Advertisement

Reimagining Project Management Applications via Gamification

  • Charles ButlerEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9191)

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to present a prototype design of a project management application which has been designed to leverage the power of gamification. The specific set of gamified features contained within the prototype follow the model set forth in previous work which attempted to aid gamification designers in the selection and implementation of the most effective mechanics for whatever the intended purpose. This was done by mapping a number of gamification mechanics to existing effects in behavioral economics, which allows designers an unconventional insight into the behavioral reasons as to why various methods of gamification affect a user-base. It should also be noted that unlike some gamification implementations which can, at times, be seen in a negative light by being excessively game-like, the focus here is on bringing gamification into the business setting in a serious and professional manner in order to ease adoption among all users.

Keywords

Team Member Project Management Loss Aversion Monetary Reward Business Setting 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ariely, D.: The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home. Harper Collins, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  2. Arkes, H., Blumer, C.: The psychology of sunk cost. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 35, 124–140 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butler, C.: Applied behavioral economics: a game designer’s perspective. In: Wood, L., Reiners, T. (eds.) Gamification in Education and Business. Springer, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  4. Cialdini, R.B.: Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Harper Business, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  5. Heyman, J., Ariely, D.: Effort for payment: a tale of two markets. Psychol. Sci. 15(11), 787–793 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Iyengar, S.S., Lepper, M.R.: When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79(6), 995–1006 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Choices, values, and frames. Am. Psychol. 39(4), 341–350 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lee, R., Sturmey, P., Fields, L.: Schedule-induced and operant mechanisms that influence response variability: a review and implications for future investigations. Psychol. Rec. 57(3), A7 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Rational choice and the framing of decisions. J. Bus. 59, S251–S278 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Westerdals – Oslo School of Arts, Communication and Technology, Faculty of TechnologyOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations