Project management and gamification

PROJECT MANAGEMENT &
GAMIFICATION IN FRANCE

To what extent gamification approach can be
beneficial throughout the project life-cycle?

Author: Léa SCHMIDT
Research mentor and advisor: François GIANG
Institution: Grenoble Ecole de Management
Department: Digital Business Strategy

Submitted on: 13/11/2017

i

ABSTRACT

While companies are experiencing many technological innovations and trying to continually
improve the experience of their customers, the employee experience is also a major concern.
Mobility, digital and many other factors affect our relationship with the company, whether as
a customer or a collaborator. Management, like many other disciplines, is gradually beginning
to experience a transformation. At the same time, gamification is more and more present in
our daily lives, whether in our learning journey, our relationship to sports or our customer
experience. As an internal challenge, companies are facing different issues, including well-
being, employee commitment, management and performance improvement, confronting to a
business in constant transformation.
This thesis studies the potential benefits of game mechanics applied to project management,
as well as the means and methods of implementation. First, a literature review lays out
theoretical elements about project management, motivation and gamification. Second, the
study follows a mixed-method in order to explore the subject. On the one hand, the project
management environment is studied through specialist point of view, including project
managers and team members. Beyond the general aspects of project management, the survey
focuses on motivational elements as well as possible areas for improvement. On the other
hand, a qualitative study has collected feedback from gamification experts who have
implemented gamification methods in a business context.
While gamification and project management are two subjects which have been largely
explored, the combination of the two concepts still pioneer and enjoys a great interest, in
particular for professional managers.
Why companies should invest in a project management system that implements gamification?
What are the most important activities and processes of project management which are more
likely to be improved by gamification? How to implement game mechanics into the full project
life-cycle? The study will attempt to answer to the different research questions and shows the
potential application of gamification in project management.
It also aims to identify various elements allowing companies to better understand the subject.
The objective is to stimulate new management method initiatives within project management
context. Among the elements to value and through experts’ feedback, key success factors were
highlighted, notably the elements allowing to facilitate a favourable context, the tested and
approved approaches and techniques, as well as the impacts and the limits to consider.

Keywords: project management, gamification, human-focused design, user experience,
employee engagement, motivation, game mechanics, agility

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis has been a tough ride, one that I wouldn’t be able to manage without the help
of others. A real challenge, which has required the support of experts, professionals, and
also friends and family.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis advisor François GIANG for his assistance
and guidance with this paper. He steered me in the right direction in the very first step of
the consideration.
I also would like to express my deepest gratitude to all experts who kindly shared their time
and their expertise to contribute to my research. I really appreciate this goodwill, probably
peculiar to the gamification state of mind, thanks to their passionate involvement and their
valuable inputs. Thanks to Nicolas BABIN, Clément MULETIER, Audrey ROCHAS, Céline
CUSSET, Daniel PAIRE, Guillemette GOGLIO, Séverine BEDORET, Alexandre DUARTE, Fanny
LE GALLOU and Nathan SCHEIRE. And a special thanks to Dominique MANGIATORDI, who,
additionally to the time commitment he made, offered me his book recently wrote on the
subject. It was a real pleasure to read it!
I would like to thank also all the persons who contributed directly or indirectly to the
research and the writing. Thank to the group of respondents of the online survey for their
time and their engagement. To Charlotte DANDA for her unlimited confidence and this
amazing collaboration at Schneider Electric. To Rémy PONGE, who kindly shared wise
advices that helped me conducting a qualitative survey. Obviously, to Isabelle COULLON,
who passed on their love of User eXperience to me, and made me want to study
gamification. To Isabelle PATROIX, who welcomed me in the playground at GEM with
passion and natural kindness. Thank to the Grenoble Ecole de Management, and especially
to the Advanced Master’s in Digital Business Strategy.
Finally, thank to my parents and my sister for their encouragement throughout these years
of study. And last but not least, a huge thanks to my partner, for its unfailing support, proof
reading the paper, valuable advices and his patience.

I wish you a good reading for what comes next!

iii

TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS II
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 3
1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS 4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 6
1.3 INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT 6
1.3.1 HISTORY, DEFINITION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT 6
1.3.2 CRITERIA AND FACTORS FOR SUCCESSFUL PROJECT 8
1.3.3 INTRODUCTION TO COLLABORATIVE AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOLS 9
1.4 UNDERSTAND MOTIVATION 10
1.4.1 EMPLOYEE’S ENGAGEMENT & MOTIVATION AS A KEY SUCCESS FACTOR IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT 10
1.4.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF MOTIVATION 11
1.4.3 WORK MOTIVATION THEORIES: CONTENT & PROCESS THEORIES 12
1.5 GAMIFICATION: A CHALLENGE FOR SUCCESSFUL PROJECT MANAGEMENT 14
1.5.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE NOTION OF GAME 14
1.5.2 GAMIFICATION CHARACTERISTICS AND MECHANISMS 17
1.5.3 LIMITS OF GAMIFICATION 20
LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY 22
3. METHODOLOGY 23
1.6 RESEARCH METHODS 23
1.6.1 THE CHOICE OF THE MIXED-METHOD: BENEFITS AND LIMITS 23
1.6.2 MIXED-METHOD IMPLEMENTATION: OBJECTIVES AND ROLL-OUT 24
1.7 DATA COLLECTION 26
1.7.1 QUANTITATIVE SURVEY: ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE DATA ANALYSIS 26
1.7.2 QUALITATIVE SURVEY: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW DATA ANALYSIS 27
1.8 METHOD FOR ANALYSIS 31
1.8.1 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE DATA ANALYSIS 31
1.8.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW DATA ANALYSIS 32
1.9 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY 32
4. RESULTS 34
1.10 PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONTEXT IN FRANCE, SEPTEMBER 2017 34
1.10.1 OVERVIEW OF THE RESULTS: EMERGING TRENDS 34
1.10.2 ADDITIONAL RESULTS AND ANALYSIS CONCERNING MOTIVATION DRIVERS 38
1.10.3 RESULTS COMPARISON AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE 2017 PROJECT MANAGEMENT SURVEY
FROM KPMG 40
1.10.4 SYNTHESIS OF THE RESULTS 41
1.11 GAMIFICATION APPROACH ADAPTED IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT 43
1.11.1 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT AND PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTICS OF FAVOURABLE BUSINESS CONTEXTS 43
1.11.2 APPROACHES, TECHNIQUES AND METHODS 48
1.11.3 IMPACTS AND LIMITATIONS 53
1.11.4 APPLICATION OF GAMIFICATION ON PROJECT MANAGEMENT 59

iv

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 63
1.12 RETROSPECTIVE 63
1.13 BACK TO THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS 64
1.14 LIMITS AND FINAL REMARKS 66
1.15 FUTURE RESEARCH 69
6. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 70
1.16 TEST AND LEARN 70
1.17 THINK USER-CENTRIC 71
1.18 DEFINE YOUR OBJECTIVES 72
1.19 DEPLOY APPROPRIATE TOOLS 73
7. REFERENCES 75
8. APPENDICES 79
1.20 QUANTITATIVE SURVEY: FULL RESULTS 79
1.21 QUALITATIVE SURVEY: INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 107
1.22 QUALITATIVE SURVEY: RETRANSCRIPTION 110
1.22.1 CELINE CUSSET, DIVERTY EVENTS 110
1.22.2 ALEXANDRE DUARTE, CONSULTANT INDEPENDANT 114
1.22.3 DOMINIQUE MANGIATORDI, ØPP – GAMIFICATION STARTUP STUDIO 118
1.22.4 AUDREY ROCHAS, CREATIVE SLASHERS 126
1.22.5 SEVERINE BEDORET, HAPPYFORMANCE 134
1.22.6 NICOLAS BABIN, BABIN BUSINESS CONSULTING 137
1.22.7 GUILLEMETTE GOGLIO, ORANGE 142
1.22.8 DANIEL PAIRE, HAPPY LEARNING GAMES 145
1.22.9 FANNY LE GALLOU, EFOUNDERS - BRIQ 153
1.22.10 NATHAN SCHEIRE, LAPOSTE 156
1.22.11 CLEMENT MULETIER, LAB GAMIFICATION 163

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1: The four phases of the project life cycle. Adapted from J. Westland, The Project
Management Lifecycle, Kogan Page Limited (2006) ..................................................................... 7
Figure 2: The self-determination Theory detailing types of motivation. Adapted from Ryan &
Deci (2000) ................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 3: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Poston, B. (2009) ......................................................... 13
Figure 4. Evolution of Web search on the word "gamification", from 2004 to 2017. Results from
Google Trends as of October, 12 of 2017 ................................................................................... 16
Figure 5. "Gamification" between game and play, whole and parts (Deterding et.all, 2011) ... 17
Figure 6. Players types illustrated by Dominique Mangiatordi, adapted from Bartle ............... 18
Figure 7. Representation of the Flow adapted from Csikszentmihalyi ...................................... 19
Figure 8. Octalysis: a gamification complete framework from Yu Kai Chou .............................. 20
Figure 9. The top elements ranked in the first place as motivation drivers in PM .................... 36
Figure 10. The top elements ranked in the first place as motivation drivers in the company .. 37
Figure 11. Ranking of the top 3-rank motivation driver’s elements in PM ................................ 38
Figure 12. The top 3 addition weighted by rank in PM .............................................................. 39

v

Figure 13. The five principles of a strategy-focused organisation (Kaplan and Norton, 2001) . 45
Figure 14. Screenshots of Happy Learning Games Platform ...................................................... 49
Figure 15. Screenshots of Happyformance The App .................................................................. 50
Figure 16. Gamification at work, the gamification curve of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation
(Dominique Mangiatordi) ............................................................................................................ 55
Figure 17. Screenshots of the online project management tools Moovia ................................. 68
Figure 18. Build - Measure - Learn Feedback Loop (Ries, 2011) ................................................ 71
Figure 19. From a vision to a product (Ries, 2011) ..................................................................... 73

Table 1. Crossing results of research methods to better reinforce findings .............................. 25
Table 2. Respondents overview .................................................................................................. 29
Table 3. Comparison of motivation drivers in PM according to methodologies ....................... 40
Table 4. Results comparison concerning PM methodology from KPMG survey ........................ 41
Table 5. Estimated cost per unit, according to Daniel Paire ....................................................... 54

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
EX – Employee experience
ICT - Information and Communication Technologies
MOOC – Massive Open Online Course
MVP – Minimum Viable Product
PM - Project Management
PMBOK - Project Management Body Of Knowledge
PMI - Project Management Institute
SDT - Self-Determination Theory
UX – User experience

1. INTRODUCTION

Today, the challenge of companies is not to sell products or services, it’s to sell experience. This
is the case of some successful brands, such as Starbucks, Nespresso, Amazon or Apple. But
experience is not limited to customer experience. Today, the challenge to deliver a great
experience is also internal. How to propose a positive employee experience as a whole? Among
the different drivers, the gamification seems to be a medium to consider in order to improve
employee’s engagement and to deliver an enjoyable experience.
This last decade was a real success for the game industry, especially concerning the computer
and the video games. Number of players has notably increased during the last 30 years,
reaching over 155 million of video games players in the USA. And the audience is surprisingly
extremely diverse, with an average age of 35 (ESA, 2015)1
. Focusing on the French market,
73,3% of French people declared playing video games in 2016 (Xerfi France, 2016), and the
market had continued to grow in 2017.
What makes game so addictive and engaging? Behind the entertainment area, game mechanics
have been seriously considered in education and business, leading to the emergence of the
“gamification” term. Coming to the initial definition, gamification is defined as the use of game
mechanisms in a non-game context (Deterding et al., 2011). Gamification is an emerging
practice, and a vast amount of well-established companies has already experienced and
implemented gamification strategy, such as IBM, McDonald’s, Nike, Microsoft, SAP and more
(Zichermann, 2013). Already in 2011, practitioners and research studies predicted the central
role of gamification within companies (Blohm & Leimeister, 2013). In 2011, Gartner already
predicted the gamification trend and the impact of gamification in the business transformation,
including innovation. And more recently, Markets & Markets estimated the market value of
gamification at nearly $ 5 billion in 2018. And this fast emergence is obviously facilitated by the
convergence of three main evolutions: an easy and fast access to the internet including on
mobile, the evolution of mobility thanks to reliable tablets and smartphones, and a real attitude
change in the management approach (Mangiatordi, 2017 p.21, 22). Gamification is
progressively starting to mature, with more and more talks and conferences, experiments and
market researches.
Among the different fields of application, marketing and communication strategies have
intelligently exploit the mechanics to face the challenge of standing out and engaging with
customers. And of course, to strengthen the customer loyalty, which is probably the most
popular illustration of gamification. The famous McDonald’s brand has well understood the
benefits of game, by launching already 30 years ago its successful monopoly game. Beyond
loyalty programs, marketing campaigns have become more and more engaging, and very
innovative (i.e. Magnum pleasure hunt, Coca-Cola’s Shake it), and even serve social and
environmental initiatives such as recycling or energy consumption saving, such as RecycleBank,
OPower, Virtual Energy Advisor App, to name only few of them. With the rise of digital services,
gamification mechanics have been, of course, implemented into web and mobile applications.
One famous example is Waze, a popular GPS app using gamified features to transform the

1
http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-2015.pdf

2

navigation experience. The app has been massively adopted in a short time with a high users’
satisfaction, receiving thousands “five stars” rating on the application store. While basic GPS
simply provides direction, Waze has created a strong community to improve the data collection
and propose the best in real time direction. With this human centric approach, the app has
transformed simple drivers in goal-oriented users: contributing to the community (Yu-Kai Chou,
2015)2
. Another famous example is LinkedIn, encouraging users to complete their profile by
implementing a progress bar and different levels of expertise and by attributing social points
with skills recommendation to improve the overall experience on the platform. Indeed, the
challenge was to propose complete information about users in order to use the full potential
of the service. Foursquare, Yelp, TripAdvisor, there is no shortage of examples implementing
gamification techniques to improve the User Experience on web and mobile interfaces.
Progressively, it has been extended to other areas, including training. To which is added the
emergence of massive online trainings such as MOOCs, and also serious games which combine
learning techniques and the power of game pedagogy. Beyond the development of gamified
services for customers, businesses started to capture the opportunity of gamification to
leverage internal challenges in relation to human resources and employee trainings, including
virtual learning environments. But also in other areas, such as internet engagement,
productivity and efficiency enhancement or Knowledge Management, innovation3
… In short,
whether it is for internal, external business or more generally society challenges, game
mechanics have been implemented for their ability to boost the engagement and develop
loyalty by improving the overall experience.
In my personal experience, I had the chance to experiment some gamification projects. First in
education, where serious games have become a standard. In 2011, my technical diploma
introduced the academic year through a game in order to discover our class, teachers and
future lessons. It was the very beginning of serious games. Today, it’s almost considered as a
standard in Business School. In my curriculum at Burgundy School of Dijon, we experienced
each year a virtual business game in order to understand basics of management, including
financial and risk management, marketing concepts, sales and retail fundamentals… And this
approach seems to be quite successful. From what I have seen, students were involved and
stimulated in the game, particularly with a strong sense of competition. These first experiences
in education made me want the same: understand how the brain is working in order to
implement engaging drivers in project management methods. Another experience in game
mechanics was at Schneider Electric, during my apprenticeship. Firstly, in the animation of the
Commercial Excellence Community, in which regular challenges were implemented to
stimulate the Field Services Sales team. But also in our communication mission, in which we
highlighted the “top performers of the quarters” to promote great initiatives, collaboration and
results. And secondly, I get the chance to be rewarded by my manager through their internal
reward program “step-up recognition”. The mechanics are based on points attribution, in order
to enhance personal performance. Once received, these points can be converted through the
platform in gift cards that can be used in different stores. But finally, I realized that the
monetary value is not really the point. The real value is an intrinsic motivation: social
recognition. Far from being an expert on the subject, gamification and understanding of human
behaviour have always inspired me. This last couple of years, I was especially interested in

2
http://yukaichou.com/gamification-examples/an-octalysis-look-at-the-waze-craze/
3
From Kevin Werbach, Entreprise Applications (https://www.coursera.org/learn/gamification)

3

design thinking and UX, especially in the design of web interface. In my opinion, gamification is
part of the human-centred design approach, harmonising to the UX design fundamentals.
Playing is a voluntary and positive approach (Mangiatordi, 2017). No need for research to
understand that games conduct to the satisfaction of our basic human needs. This is a way to
formalize and highlight achievement, status, or even implement competition and challenges
between players. The combination of gamification and project management seems to be
obvious: both concepts share many similarities especially with the identification of roles, goals
setting, metrics and progression. Actually, one of the fundamental principles of games is to
define impartial rules. In addition, real-time feedback is one essential component of games, in
order to get a real-time control on result and performance. Really complementary, real-time
feedback and transparency are key elements of game mechanics, which may have a positive
impact on management approach. Beyond this idea of rules definition and results visibility, the
project management journey is composed like a game with an on boarding period, scaffolding
and finally the accomplishment.
1.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Implement gamification in projects is not an easy task and it seems to be still topical. Although
some tools and software have been developed to gamified IT projects (i.e. Red Critter Tracker,
Themis, Get Badges), there is still much to explore. Which types of companies are more likely
to deploy a gamified project management tool? Why these companies should invest in a digital
project management gamification strategy? How game mechanics can be applied to project
management to create a strong commitment?
To what extent gamification approach can be beneficial to project management?
This thesis provides theoretical and contextual elements in order to bring recommendations to
project managers in the implementation of gamification, focusing the research on a French
environment. The objective is to understand the benefits and limits and how gamification may
be deployed throughout the project life-cycle.
In order to conduct this research and narrow down the study’s focus, the research question
has been divided into three different sub-questions:
RQ1. Why companies should invest in a project management system that implements
gamification?
RQ2. What are the most important activities and processes of project management which are
more likely to be improved by gamification?
RQ3. How to implement game mechanics into the full project life-cycle?
The study particularly focuses on studying the suitability and potential enhancement of project
management through the implementation of gamification techniques. While expected results
are difficult to assess, different hypotheses have been announced, corresponding to the
research questions mentioned above:
H1. Gamification techniques influence the success of a project by improving the efficiency and
the motivation of team members

4

H2. Gamification can have an interesting role in the launch of a project, which seems to be a
crucial step, allowing to define the project and its perimeter, establish the unity within the team
and bring a clear vision of the initial objective.
H3. Many games have been developed in order to improve or resolve a specific project
management challenge, but they are not integrated in the whole project life cycle. It would be
interesting to combine these game mechanics in order to create a fully gamified project
management experience. Although a standardised framework could be suggested, it would
need to be adapted to meet the business environment, the project objectives and specificities
1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS
After this short introduction to the study and the presentation of the research questions and
expected results, it’s time to get in the substance of that case.
Firstly, a literature review will attempt to introduce the different concepts involved in the
subject: project management, game mechanics and motivation theory. The first part focuses
on project management. This defines and outlines projects characteristics, criteria and factors
that influence the success of the project and introduce the different collaborative tools. The
second part is introducing the concept of motivation, including the notion of engagement and
the classical theories of motivation with a specific focus on work motivation theories. The last
part is dedicated to the concept of gamification, including the definition of games, the
description of gamification characteristics but also a short reflection process to outline the
potential limit of the approach. Lastly, the chapter ends with a brief overview of the three
themes exposed.
The next chapter is dedicated to the methodology used throughout the study, including the
choice of the research method, the different methods used to collect data and analyse it. This
part has been structured by dissociating the two research methods used. Samples of the online
question and group of respondents are introduced in this part. The last point of the chapter
mentions the limits concerning validity and reliability.
Then, the results of the survey are described and analysed. Consistent with the field research,
results will be presented in two sections, with first the analysis of the online questionnaire
focusing on the project management environment. The second part combines the empirical
data collected through the qualitative field study and the eventual correlation and additional
components from the online questionnaire. This includes the analysis of the content shared by
the interviewees, such as the potential favourable business environment, the different
approaches and techniques used, the observed impacts and limitations and finally the concrete
application of gamification in project management.
To conclude, the study will open to a discussion, in order to share addition thoughts and
remarks, summarise the answers and attempt to answer to the initial research questions. In
addition, potential future research is introduced to open new areas of study.
Throughout the study, the purpose is completed by a list of references detailed at the end of
the survey. In addition, the appendix includes the full results of the online questionnaire, the
framework used to conduct the interviews and the entire transcription of the discussions
held.

5

“What if we decided to use everything we know about
game design to fix what’s wrong with reality?”

Jane McGonigal

6

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
A variety of resources have been studied in this chapter, as this research is focusing on three
distinctive subjects: project management, motivation and gamification.
In the first section, basic concepts of project management will be reviewed, in order to better
understand the scope of the environment. Project management is a complex subject, with
many elements and theories. The literature review will take an interest in the project
characteristics, success factors and criteria related to the impact of employee’s engagement.
The second part is about understanding motivation and engagement, with a short introduction
to employee’s engagement, the description of motivation characteristics and an overall review
of work motivation theories. The third section will then develop the gamification concept by
introducing the notion in a broad sense and deal with game mechanics in depth. Lastly, the
limits of gamification will be highlighted.
This literature review was key in the study, as lectures aim to get a clear vision of the scope of
the subject, and underline what have been already done and what are the next challenges to
meet.
1.3 INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.3.1 History, definition and characteristics of project management
In the academic literature, the approach of project management seems to be recent. According
to management historians, the concept was established and formalised from 1950 (Shenhar &
Dvir, 1996). Standardised methods and tools started to be developed from 1950, such as the
PERT method in 1969 (Program Evaluation and Review Technic) created by the Project
Management Institute (PMI). This is only in 1980, during the industrial revolution, that the
method was largely implemented by organisations. Today, project management is common in
most businesses, such as healthcare, banking, insurance, manufacturing, IT, R&D or marketing
companies. Despite this recent implementation of the method in modern organisation, the
concept of project management seems to be part of the human activity (Garel, 2003). Already
a thousand years ago, the world history has known many vast projects, such as the construction
of Egyptian pyramid or the Great Wall of China. Today, project management may be considered
as the adaptation of ancestral methods in our modern and complex business environment.
Before going deeply in the subject, the notion of project in the broad sense and its relationship
with project management need to be introduced. The main purpose of organisations is to
perform and produce work through the time by managing people and resources (PMBOK,
2000). In this notion of performance, two categories of activities differ: operations and projects.
The difference between operations and projects is about the singularity and the temporality of
the project. While an operation is a repetitive task, a project is defined as “an endeavour in
which human, material and financial resources are organized in a novel way, to undertake a
unique scope of work, of given specification, within constraints of cost and time, so as to achieve
beneficial change defined by quantitative and qualitative objectives.” (Turner, 1999). At the
opposite of an operation which can be repeated over time, a project is characterised by its
uniqueness. Of course, the uniqueness is a relative concept, as many repeated elements might

7

be similar through projects. But on each project, some parameters may differ and impact the
project as a whole, such as the environment, resources or objectives. However, novelty and
uniqueness of projects vary according to the defined variables, from very familiar to completely
new elements. The second characteristic is about time limitation. This temporality implies the
concept of objectives: once the objective is achieved, the project is ended. This time limitation
does not necessarily mean short-term duration, as a project can be implemented in weeks,
months or even years. However, this is important to distinguish the act of production - the
project - which is ceased after the achievement of objectives, and the result of the project
which is not necessarily time framed. To illustrate this distinction, the construction of a
monument is limited through the time and takes end when the monument is built. But the
monument itself - as a result of the project - has no time limitation. Finally, a project progresses
through different processes. Because the project is evolving in a unique scope of work and is
time limited, the project need to be elaborated step by step, in a progressive elaboration. These
processes are organised in a life cycle composed by 4 main phases (cf. Figure 1), in order to
provide a basic framework for management. Depending on the nature of the project, the
number of phases in the life cycle model varies (Patanakul et al., 2010). In a traditional point of
view, steps are identified in sequential phases such as conceptualisation, planning, execution
and termination (Pinto & Prescott, 1990).

Figure 1: The four phases of the project life cycle. Adapted from J. Westland, The Project
Management Lifecycle, Kogan Page Limited (2006)
After this short overview of the definition and the characteristics of a project, project
management notion will be introduced. Project management is the process of achievement,

8

with “the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to project activities to meet
project requirements” (PMBOK, 2000). As management in a broad sense is an ongoing process,
project management is driven by project characteristics: it has a limit of time, ended when the
objective of the project is achieved. Project management is mostly focused on planning,
organising, controlling, and monitoring a project (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996). However, the
function of project management involves many other aspects, as it operates in a broader
environment than the project, including the business and the external environment. Among
the variety of project management knowledge areas, this study will principally focus on
planning, as it was identified as the main role of project management (Packendorff, 1995).
According to the complexity of the project and its characteristics, different project
management approaches can be applied. Traditional approach, established in the 50’s, is the
most common method in PM, adapted to a large range of projects (Špundak, 2014). The
method assumes that the project is predictable: limits are easily set and tasks are linearly
planned. However, this traditional approach has rapidly proved its limits, as many unpredictable
aspects are likely to emerge during the execution. Facing this challenge of dynamic
environment, new project management have progressively emerged in order to improve the
adaptability of PM. This classical approach is associated with the waterfall method, rolling-out
a certain number of stages throughout the time. Although this approach can be easily applied
to all kind of projects, other life cycles have been developed, more adapted to project
characteristics, with an incremental approach. One of the most popular is certainly SCRUM as
an agile methodology, initially developed for software engineering project in order to manage
complex projects, where requirements and objectives might change through the time. In this
approach, rapid feedback and continuous improvement are fundamentals, and processes are
continuously evolving (Balaji & Murugaiyan, 2012). The agile method introduces also new
guidelines and principles concerning the communication and the collaboration, where team
members are more involved in decision making (Aubry, 2015). This trendy approach leads to
the emergence of the agility term which defines the mind-set of the method. Aubry (2015)
defines the notion of agility as “the ability of an organization to provide services early and often
to its users, while adapting to changes in its environment in time.” This notion is more and more
introduced in a various set of industries, in order to boost continuous innovation and accelerate
delivery time. From these two general methods, traditional and agile, many adaptations have
been made, but the overall concept is still the same.
1.3.2 Criteria and factors for successful project
Two components are related to the success: success criteria and success factors (Turner, 1999).
Success criteria is the reference defined basically before the start of the project to measure the
success. In the standard mantra, 3 success criteria should be taken into account: quality, cost
and time (Atkinson, 1999), as a balance to manage and respect properly through the different
stages of the project. However, these 3 criteria are only basics. Measuring the success of a
project goes beyond these fundamentals elements, with objective and subjective indicators.
Success criteria differs from one project to another, taking into account the characteristic of
the project as a unique and complex system. Objectively, project management needs to define
clear Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), which can be easily tracked during the project in order
to control and monitor the project performance. Time and cost can be defined as KPIs, but also
other quantitative parameters, such as productivity or revenue. On the other hand, evaluating
the quality of the project is quite subjective, as the satisfaction is relative to different points of

9

view. To better measure the success of a project, the satisfaction of all stakeholders, directly or
indirectly involved in the project, needs to be taken into account. First, with the perception of
the team concerning the quality of the project and the measurement of external performance
with client’s satisfaction (Pinto & Prescott, 1990). But also, the satisfaction of other
stakeholders, including users, shareholders, sponsors, the management board or even
contractors (Westerveld, 2003). Actually, the success is relative to the point of view, according
to the importance given to some criteria and the objective to achieve: generate profit, increase
the value of the company, meet user requirements… But project success is also relative to the
time. It can be evaluated as successful in a short-term point of view, but with a step back -
months or years later - the project can be appraised differently. In this context, this is
interesting to distinguish the PM success, directly linked with the performance of the execution
and the project success, closely related to the result (Cooke-Davies, 2002).
Defining the success criteria is one thing, but what are the elements having an impact on this
success? Many key success factors have a direct influence on performance. Belasse & Tukel
(1996) have identified 4 groups of factors: related to the project, the team members and the
project manager, the organisation and the external environment. First, the characteristics of
the project will obviously affect the performance: is it a realistic objective? Is the deadline
adapted to the density and the complexity of the project? Facing these elements, the project
manager is key in the success of the project, as it will be the person responsible for the whole
project from kick-off to delivery, including coordination and resources management. The
project manager and the team members will play a key role, according to their engagement
and competencies, their understanding of the project mission, or the proper use of PM tools
and techniques (Patanakul et al., 2010). But success factors are also outside the control of the
project management, with the influence of the organisation, but also the external environment,
based on the PESTL components (Belassi & Tukel, 1996). Project managers have to deal with all
these elements in order to maximise the chance to manage a successful project.
1.3.3 Introduction to collaborative and project management tools
In this current business environment, project management has been partially impacted by the
information and communication technology (ICT) and the use of computer software. From
virtual to collocated teams, interaction and collaboration are more and more digital. In a first
step, common communication tools have been largely adopted in companies, such as e-mails,
instant messaging or teleconferencing. However, these tools are only basic communication
tools facilitating short-term exchanges, they do not provide a complete and adapted framework
for project management (Lorio et al., 2011). This last decade, an amount of project
management tools and software have been developed and proposed to cope with project
management needs. Among the various PM aspects (financial, risks, quality and resources
management, planning and processes), process management is a challenge that can be
managed through the support of ICT. Other components need to be considered, including
collaboration, identified as a critical reason of failure. Different levels of collaboration software
have been classified: communicative, collective, cooperative, coordinated and concerted
(Romano et al., 2002). First levels of collaboration software are mainly designed to share
information and documents, support meetings and facilitate social interactions. On the top
level of collaboration software, concerned software integrates strong collaborative features,
such as co-writing on the same document. Some software tends to translate all components of
projects into the system, such as life-cycle processes, time-tracking, to-do lists and task

10

management. These complex systems are related to Virtual Project Management Systems
(VPMS) such as Zoho PM, MS Project, Wrike, or Basecamp to name few of them.
Benefits of digital PM tools have been considered in the literature. First, in terms of
communication efficiency, tools and PM software lead to improve the communication flow and
facilitate decision making (Ahuja et al., 2009). Collaboration across the project teams is more
efficient, especially through strong collaborative features. In the same way, project knowledge
can be easily accumulated by the team, since documents and other resources can be
centralised and easily accessible. On the other hand, tracking task status is a way to increase
control on the project and improve the visibility (Romano et al., 2002). Of course, all these
benefits are not systematic, this is strongly dependent to the context. The tools have to be
relevant and appropriate to the project requirements, and have to bring a real added-value (i.e.
deploying tools which overlap with other tools already deployed and used is not
recommended). In the same way, one of the biggest challenge for companies is to promote and
facilitate the adoption of the tools among their employees. And this is not always an easy task.
Adoption often requires long-term effort because a fully user-friendly experience has to be
delivered. In short, many conditions to consider before choosing and deploying a collaborative
tool in projects, keeping in mind that software project management is just a tool and human
needs to be considered first.
1.4 UNDERSTAND MOTIVATION
1.4.1 Employee’s engagement & motivation as a key success factor in project management
Before to address these two concepts, it’s interesting to understand the interest of motivation
and engagement in organisations. The notion of employee’s engagement and motivation at
work appeared recently in the literature (Kompaso & Sridevi, 2010), even if similar concepts
have been largely studied, such as commitment and Organizational Citizen Behaviour (OCB).
What drives individual decision to behave in a certain way, depending on the context and the
environment? Actually, among the various hard tasks of project management, human
resources are a vital component of success. The challenge of growth and productivity gains is
leading to appeal to psychology concepts and understand human behaviour. Through different
authors’ points of view, the relationship between profitability and engagement has been
established, with motivation as the main individual performance factor at work (Macey and
Schneider, 2008; Roussel, 2000). On the other hand, surveys have been conducted such as
Gallup Employee engagement survey4
, revealing that more than half of the workforce in the US
do not feel engaged (Seijts & Crim, 2006). These alarming figures need to be carefully
considered by organisations and managers as a new challenge to meet.
Work motivation and engagement are two closed notions and definitions in the literature may
overlap. Work motivation is defined as “a set of energetic forces that originate both within as
well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behaviour (…)” (Pinder, 1998). On
the other hand, engagement seems to be more complex to define, as the academic lectures
provide many definitions going further to the attitude of performance. Engagement is defined
as the opposite of burn-out; this psychological state is expressed by energy, involvement and
efficacy (Maslach et al., 2001). One important element is the emotional connection between

4
http://news.gallup.com/poll/180404/gallup-daily-employee-engagement.aspx

11

an organisation and their employee, with a strong sense of belonging, leading to an internal
motivational state. The engagement is not limited to the level of satisfaction, it’s a real state of
mind where the employee is voluntarily contributing to the success of the business. Overall,
engagement may be seen as a result, partly driven by motivation.
1.4.2 Characteristics of motivation
Motivation is a complex concept which has interested many disciplines such as education,
psychology and sociology. To better understand what motivation is, Denhardt, Denhardt and
Aristigueta (2008) determine what motivation is not. First, motivation is not limited to
satisfaction. Satisfaction may be the result of the achievement of a goal driven by motivation,
but “satisfaction is past oriented, whereas motivation is future oriented” (Denhardt et al., 2008,
p. 147). This internal state is not something directly measurable or observable, even though
the result is manifested by a certain observable behaviour. In the same way, motivation can be
conscious or unconscious. Freud’s theories supposed that many human behaviours are
influenced by unconscious desires and impulses. And finally, motivation is not something that
people can directly control, although motivation can be influenced.
Researchers identified three components in the definition of motivation: direction of
behaviour, intensity of action and persistence of the effort over the time (Kanfer, 1990). These
three variables compose the impact and the outcomes of the motivation: what decision will be
taken? How much effort will be allocated? How long time this effort will be maintained? These
elements could be a way to measure the level of motivation by the performance achieved.
However, the relationship between performance and motivation needs to be clarified. This is
difficult to compare the level of motivation of individuals based on performance measures.
Although performance is measurable and impacted by the level of motivation, it is also driven
by other factors, notably based on individual differences, such as cognitive or physical abilities.
Measure the level of motivation from performance results would not be an exact science, since
individuals are unique.
In the same way, people have not only different performance skills, but also different types of
motivation, according to their value, their personality, their experience, their environment and
their culture. Two types of motivation are commonly distinguished through theories: intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is the desire to perform an action for its own
interest and the enjoyable aspect with no apparent reward, while extrinsic motivation is driven
by an external outcome such as rewards. Intrinsic motivation is innate in the human behaviour,
while extrinsic is triggered by an external element and can result to pressure and anxiety (Deci
& Ryan, 2008). Although some studies opposed these two types of motivation, other studies
suggested that extrinsic can be complementary and interact with the intrinsic motivation, in
order to increase it (Hayamizu, 1997). Going further to this simplistic dual vision, the Self-
Determination Theory (SDT) distinguishes controlled motivation and autonomous motivation.
This model is a graduated level of motivation, going progressively to a self-determined
behaviour (cf. Figure 2). Controlled motivation introduces the concept of a motivated
behaviour driven by regulations, both internal (avoidance of shame, self-esteem, ego-
involvement…) and external (rewards, punishments…). On the other hand, autonomous
motivation is a self-determined behaviour mostly composed by intrinsic, but also extrinsic
motivation answering to personal aspirations and values. In various studies, it has been proven
that autonomous motivation leads to better performance, including long-term persistence
(Deci & Ryan, 2008). Actually, despite the strong power of extrinsic motivation, the impact of a

12

long run controlled motivation can have a negative motivational effect, with lower satisfaction
and less persistence for future tasks.

