In Business with Super Mario 1

In Business with Super Mario:

Effectively Using the Gamification Trend

for Corporate Innovation

Marc Plasmans (10606408)

Entrepreneurship in Corporate Communication

Lectures by Wim Elving

April 1, 2014

In Business with Super Mario 2

Introduction

Innovation is generally seen as being crucial for organizations’ economic performance.

Especially in today’s dynamic business environments – heavily influenced by the internet –

implementing novel and useful ideas within an organization is more important than ever.

When organizations fail to innovate, they may prevent themselves to grow and be competitive

(Baer, 2012; Tellis, Prabhu, & Chandy, 2009). However, innovation is not always a recipe for

success. In fact, it is a significantly risky endeavor. Scholars observed that only one out of

five innovation projects initiated by organizations proves viable (Asplund & Sandin, 1999;

Cozijnsen et al., 2000). Moreover, due to the high risk involved with innovation, many

organizations do not engage in any innovative activities. The failure of one innovation may

cause greater harm to an organization’s reputation and resources than failing to innovate at all

(Van der Panne, Van Beers, & Kleinknecht, 2003; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). Therefore, it is

vital that business managers and entrepreneurs attempt to minimize the outcome uncertainty

involved with each innovation. One way to do so, is to closely follow and evaluate the latest

innovation trends (Deloitte Development LLC, 2013).

An innovation trend that has gained significant attention in recent years is

gamification. Gamification can be referred to as the use of game design elements (e.g., points,

badges and leader boards) in non-game contexts to improve user experience and engagement

(Deterding, Sicart, Nacke, O’Hara & Dixon, 2011). Given its broad definition, gamification

does not simply refer to one innovation, but it could be seen as an umbrella term for

technological innovations in a variety of domains. These innovations are powerful tools to

engage employees, customers and the public in order to change behaviors, develop skills and

drive innovation. While gamification was initially used for marketing purposes only, it is now

increasingly applied internally to increase productivity (Deterding et al., 2011; Gartner,

2012b). As such, corporate communication managers can use it as a tool for employee

motivation and engagement, and public relations practices (Cornelissen, 2011). Here,

gamification can be most directly related to user engagement theories and theories on intrinsic

versus extrinsic rewards (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011).

Technology consulting firm Gartner (2012a) predicts that by 2015, 40 percent of

‘Global 1000’ organizations will use gamification as their primary mechanism to transform

business operations. Other business research confirms this significant increase in applying

gamification over the coming years (Deloitte Development LLC, 2013; Anderson & Rainie,

In Business with Super Mario 3

2012). So, now might be the time to dig up those old Super Mario games and examine their

mechanics for purposes of business innovation.

Positive predictions for the overall increase in ‘gamified’ innovations, however, do not

decrease the outcome uncertainty of these innovations. In line with previous observations by

scholars on innovations in general (Asplund and Sandin, 1999; Cozijnsen et al., 2000),

Gartner (2012b) predicts that 80 percent of the current gamified innovations will fail to meet

business objectives. This prediction is confirmed by many gamification experts; they state

that the vast majority of gamification implementations are still shallow implementations of

points, badges and leaderboards without any viable long-term strategy (Kuo, 2013; Nicastro,

2013). By combining academic literature (theoretical orientation) and online content (e.g.,

blogs; practical orientation) on both innovation management and gamification, it can be found

how to successfully implement gamified innovations and minimize their outcome uncertainty.

Therefore, in this paper I will answer the following research question:

How can organizations effectively minimize the outcome uncertainty of innovations

that are based on the trend of gamification?

The research question addresses one innovation trend – gamification – specifically, because

of its novelty and direct relevance to managers and (aspiring) entrepreneurs. Moreover,

despite the general agreement on the importance of trend watching, the subject of trends is

largely unexplored in academic studies on corporate innovation and innovation management

(Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). This is surprising, since organizations are often forced to

implement innovations based on trends in order to remain competitive (Porter, 1985).

However, implementing trend-based innovations may cause a decrease in competitiveness as

well (Nwagbara & Reid, 2013). This may be the result of trends’ additional uncertainty of

time, which may cause innovations based on a specific trend to be unsustainable over a longer

period (Gopaladesikan, 2012). As such, this study also includes an evaluation of the

sustainability of gamification itself, and whether or not it is a fad.

The scientific and practical relevance of this research can be explained by the

following factors. First, this study will fill the currently existing research gap on gamification

and innovation trends – this is the first study to explicitly link corporate innovation and trends

literature to gamification. While few scholars have made a first attempt to define gamification,

a broader contextualization is required to enhance the understanding of gamification from a

corporate perspective (Deterding et al., 2011; Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014). Moreover,

In Business with Super Mario 4

this study can function as reference work and stepping stone for scholars to further investigate

the effects of gamification (Hamari et al., 2014). Second, the findings of this study can assist

innovation managers, marketing managers and entrepreneurs in providing effective ways to

approach gamification and innovation trends in general. Due to its practical nature,

professionals can directly apply new knowledge that is gained from this study. Finally, this

research will help to establish gamification as a sustainable, long-term tool for corporate

innovation. Despite opposing voices, gamification holds one of the biggest promises for the

future of innovation, which is why it is of significant importance that the amount of available

studies on this subject increase and that professionals become aware of its uses (Gartner,

2012b; Zichermann, 2011). In short, this study will provide pioneering insights into the

significance of trends in innovation management and of gamification.

In order to answer the research question as outlined above, this study will provide a

traditional narrative literature review (Tranfield, Denyer & Smart, 2003). First, the academic

articles that are included in the literature review were found through the ISI Web of

Knowledge’s Social Sciences Citation Index database and Google Scholar. Hereby,

preference was given to peer-reviewed journals (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Bacharach &

Podsakoff, 2005). Due to the novelty of the subject, a variety of online sources (e.g., blogs

and business reports) were included as well by using the Google search engine. Search terms

include varying combinations of the following words in a time range from 1981 to 2014

(April 1): innovation, management, trend, gamification, how, implement, apply, use, best

practice, success, outcome, uncertainty, risk, entrepreneur, and marketing. All the databases

above were searched until a sense of saturation was reached and no new or significantly

relevant literature could be found. The findings from the available body of literature on

gamification and innovation trends are presented in the following section first.

Literature Review

In order to answer the posed research question, this literature review is divided in three main

sections; (1) corporate innovation, (2) the gamification trend and (3) successfully

implementing gamification.

Corporate innovation

This study focuses on innovation at the organizational level. In this context, innovation has

generally been defined as the development and/or the implementation of new ideas or

In Business with Super Mario 5

behaviors (Daft, 1978; Van de Ven, 1986; Walker, 2006). Hereby, innovation could be seen

as a two-step process (Baer, 2012). Creativity – the development of novel and useful ideas –

is the first step of this process, whereas the actual implementation of ideas is the second step.

During the latter step, ideas are converted into new and improved products, services or ways

of doing things (Amabile, 1996; West, 2002). While many studies have not made the

distinction between idea generation and implementation, doing so allows for a more

meaningful distinction between the different personal and contextual forces that influence

these two factors (Baer, 2012; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). In the end, the two-step process will

either lead to successful or unsuccessful innovations. In this sense, success depends on

whether the desired outcome of an innovation is achieved after implementation.

Aside from categorizing innovations in terms of their success, scholars have defined a

wide variety of innovation types. Making these distinctions is useful, because conceptual

typologies of innovation are different in their characteristics and strategies to minimize

outcome uncertainty (Jansen, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2006; Kimberly and Evanisko,

1981). The best known and most widely studied typology is the distinction between product

and process innovations (Damanpour, Walker, & Avellaneda, 2009). Edquist, Hommen and

McKelvey (2001) extended this established typology by distinguishing between two types of

product innovations (‘in goods’ and ‘in services’) and two types of process innovations

(‘technological’ and ‘administrative’). Product innovations are specifically aimed at

introducing new goods or services to one’s clients. When elaborating on the other two types

of innovation, technological innovations are new elements that are introduced into an

organization’s production system or service operation. Administrative innovations, however,

are new approaches and practices to motivate and reward organizational members, devise

strategy and structure of tasks and units, and modify the organization’s management

processes (Edquist et al., 2001). Gamification can be applied to all four innovation types.

