can the gamification design process be guided?

1.3. Structure of the dissertation

Paper 2: Hassan, L. (2017). Governments should play games: Towards a framework

Waka Waka Waka, Waka Waka

- Pac-man, prominently influencing the gamification movement

2.1. A short history of the gamification of modern systems

The engagement impact of this difficult-to-define artefact (games) is often attributed to

2.2. Gamification: What it is

The practice of designing gamification through introducing game elements to non-

Gamefulness is abstractly conceived as a positive, subjective psychological state

One relatively agreed-on interpretation of motivation is provided by self-determination

2.2.1. Behavioral psychology roots of gamification

Behavioral psychology advocates that human behavior is motivated and could be

2.2.2. Positive psychology roots of gamification

one’s wishes (autonomy), and 3) feeling part of a community (relatedness). Research

“Purpose” is another psychological variable that influences intrinsic motivation (Pink

  #   

Beyond positive motivation, positive psychology studies many other psychological

2.3. Gamification design practices

Consequently, it cannot be expected that a single gamification design would be

2.4. Summary and conclusions

3. GAMIFICATION DESIGN-USER FIT

- The Big Bang Theory series, a short commentary on

Often, popular—and arguably successful—gamification implementations include

contexts (Francisco-Aparicio, Gutiérrez-Vela, Isla-Montes & Sanchez 2013),

Social networking design—whether in independent social applications or as part of

Quantified-self (QS) design aims to improve people’s management of their personal

  $     

%- (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((3-

-'"&! ! (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((.3

#

$

%