Figure 2: The self-determination Theory detailing types of motivation. Adapted from Ryan &
Deci (2000)
Following this statement, the challenge of motivation in a work context is even more complex.
How to encourage and facilitate an autonomous motivation, influenced by the complexity of
human behaviour and the strong influence of personal values? The use of extrinsic method is
not sufficient and has to be intelligently balanced and linked with intrinsic motivation to avoid
negative impacts on future behaviour. Obviously, no framework is capable of ensuring a result,
since impacts will be considerably different from one person to another. But the common
denominator of these concepts is the goal-oriented approach, with a sense of progress leading
to satisfaction (Meyer et al., 2004).
1.4.3 Work motivation theories: content & process theories
Different theories have introduced motivation drivers, with two principal sets of theories:
content theories and process theories. Content theories appeared in the 1950s, based on the
identification of factors related to motivation (Steers et al., 2004). What are the drivers which
trigger motivation? This theoretical current assumes that humans share similar needs, and in
order to satisfy them, a motivated behaviour is triggered. One of the most well-known theory
is certainly the Maslow’s need hierarchy model (Maslow, 1946), in which a series of needs have
been hierarchically classified. In this theory, humans have to master the first basics needs –
physiological, safety and security – before developing other needs related to individual
achievement, including belongingness, esteem and self-actualisation.

13

Figure 3: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Poston, B. (2009)
In this pyramidal model (cf. Figure 3), there is a sense of progress, in which new needs appears
through the satisfaction of the previous ones. Obviously, this model is quite theoretical and
some other theories have contrasted this incremental approach, despite many similarities have
been observed, based on the satisfaction of needs. In 1969, a second needs theory is developed
by Alderfer, directly applied on work situation. This ERD theory limits the 3 types of needs:
existence needs with physical and material well-being, satisfying social relationship –
relatedness - and personal development - growth. In contrast with Maslow’s theory, the ERD
theory simplified the incremental approach with a frustration-regression principle (Schneider
& Alderfer, 1973). Individual may regress to a lower-level of needs when the expected need is
unsatisfied. Another theory which has been influenced by Maslow is the motivation-hygiene
theory, also called two-factor theory (Herzberg, 2005). This model, applied specifically on a
work environment, distinguishes motivator factors, related to the higher level of needs in
Maslow’s need hierarchy model (achievement, responsibility, recognition and growth), and
hygiene factors referring to basics needs (salary, work conditions, policy…). The interesting
added-value in this approach is the distinction between dissatisfaction and satisfaction. On one
hand, motivator factors, relating to intrinsic motivation, may lead to job satisfaction and
motivation, but won’t necessarily lead to dissatisfaction. On the opposite, hygiene factors
based on extrinsic elements only affect dissatisfaction and do not lead to satisfaction on its
own. Among these 3 classical content theories (Maslow, Alderfer and Herzberg), authors

14

assume that individuals share identical needs. However, this approach seems to be theoretical
and the difference of needs from one individual to another need to be considered.
On the other hand, process theories of motivation highlight the cognitive differences between
individuals. A short overview of the three main process theories is proposed in the literature
review, with first the expectancy theory, then equity theory and finally the goal setting theory.
In 1964, Vroom develop the expectancy theory, which tends to understand work behaviours
and individual performance. This theory suggests that people make consciously choices by
calculating value and probability of achievement in order to maximise their self-interest (Isaac
et al., 2001). The model is based on a combination of “valence (anticipated satisfaction),
instrumentality (the belief that performance will lead to rewards), and expectancy (the belief
that effort will lead to the performance needed to attain the rewards).” (Locke & Latham, 2002).
In other words, people adopt a certain behaviour to complete goals when they believe that the
result expected is achievable. Another key theory in process approach is the social equity theory
introduced by John S. Adams (1963). The concept suggests that people measure equity by
comparing their input to outcome ratio from other workers (Bolino & Turnley, 2008). When the
ratio is equal, people tend to be more satisfied in their professional and personal relationships.
At the contrary, a perceived inequity will trigger tension and motivate people to change the
situation. Although this theory is underspecified, it helps to understand the importance of
justice in organisation and better understand some employee’s behaviours. To finish this
review of process theory, goal-setting theory is an unavoidable key principle in work
motivation. Goal is very powerful, as it allows to give a direction, impulse energy, manage
persistence and trigger strategies and discovery. It states that individuals are challenged to
increase performance through moderately difficult, self-assigned and clear goals (Locke &
Latham, 2002). This approach is not only interesting from an individual perspective, but also
from a team perspective, because it has a positive impact on cohesion and performance.
According to the model, there is a strong relationship between goal and performance; the
performance increases proportionally with the level of difficulty until individual reaches its limit,
which is also related to self-efficacy.
1.5 GAMIFICATION: A CHALLENGE FOR SUCCESSFUL PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.5.1 Introduction to the notion of game
Before understanding the term of gamification, this is interesting to clarify the notion of
“game”. Defining the term of game has proved to be more complex than expected, as there
are many combinations of gaming. However, this preliminary work seems to be essential to
better understand what is gaming, what compose the game, or even why people enjoy games.
In a basic definition, games are a structured form of play, experienced as a collaborative,
competitive or individual experience (Koster, 2013). Game is basically entertainment creating
positive emotions, perceived as a fun experience with learning and practising elements. It can
take many different approaches, depending on the format, the method, the environment…
Definition of games varies in the literature and through the time, and different factors and
characteristics are highlighted according to points of view. Caillois qualified game as free,
separated, uncertain, unproductive, governed by rules and make-believe activity (Caillois,
1961). On the other hand, Crawford promoted four dimensions of the game: representation,
interaction, conflict and safety (Crawford, 1984). And to complete the definition, McGonigal

15

focused on the main characteristics which are goals, rules, feedback system and voluntary
participation (McGonigal, 2011).
Games can take different forms, materialised or not on a physical medium (board games, card
games, smartphone, computer...). But looking forward the devices, game elements have many
similar traits. In the context of this study, 4 main components have been selected, principally
for their importance in a serious-game context:
(1) Goals: It tends to implement goals and challenges, while play is non-goal oriented. The
concept of objectives is really important, as this encourage the progression.
(2) Rules: in the same way, game is quite formal with explicit rules, which defines limitation on
the way players can achieve the goal.
(3) Choices: one important component of games is the ability of the player to interact with it.
There is not a simple path to follow, but alternative choices allowing to explore different
strategies with a complex network of paths. At the contrary, a story is based on a simple
sequence of facts, as a static element, whereas games are dynamics.
(4) Feedback: the feedback system implemented in games is a way to communicate and quickly
measure the achievement of the goal. Rapid feedback is a way to learn and readjust from the
past experience. Games are a good way to experience and learn, as a simplification of reality
representation. It integrates a subjective representation with a subset of reality, while
simulation attempt to represent a real phenomenon (Crawford, 1984). This safety “non-reality”
environment is a good leverage to safely experience failures: freedom to fail allows to test and
learn, answering to an educational stake.
There are obviously many other features in games, such as storytelling, graphic design, rewards,
competition… But all these features are specific to the game, reinforcing the four core elements
(goals, rules, interaction and feedback). But finally, the essence of the game is about creating
positive emotions. Games, by creating hard work challenges (mental, physical, discovery,
creative, busywork or teamwork), leverage in an intensive way our attention, our motivation,
memory and emotion. Rapid feedback and experience of success and failure bring a sensation
of productivity and progression: this is why video games are so addictive (McGonigal, 2011).
Among the diversity of games, Roger Caillois detailed into « Man Play and Games » (1961) four
different categories. First « Agôn », which refers to competitive games, including a winner and
a looser. This notion of challenge is directly linked with the self accomplishment and personal
development. The second category of games is « Alea », in other words, chance. This mechanic
is really interesting as it sets on equal footing players, without taking into account physical
capacity or social background. The third category is « Mimicry », which corresponds to role
games where the player is adopting another personality through the game. And finally, the last
category is « Illinx », which relates to strong emotion, similar to a trance sensation bringing
enjoyment. These 4 categories are basics psychological functions, fundamentals in game
mechanics. Agôn, Alea, Mimicry and Illinx are actually often combined and used through games.

16

Figure 4. Evolution of Web search on the word "gamification", from 2004 to 2017. Results
from Google Trends as of October, 12 of 2017

Coming back to notion of gamification, the term was almost inexistent in the literature until
2010, although psychologists have already explored the connection between games and
education. But these recent years have showed a real interest for this approach and the term
has been widespread in the recent literature and on the internet (cf. Figure 4). Beyond the
vision of a simplistic method, the purpose of gamification is to develop gamified experience in
order to engage users and solve problems (Zichermann, 2013). In other words, gamifying an
object or a service is an adaptation of the core elements of a concept with the implementation
of games mechanisms in order to enhance the initial experience. In a first glance, gamification
has been widely used in marketing, in order to reinforce customer loyalty and engagement.
According to Zichermann, one of the first gamification approach has been implemented into a
loyalty program by S&H in 1890’s, with a reward system based on a virtual currency.
Progressively, the concept has been implemented in many areas including in enterprise
workplace in order to increase employee’s engagement and performance. But the word
“gamification” still confusing in people mind: is it related to the fact to play in a professional
environment? Is it about learning through a game?
To understand gamification in context, Deterding et al. (2011) proposed a framework
distinguishing the gamification from other concepts based on two axes: whole and part, gaming
and playing (cf. Figure 5). In this definition, serious games and gamification are clearly
differentiated, as serious games are fully emerged in a game, whereas gamification is partially
composed by game elements in order to address non-game challenges.

17

Figure 5. "Gamification" between game and play, whole and parts (Deterding et.all, 2011)
1.5.2 Gamification characteristics and mechanisms
There are hundreds of gamification mechanisms implemented in order to reward and boost
achievements (Muletier et al., 2014). Feedback, badges, trophies, points and levels,
progression bars, dashboards, leaderboards etc. These mechanisms can be integrated in
different ludic experiences. According to the G.A.M.E. method, four types of experiences are
identified: competition, play role, cooperation and storytelling.
Bartle (1996) has classified users into four types of players: Fighters, Socialisers, Explorers and
Achievers. This categorisation has been defined according to actions that players prefer to
perform. The majority of players – around 80% - are socialisers. They enjoy to build
relationships, help and interact with the community of players. Explorers and achievers are
proportionally represented with roughly 10% of the players. While explorers enjoy to explore
and discover, achievers are focused on achieving goals and challenges. The last category of
players is called killers. This type of players, which represent less than 1% of players, is strongly
animated by direct competition, the desire to win and be part of the top rank. Of course, this
classification is only a way to evaluate predominant behaviour among types of players, although
players can combine different motivation factors (Bartle, 1996). This classification is interesting,
as it allows to understand the difference between users’ motivations and to realise that most
of game mechanics used in gamification are focused on achievements and do not necessarily

18

motivate all types of players. While explorers and achievers are easily satisfied by basics game
mechanics, it’s important to integrate the notion of social relationship and collaboration.
Some authors adapted this profile categorisation by going deeper in the details of each profiles.
Mangiatordi (2017) identified 8 clear profiles based on the Bartle’s Matrix with complementary
characteristics. Indeed, each category has been distinguished into two different archetypes:
Killer and Competitor, Collector and Expert, Rockstar and Coach, Detective and Navigator (cf.
Figure 6).

Figure 6. Players types illustrated by Dominique Mangiatordi, adapted from Bartle

In addition to understanding game mechanics and user categories, it’s interesting to look at the
flow theory. The theory of flow is strongly related to the self-determination theory, briefly
approached in the previous parts. Csikszentmihalyi defines flow as “the holistic experience that
people feel when they act with total involvement.”. More specifically, the state of flow is
characterised as “an extremely enjoyable experience, where an individual engages in a [...] game
activity with total involvement, enjoyment, control, concentration and intrinsic interest.” (Hsu
& Lu, 2004).
In a game context, the flow is represented as a balanced equation between skills and difficulties
allowing to smoothly progress through the game (cf. Figure 7). While too complex tasks may
lead to anxiety and even abandon, too easy tasks will affect the interest and results to boredom.
In other words, engagement and satisfaction triggered from the gamification process are
continuously evolving through the learning experience: the progression has to be balanced
between people competencies and incremental complexity actions.

19

Figure 7. Representation of the Flow adapted from Csikszentmihalyi
For consistent gamification implementation, different methods and frameworks have appeared
to formalise and conceptualise the approach. Among the different proposals, Hunicke et al.
(2004) have developed a general game design framework called the MDA (Mechanics,
Dynamics and Aesthetics) allowing to understand the different games design elements.
According to the MDA framework, three elements of games are distinguished: rules, system
and fun. These elements have been converted respectively into design components with the
mechanics, corresponding to the rules of the game, defining how the game works, with levels
and badges for instance. The dynamics of the game describe the behaviour triggered by the
mechanics. And finally, the aesthetics relate to the emotional responses of the users
experiencing the games system. Other frameworks have been developed with different
approaches. One of the well-known framework is called Octalysis framework, developed by Yu-
Kai Chou. This human-centred framework defines 8 core drives of gamification (cf. Figure 8),
with meaning, accomplishment, empowerment, social pressure, unpredictability, ownership,
scarcity and avoidance. It allows to get an overall vision of the basic mechanisms leading to fun,
engagement and motivation. Another gamification design framework has been developed by
Kevin Werbach, detailed in the gamification MOOC5
with 6 design steps. First, defining business
objectives, to better understand the purpose of gamification. Then, delineate target behaviours
to describe what are the expected action of the player in order to meet the initial objectives
and to define metrics. As a third step, similarly to marketing and communication campaign,
audience has to be described, based on usual marketing elements and also gaming elements,
such as Bartle’s player types. Fourthly, devise the activity loops in order to encourage actions
according to the different phases of the game. Of course, ensuring that fun is part of the design
process. And last, deploy appropriate tools to put in place the gamified system.
Finally, although the different framework approaches help to better apprehend the complexity
of gamification, putting in place this concept is much more complex than simply add points and

5
https://www.coursera.org/learn/gamification/supplement/OwQYD/gamification-design-framework

20

badges, as the interesting features of gamification is to mix intrinsic and extrinsic motivation,
balanced between rewards and fun, designed according to the initial objective and adapted
based on the nature of the player.

Figure 8. Octalysis: a gamification complete framework from Yu Kai Chou
1.5.3 Limits of gamification
The term of gamification has been contested in the game industry, especially for the
oversimplification of game mechanics, often limited to the concept of scoring, badges and
rewards. Even though, gamification has proven many benefits, the implementation of such
approach in an internal business context has to be seriously considered; used inappropriately,
it can also be destructive (Raftopoulos, 2014). Games and workplace contexts are in a way
paradoxical, leading first to ethical issues. As we have seen in the previous definition, games
rely on voluntary participation. However, professional context is naturally based on obligation
to perform and gamification may be seen as a control method or a surveillance system.
Obviously, beyond the transparency of gamified mechanics, business objectives are clearly
identified and tracked. In addition to the control apprehension, gamification may also be seen
as a manipulation and addictive system. Giving the power to manipulate behaviour may be seen
as an abusive and unethical strategy, especially in a business context. In addition to this
unethical issue, a misapplication of games mechanisms may lead to the distraction of the main
purpose of the action. Focusing on quantified figures and non-meaningful numbers instead of

21

the final objective may lead to a negative impact. Chapman illustrated the risk with the example
of call centre: “If you reward your call centre for shorter call times, you’re likely going to come
up with poor customer reviews” (Chapman, 2012). Actually, this illustrates perfectly the
importance of meaningful rewards and the risk of unexpected behaviours. Another unintended
phenomenon may be experienced through the implementation of competition (Epstein, 2013).
While competition is a good leverage for individual performance, this technique may also work
again collaboration principles with, for instance, selfishness behaviour.
Another limit of gamification concerns the long-term benefits. While short-term impacts are
easy to implement and observe, with the “novelty effect”, implementing long-term impacts
seems to be much more complex (van Roy & Zaman, 2015). Actually, the use of the long-term
effect of gamification has been poorly studied in the literature. Gabe Zichermann pointed out
the limit of extrinsic motivation rewards and the short-term effect on motivation (Zichermann,
2013). In an incremental loop, rewards have to be continuously improved to trigger motivation
and interest. Beyond the fact that this involves expenses and creativity, extrinsic rewards may
fail the main purpose of gamification system, by decreasing the natural intrinsic motivation and
impacting engagement. In addition, a common fear of managers could be the negative impact
on seriousness. Of course, gamification is not adapted to every context and have to be
presented in a professional way. The purpose is not to lose the main objective and transform
the situation in a game, but simply leverage engagement with meaningful mechanics.
In line with management history, companies have for a long time ignore emotions and even
banned them (Ribert-Van De Weerdt, 2008). Perhaps this is a legacy from the industrial age, in
which performance and production were central. In contrast with this management approach,
60’s are also the emergence of a leisure and entertainment’s society (Dumazedier, 1963).
Although performance and efficiency still essential in companies, mentalities are progressively
changing. More specifically with the advent of the internet and new challenges concerning the
younger generation, also called “the millennial”.
Finally, meaningful gamification is specific to each individual. Although gamification has proven
its intergenerational impacts (Stevens, 2012), this is strongly relative to human psychology. And
designing a game which corresponds to everyone seems to be a complex challenge.

22

LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY
After the three subjects have been separately processed, a short overview and the relationship
between the concepts may be interesting. First of all, the literature review has shown that
project management, motivation and gamification are complex notions, with many theories
and approaches which have evolved and progressed through the time. Nonetheless, these
subjects have been largely studied and revealed a high interest in business contexts. Through
previous studies, the motivation has proven its benefits and its positive impacts on work
performance, while gamification seems to be an adapted medium to exploit and implement in
project management tools. Actually, there are many similarities between project management
and game mechanics, both based on human skill: goal-orientation with specific tasks to
complete, progression steps to achieve, rules to respect and resources to manage including
time limitation, and of course a specific environment to comprehend. Every component seems
to fit perfectly. However, these concepts are not scientific and binary notions, and results
cannot be assumed, as the relationship between project management, motivation and
gamification is all about complexity of the human nature. Controlling motivation is simply not
possible, and extrinsic factors may even overlap with initial intrinsic motivations. In addition to
this challenge, a vast range of factors and elements have to be taking into account. The
implementation of gamification mechanics in a project management environment has to
consider many aspects, including the business culture, the team and the management
technique, the nature of the project and the final business objective. Finally, the potential
impacts of motivation through gamification may be a way to reduce the responsibility of the
project manager concerning the engagement of the team, but this does not replace the
strength of collective and human relations.
On a critical point of view, this literature review does not reveal the impact of project
management tools integrating game mechanics. While a large amount of studies is available
on an internal business context concerning e-learning platforms and serious games, the
implementation and the adoption of project management tools are less covered, especially
with the focus on game mechanics. It would be interesting to get more academic literatures
on concrete examples and especially longitudinal studies. Actually, the long-term impact of
gamification is still a challenge to manage with continuous innovation.