The gamification trend

Gamification, as a concept, was first coined in 2008, but this term did not see widespread

adoption until late 2010. While many competing terms and overlapping definitions have

surfaced since then, Deterding et al. (2011) made a first attempt to define gamification as an

academic concept; they state that gamification is “the use of game design elements in non-

gaming contexts” (p. 10). Hereby, game design elements could refer to reward systems (e.g.,

achievement badges and experience points), leaderboards with player rankings, but also a

sense of progress – similar to reaching the next level in a Super Mario game (Deterding et al.,

In Business with Super Mario 6

2011). The reason for implementing these motivational affordances in non-gaming contexts is

in order to invoke gameful experiences that will lead to certain behavioral outcomes (Hamari

et al., 2014). For example, when a LinkedIn progress bar states one’s profile is only

completed for 70 percent, this motivational affordance may trigger a psychological response

that compels one to make progress and acquire 100 percent completion. As a result of this

response, the behavioral outcome is that one completes the LinkedIn profile (Pulizzi, 2011).

As being a non-gaming context, organizations may implement gamification techniques like

this in order to engage employees or customers (Deloitte Development LLC, 2013). In this

sense, gamification can be an effective tool for internally and externally oriented corporate

communications (Cornelissen, 2011).

In order to fully understand gamification, it is important to consider the concept in a

broader context. As such, gamification can be regarded as a trend for corporate innovation

(Deloitte Development LLC, 2013; Anderson & Rainie, 2012). In itself, gamification is not an

innovation, rather it represents a popular, worldwide trend that influences corporate

innovations (Deloitte Development LLC, 2013; Deterding et al., 2011). However, according

to a study by Anderson and Rainie (2012), a significant number of people believes it is

unlikely that the gamification trend will be sustainable – they believe it is a fad that will soon

pass. The many reported failures of gamification appear to support the latter hypothesis,

because these may cause organizations to cease gamification projects and thus the trend may

not be sustained (Gopaladesikan, 2012; Kleinberg, 2012). Yet, according to Gartner’s widely

acknowledged hype cycle theory, widespread failure and a rapid decrease of interest is part of

the maturing process of any new technology or application (Fenn & Raskino, 2008; Linden &

Fenn, 2003). When applying this on gamification, the hype may be coming to an end followed

by a period of a negative hype – ‘through of disillusionment’ (Gopaladesikan, 2012). By the

end of this period, adoption of the technology or application will slowly increase again until

mainstream adoption is reached (Linden & Fenn, 2003).

Despite its many advocates, some remain skeptical about the usability and

sustainability of gamification. Remarkably, there are very few critical voices to be found in

the discourse on gamification. Bogost (2011), an early opponent, redefines gamification as

‘exploitationware’, since it exploits the popularity of video games for marketing purposes. In

this sense, organizations simplify game mechanics in order to justify their marketing

strategies and create a more innovative organizational image (Abrahamson, 1991). Zicherman

(2011) raises similar concerns, but specifically mentions the over-justification for rewards.

Due to gamification, people may not be driven to complete a task because of their intrinsic

In Business with Super Mario 7

motivation, but only because of an external reward system. Herewith, the quality of

behavioral outcomes could significantly decrease, since the only goal for participants may be

to ‘win the game’ (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 2001). To solve this problem, some have

suggested to adopt a new term, such as ‘engagification’ or ‘motivational design’. Their

critique is that the word ‘game’ in gamification implies that the implementation of a scoring

system will engage users, even though the gamification process is significantly more complex

(Herger, 2013; Olding, 2012). While these are valid concerns, gamification’ problems may

increasingly be overcome as the trend moves towards maturity (Linden & Fenn, 2003).

Successfully implementing gamification

Several decades of academic research on the management of innovation and technology have

produced many insights into the innovation process, but have largely failed to provide a

comprehensive framework with ‘best management practices’ (Tidd, 2001). Scholars hold

significantly different views on the relevance of a variety of factors that may or may not

decrease the outcome uncertainty of innovations. As such, there is no conclusive list of

success factors of innovations in general. Nevertheless, several literature reviews on

innovation have found patterns of agreement and disagreement among scholars (Crossan &

Apaydin, 2010; Damanpour et al., 2009; Gopalakrishnan, Kessler, & Scillitoe, 2010). By

combining these findings with specific literature on gamification, it was possible to define a

set of key practices for minimizing the outcome uncertainty of gamified innovations.

The majority of literature on gamification is concerned with identifying ‘best

practices’ for effective implementation. In order to demonstrate these best practices, the two-

step process model of innovation can be used while adding an additional step prior to this

process (Baer, 2012). First, before starting the creative process, it is important to thoroughly

evaluate organizational and environmental factors that may influence the innovation’s

outcome uncertainty (Van der Panne et al., 2003). However, this evaluative process is also

required to determine to what extent innovation is necessary and possible, and which type of

innovation would be most useful to a specific organization at a specific moment in time

(Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Tidd, 2001). The ‘business model canvas’ and the specially

adapted ‘gamification model canvas’ may be useful tools in order to effectively analyze

organizations and their respective environments (Jimenez, 2013; Osterwalder & Pigneur,

2010). Other analytic tools include SWOT and DESTEP analyses (Cornelissen, 2011). For

innovations to be viable, an organizational culture that is susceptible to innovation is required

and scholars unanimously prefer an organic, flexible organizational structure (Van der Panne

In Business with Super Mario 8

et al., 2003). Other key factors include prior experience with innovations, a multidisciplinary

research and development team, the degree of competition and novelty of an innovation. By

paying special attention to these factors, innovation can be based on balanced considerations

of their respective risks and opportunities. This way, creative processes will be more goal-

driven in order to provide meaningful innovations that are embedded in organizations’ overall

strategy (Gopalakrishnan et al., 2010; Van der Panne et al., 2003).

Second, as part of the creative process, it is important that an organization adopts an

articulated innovation strategy and a management style suited to that (Van der Panne et al.,

2003). In terms of gamification, this stage is generally considered to be crucial; experts agree

that game mechanics should be implemented in a process, product or service as part of a

larger, meaningful strategy, which is in stark contrast with most current gamified innovations

(Gartner, 2012b; Zichermann, 2013). Hereby, specific thought has to be put in what will drive

users to take part in a gamified innovation, which generally does not refer to external reward

systems only. For instance, one does not play Super Mario in order to save the princess; one

plays in order to be entertained. In general, enjoyment is the main driver for users of gamified

innovations to ‘play’. As such, the innovations should be fun, which is often believed to be

the most important aspect of all gamified innovations. After all, a game that is not fun to play

will not be enjoyed by its users (Hamari et al., 2014; Woodward, 2012).

Yet, in order to engage users over longer periods of time, experts agree that gamified

innovations should at least include a set of three key game mechanisms. First, the innovations

should include clear goals. When the innovation includes multiple goals (e.g., through

badges), these should be of a wide variety with easier and harder goals in order to engage both

experienced and inexperienced users. When rewarding users for achieving goals, these

rewards should be intrinsic. Second, by adding an element of competition to one’s innovation,

achieving an individual goal will become more meaningful (e.g., through comparing one’s

individual scores with friends’ scores). Third, the innovation should provide constant

feedback to its users in terms of their progress (Burns, 2013; Hein, 2013; Kapp, 2014; Rauch,

2013). All in all, gamification should always be approached as a long-term project, rather than

the popular impression that views gamification as a quick way to increase profits

(Zichermann, 2013).

Finally, when implementing one’s innovation, scholars agree that the adequate timing

of its market introduction and sufficient marketing skills are required. Even the best

innovations may not be widely adopted by its respective publics due to ineffective marketing

In Business with Super Mario 9

campaigns (Van der Panne et al., 2003). Moreover, gamified innovations should be monitored

and updated over time, in order to keep its users engaged (Burns, 2013; Kapp, 2014).