23

3. METHODOLOGY
This following chapter aims to provide a brief overview of the methods used, enabling to guide
and structure the field research, including data collection as well as analysis of the data. It also
outlines technical details, such as materials and tools used in this study, specificities and details
of the data collection.
1.6 RESEARCH METHODS
1.6.1 The choice of the mixed-method: benefits and limits
The objectives of the study are dual. First, it’s important to better understand the general
experience in project management, in order to identify improvement areas. Beyond this
objective of understanding the environment, the main objective is to get some insights in order
to propose ideas and co-construct recommendations to implement relevant game mechanics
in the project management life-cycle. In order to get the full picture, the methodology adopted
in this research study is based on a mixed method research, by combining a quantitative and
qualitative survey. Conducting two different methods may be explained by different rationales,
including complementarity and triangulation (Bryman, 2006). In addition to reinforce the
findings and bring a more comprehensive result, using a multi-strategy research allows to
answer different research questions, in particular by combining different point of views and
contexts. Indeed, all the stake of this research is to answer the problem and generalise the
results, while taking into consideration the different stakeholders’ points of view as well as the
different contexts. Contrasting the general view through quantitative survey with the
granularity of information in qualitative research will allow to draw more relevant conclusion
than a single research.
While the concept of gamification and the impact on motivation and performance are based
on subjective perceptions of individuals, conducting a qualitative approach seems to be
necessary. Actually, to get relevant responses, the survey needs to be flexible through the
interview, since the personal experience and perceptions vary to one individual to another. The
strength of this method is to approach complex questions without the influence of
interviewers’ preconceptions, through non-oriented question. On the opposite, quantitative
survey will easily influence the result with structured and preconceived answers. In addition,
personal perceptions have to be partly interpreted, through non-verbal communication,
spontaneity and emotions. This is why an individual interview with a semi-structured
questionnaire has been selected. The aim of this qualitative perspective is to get flexible data
collection, but also explore and understand gamification challenges in project management
through different expertise and experiences.
On the other hand, despite a quantitative approach has certain limitations, the
complementarity of the quantitative perspective is interesting. It allows to get an overview of
the project management experience, taking into account the different point of views, from
project managers to team members. The idea is to prepare and support the qualitative
research, by understanding the project environment and general trends. To allow quick data
collection, the choice of a structured online questionnaire has been made. Beyond the fact that
the method is inexpensive and not restrictive, the advantage is probably that the survey can be

24

easily administrated through personal networks, social networks (i.e. LinkedIn, Twitter,
Facebook) and direct emails.
Although this mixed-method will allow to partly answer to the research questions, one of the
limit is that it relies on the researcher and its past experience: knowledge, relationships, work
experience… In addition, data collection in a qualitative approach may be very different from
one interview to the other. Of course, the idea is to improve the quality of the interview through
the time, by getting more experience, but also strengthen the approach based on the literature
review. In addition to this limitation, the method itself may be called into question. Actually, an
interesting approach would be to measure the concrete impact of gamification
implementation. This is the limit of the methods, both based on declarative and opinion, relying
on the reliability of the data, influenced by personal testimonies and subjectivity. A longitudinal
case study, involving field observation and experiments would be an interesting method to get
concrete data. However, putting this kind of experience is a difficult task, obviously time-
consuming, but also requiring resources and high degree of techniques and competencies, with
for instance A/B testing methods and gamification expertise.
1.6.2 Mixed-method implementation: objectives and roll-out
The implementation of the mix-method will be divided into three distinctive steps, going from
a large vision to a specific one. The very first step will be the deployment of the online
quantitative survey. The objective is to reach a large audience of professionals involved in
project management, from project managers to team members, in order to comprehend the
general vision of the environment. In short, this online survey is divided into four parts, with
the definition of the profile, the general context of projects, the general performance and
feedback concerning project management followed by a short introduction to gamification in
order to get the general opinion. This method aims to reinforce and corroborate the second
step of the research, with the individual survey.
The qualitative survey will target gamification experts, preferably but not necessarily having
project management experience. The choice of a semi-directive interview has been made, in
order to allow flexibility in the conversation. For instance, by ordering the questions differently,
or by simply add extra questions from one interview to another (Wilson, 2010).
The objective of the online questionnaire is to gain more in-depth insights concerning the
gamification techniques, especially when it has been implemented through previous or current
experience. These two methods aim to identify the most important activities which need to be
improved, impacting directly the success of the project.

25

OBJECTIVES
RESEARCH
METHODS
TARGETED AUDIENCE
UNDERSTAND THE
GENERAL CONTEXT OF
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
(SECTOR, TEAM, METHOD,
COMPLEXITY, TOOLS…)
(1) Quantitative
survey
(1) Large audience, including
project managers and team
members
MEASURE THE
PERFORMANCE OF
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
(IN A GENERAL POINT OF
VIEW AND THROUGH
SUCCESS CRITERIA)
(1) Quantitative
survey
members
IDENTIFY WHICH PROJECT
MANAGEMENT STEPS OR
ACTIVITIES NEED TO BE
IMPROVED
(1) Quantitative
survey
(2) Qualitative
survey
members
(2) Selected audience of
gamification experts
IDENTIFY WHAT IS
IMPORTANT AND
MOTIVATE PEOPLE IN A
WORK ENVIRONMENT
(1) Quantitative
survey
(2) Qualitative
survey
members
GET FEEDBACK ON
GAMIFICATION
TECHNIQUES IN PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
(2) Qualitative
survey
SELECT EFFICIENT
TECHNIQUES OF
GAMIFICATION
(2) Qualitative
survey
MEASURE THE IMPACT OF
GAMIFICATION
CONCERNING
MOTIVATION AND
PERFORMANCE
(2) Qualitative
survey
In support:
Literature review
Table 1. Crossing results of research methods to better reinforce findings

26

1.7 DATA COLLECTION
1.7.1 Quantitative Survey: online questionnaire data analysis
1.7.1.1 Questionnaire delivery and details
The online questionnaire was the very first step of the field study. The initial purpose was to
better understand the project management environment and potentially identify improvement
areas. The questionnaire was held between September 1st
and October 6th
of 2017, with a total
of 92 respondents who started to answer, including 32 incomplete answers and 60 complete
answers, which correspond to 65% of the respondents. The export (see on Appendix,
Quantitative results: full report) and the analysis refers only to the 60 complete answers, to get
relevant data according to the results.
The questionnaire was built in 4 main blocks with the profile definition, project context,
performance and feedback on project management (including tools and motivation drivers),
and a short introduction to gamification to conclude the survey. According to the results, most
people take approximately 15 minutes to answer with a total of 23 questions.
The survey has been built on Qualtrics, a complete online survey tool which presents different
benefits, such as the possibility of creating multi linguistic questionnaire. In this case, the survey
has been translated in French and English, in order to obtain the maximum amount of answers.
All answers were collected through this online questionnaire6
. The questionnaire has been
posted on different social media, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and Yammer. The four
channels were really complementary, as the communities were extremely different one
network to another. Different posts have been published through the time to ensure that the
publication would be visible to the largest possible audience. The survey has been notably
communicated to the different groups of Grenoble Ecole de Management and Burgundy School
of Business, on Yammer and Facebook. In addition, the survey has been communicated on the
forum gestiondeprojet.com 7
. And of course, personalised e-mails have been sent to
communicate the survey to few personal acquaintances, which appears to be the most
effective medium. At the end of September, as the number of results were not satisfactory,
another communication technique has been experienced: content marketing. A blog article has
been written, introducing free tools to create online survey8
, enabling to integrate a link of the
survey in the article. Unfortunately, this approach has not contributed to increase the number
of respondents.
1.7.1.2 Expected sampling and details of respondents
This questionnaire was specifically designed for professionals working in project environment,
regardless of their role, status or experience. As the objective was to collect information
concerning project management as a whole, participants did not necessarily need to have a
previous experience related to gamification. These prerequisites were always indicated in the

6
https://grenoble.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2gZvzzdqVFXVgGx
7
http://www.gestiondeprojet.com/forums/read.php?1,16906,16906#msg-16906
8
https://la-studio.fr/outils-gratuits-sondage-en-ligne/

27

different communication made, but also reminded at the very beginning of the survey, with a
short introduction:

“Hello and thank you for participating in this survey!
The objective of this online survey is to better understand the different experience
of people, regarding project management. This questionnaire is addressed to
professionals working in a project context, whether you are a team member or a
project manager.
N.B. Data collected in this survey is anonymous. Feel free to express yourself! »

As mentioned on this short introduction, results were completely anonymous, in the respect of
data privacy and regulations set by the referral organisation in France (the CNIL). Information
including the name of the company and the name of the participant were not collected. The
objective was to allow respondents to express freely their opinion, especially concerning the
performance and efficiency of the project management method, and concerning their personal
motivation drivers.
Concerning the sample, each participant answers the survey in French. According to the IP
address gathered by Qualtrics, all respondents were located in France. This assume that the
results are mostly representative of project management environment in France.
According to the results (see on Appendix, Quantitative results: full report), the survey allows to
mix the vision of project managers, representing around 38% of the respondents, and team
members. The typology of profile is composed by 32 men and 28 women with more than 93%
of the respondents aged between 18 and 44. Other age groups (45-55, 55-64 and more than
64) are unfortunately under-represented. Concerning business sector, results are quite
heterogeneous with people working in different industries, such as Information,
communication and media, Finance, Banking and Insurance, Business services, industry sector
etc. It may be noted that the IT and telecommunication sector is predominant compared to the
other industries, with 27,7% of the respondents. This statement is reinforced by the definition
of team role, where job title has been occasionally specified (i.e. Scrum Master, Tech Lead, Lead
Software Developer, Web Developer…). Among the respondents, the size of the company is
quite balanced, with a representation of small, medium and large companies. In the same way,
the size of the team project is quite dissimilar, with 40% of the sample working in small teams
(1 to 4 people), 36,7% with medium team (5 to 10 people) and only 6,66% working in bigger
team, from 11 people. In addition, 16,7% of the respondents is working in another context,
with for instance cross-functional projects, variable teams or even with no direct team.
1.7.2 Qualitative survey: semi-structured interview data analysis
1.7.2.1 Interview delivery and details
After collecting the majority of the results for the online questionnaire on project management,
interviews with gamification experts have been conducted. These qualitative surveys are the
most detailed data sources for this study.

28

The surveys took place between September 13th
and October 9th
of 2017, with a total of 11
interviewees (cf. Table 2). According to the respondent, the duration of an interview varies
from 25min to approximately one hour, with a total of 7 hours and 30 minutes of interview.
This variation of time was mostly due to professional time constraints of the interviewee; the
interview has been adapted according to the availability and professional obligation. All
interviews have been conducted in French, as interviewees are exclusively French native
speakers.
The interviews have been conducted based on an interview framework (See on appendix -
Qualitative survey: interviews Framework), covering the main thematic through a series of open
questions. The questionnaire was divided into 5 main sets of questions: introduction of the
interviewee, introduction to the gamification, feedback from an internal point of view and/or
client point of view, ideas exploration and conclusion. However, each interview was customised
and adapted according to the experience, the expertise and the time allocated to the
discussion. One respondent, Daniel Paire, requested the questions prior to the interview in
order to better understand the objective; otherwise, all interviews were entirely spontaneous.
Every discussion was held remotely, through the program Skype or simply through a phone call.
Before holding the dialogue, a small introduction was made in order to clarify the objective of
the interview, checking the available time and asking for permission to record the conversation.
Each interview, based on an approval prior, has been recorded and transcribed (as detailed in
Appendices, Qualitative Survey: retranscription), except for Fanny Le Gallou who explicitly asked
for not being recorded; in this situation, notes have been taken. The objective was to transcribe
all useful information and thoughts, in order to analyse their experience and feedback. To
record phone call, a specific application has been downloaded: Automatic Call Recorder9
,
available on Android. This App has been really useful with a good quality of sound recording,
but unfortunately two recordings have crashed, during the interview of Nicolas Babin (full
recording) and Nathan Scheire (last 20 minutes). On the other hand, Skype calls have been
recorded separately, with the native recorder App available on the smartphone. Every
interviewee kindly accepted to be identified (cf. Table 2).

NAME DATE COMPANY JOB TITLE DURATION
SURVEY
MODE

RECORDED
CÉLINE
CUSSET
13/09/2017 Diverty Events CEO 42’ min Phone OK
ALEXANDRE
DUARTE
15/09/2017 EcoGameLab
Freelance
consultant
32’ min Phone OK
DOMINIQUE
MANGIATORDI
15/09/2017 ØPP CEO 55’ min Skype OK
AUDREY
ROCHAS
20/09/2017
Creative
Slashers
CEO 54’ min Skype OK
SÉVERINE
BEDORET
21/09/2017 Happyformance
Change
Maker
21’ min Skype OK

9
https://call-recorder-automatic.fr.uptodown.com/android

29

NICOLAS
BABIN
26/09/2017
Babin Business
Consulting
CEO 55’ min Phone
NO
(technical
issue)
GUILLEMETTE
GOGLIO
26/09/2017 Orange
Consultant in
collective
intelligence
29’ min Phone OK
DANIEL PAIRE 02/10/2017
Happy Learning
Games
CEO 45’ min Skype OK
FANNY LE
GALLOU
04/10/2017 eFounders
Talent
Acquisition
Director
25’ min Skype
NO (on
request)
NATHAN
SCHEIRE
06/10/2017 LaPoste
Chef de
projet
innovation
50’ min Phone
32min on
50 min
(technical
issue)
CLÉMENT
MULETIER
09/10/2017
Lab
Gamification
UX &
gamification
consultant
46’ min Skype OK
Table 2. Respondents overview

1.7.2.2 Introduction to the interviewees
The objective of this field study was to meet professionals with a specific expertise on
gamification into an internal environment, specifically in project management. The ideal profile
was a gamification expert experiencing games techniques into project management. This would
allow to get feedback from an expert and get concrete examples. In addition, the diversity of
profiles was also a requirement, in order to compare experience and get a better understanding
of the implementation and the benefice.
The panel was essentially gamification experts, from different backgrounds. To get in contact
with these experts, the professional social network LinkedIn was used and actually really
effective. A specific research was made on the search bar with the key words “gamification”
and additionaly “project management”. Profiles have been studied and then a personal
message was sent to introduce the purpose of the field research and propose to take part of it.
On the 9 first contacts, all of them were successful, with a spontaneous affirmative answer,
which was really encouraging. On the other hand, the two other respondents, Guillemette
Goglio and Séverine Bedoret, were recommendations resulting from discussion through my
research. Before going deeper in the analysis, a short introduction of every interviewee is
proposed, in a chronological order (date of interviews detailed in Table 2).
Céline Cusset is the Founder and CEO of Diverty Events, a French company based in Rhône
Alpes. As a BtoB service provider, Diverty Events propose to organise different events around
the game, from seminar organisation, serious play animation and team-building. The company
is also developing a new product, s’teambox10
, a mensual box composed by various games in

10
http://s-teambox.com/

30

order to develop team cohesion. With 12 years of experience, the profile of Céline was really
interesting with different approach in gamification, mostly focused on an “on-the-ground”
approach. As a service provider, experiences into companies were extremely diverse.
Alexandre Duarte is working as a gamification consultant specialised in sustainable solutions
and energy transition, who started its own Business recently. “My work is about gamification,
change management and awareness”. He is particularly fascinated with the strong potential of
game mechanics as an engaging driver. Working with start-up and association for internal or
external projects, he did not get the chance to experiment gamification in project management
method yet.
Dominique Mangiatordi has an extended career as a serial entrepreneur specialised in digital
marketing, with more than 16 years of experience. He is a big believer in the power of
gamification and has recently wrote a book on management and gamification. His new
company, called ØPP, is dedicated to developing gamification applications, such as Peak Me
Up, Seeya and Hunterz, in particular to drive employee’s performance. As part of this study, his
project Happyformance the App, was particularly interesting. Happyformance is a dedicated
App for performance management, allowing to manage professional goals in a collaborative
way.
Audrey Rochas is also specialised in digital marketing for a couple of years with a background
in communication. In 2013, she created with an associate Creative Slashers, a digital agency.
Creative Slashers consultants are positioned as gamification experts, including as trainers and
management consultants. Beyond Creative Slashers, Audrey is working on a platform to gamify
teaching and prepare a thesis on gamification and artificial intelligence in marketing.
Séverine Bedoret is not specialised in gamification, but is working tightly with Dominique
Mangiatordi on the deployment of Happyformance the App. Her words were collected in order
to complement the interview with Dominique, since she was directly in contact with the client
during the implementation of the application. She currently performs the role of Senior Project
Management in the consulting firm Happyformance.
Nicolas Babin, formerly communication director at Sony, is passionate with gamification and
has created 8 months ago, beginning of 2017, his own company, Babin Business Consulting.
The company aims to support businesses in the development of their marketing, their business,
innovation management and project management, in particular using gamification techniques.
Beyond writing blog articles on gamification and management, he explored the application of
the technique in professional contexts, including in teamwork to engage and stimulate
collaborators.
Guillemette Goglio is a facilitator and expert on all the animation techniques in collective
intelligence at Orange. Part of her role is to accompany teams in the clarification of issues and
animate workshops and seminar in order to stimulate creativity and team collaboration.
Gamification is a tool she used among the variety of design-thinking techniques.
Daniel Paire distinguishes himself from other interviewees as he is the only one who developed
a gamified online tool dedicated for project management. CEO and founders of Happy Learning
Games, he developed a methodology called HappyScrum, in order to gamified the entirety of a
project based on the SCRUM Methodology. In addition of the gamification App dedicated to a

Project management and gamification

Project management and gamification

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Project management and gamification

Similaire à Project management and gamification (20)

Project management and gamification