A relatively small part of the available literature discusses the timing of

implementation as a crucial way to minimize innovation trends’ outcome uncertainty. Yet,

this literature is rarely linked to gamification specifically. According to Gartner’s hype cycle

theory, it is best to wait with adoption of an innovation trend until after the period of rapid

decline in order to minimize the outcome uncertainty of innovations based on the trend. It is

only then when the adoption lifecycle of a technology or application truly starts (Mead &

Rabelo, 2004). While the potential of a new technology or application is recognized in the

early hype stages, knowledge on where and when to apply it effectively is gained over a

longer period of time (Linden & Fenn, 2003). For gamification, the initial hype and early

successes may have made many organizations want to implement gamification as a way to

remain competitive. However, as these organizations do not have enough knowledge on this

trend yet, most gamified innovations may fail – in line with Gartner’s (2012b) prediction. As

a result, organizations may lose interest and most will stop implementing gamification. From

this moment and onwards will be the right time to implement gamified innovations in the

right way, by learning from others’ mistakes (Linden & Fenn, 2003). While it may be

beneficial to be among the early adopters at this time in terms of potential economic gains,

waiting longer could result in more knowledge and thus a lower outcome uncertainty.

Organizations should find a balance between minimizing time-to-market, maximizing the fit

with customer requirements and optimizing the development process in order to be most

successful (Gopalakrishnan et al., 2010). In the following section of this paper, I will reflect

on the findings from the literature review and the case study.

Discussion

In this paper, I studied effective ways to minimize the outcome uncertainty of gamified

innovations – how to go in business with Super Mario effectively. By conducting a literature

study on gamification and innovation trends, it was found that most experts believe that

outcome uncertainty can be managed effectively by using a set of best practices when

implementing gamification. Carefully embedding gamified innovations in strategy and

business objectives is mainly believed to cause successful implementation. Moreover, all

gamified innovations should be fun to ‘play’. In addition, it was found that the timing of

implementing trend-based innovations may be crucial when attempting to minimize outcome

In Business with Super Mario 10

uncertainty. Hereby, Gartner’s hype cycle theory can be considered (Linden and Fenn, 2003).

Despite the extensive body of literature on minimizing gamification’s outcome uncertainty,

the scope of discussion is limited.

The vast majority of literature on gamification discusses ways to successfully

implement gamified innovations. While these practices may certainly aid innovation

managers and entrepreneurs to some extent, it was found that most suggestions are either

abstract or vague (e.g., “create a story” or “provide feedback”) (Burns, 2013; Kapp, 2014).

Almost all literature on best practices solely considers gamification from a general

perspective, which makes the direct applicability of these practices limited. Furthermore, most

attention is directed at creative processes and the step prior to that – evaluative processes.

Best practices for the implementation phase of gamified innovations are almost excluded

entirely from the discussion (Baer, 2012). This shows a significantly one-sided view of

innovations, whereby the quality of an innovation alone appears to be generally regarded as

the main cause for success. This form of technological determinism is not uncommon among

innovation managers (Taylor, 1986; Wajcman, 2002). Yet, since gamification is an innovation

trend, the implementation phase should gain significantly more attention than when dealing

with more widely accepted forms of innovation. Trends include an additional factor of

uncertainty, because their sustainability over a longer period of time is significantly more

unpredictable (Gopaladesikan, 2012). As such, some experts suggest that organizations may

need to wait with implementation until a trend is mature enough (Gopaladesikan, 2012;

Linden and Fenn, 2003).

The limited scope of discussion with regards to managing gamification’s outcome

uncertainty could be a result of the two following causal factors. First, some believe that more

knowledge about an innovation trend becomes available with time. Gamification as a practice

may be too new. As such, there may not be enough knowledge available yet for the general

public to consider all factors that influence outcome uncertainty. In fact, the hype cycle theory

states that widespread failure is necessary in order to acquire sufficient knowledge that is

necessary to successfully implement an innovation (Linden and Fenn, 2003). It is believed

that gamification is about to enter this period of widespread failure, which is in line with

Gartner’s prediction that 80 percent of the currently gamified innovations will fail (Gartner,

2012b; Gopaladesikan, 2012).

Second, the limited scope of discussion may also be a direct result of a flawed

terminology and definition of the main concept – gamification. With regards to its

terminology, prominently including the term ‘game’ may create a simplified impression of the

In Business with Super Mario 11

complex practices that gamification entails. As a result, professionals may believe that

gamification is a rather simple process, whereby implementing game mechanics will almost

automatically lead to user engagement (Zichermann, 2011). In reality, however, gamification

should be considered next to other engagement practices as can be defined within the field of

corporate communications (e.g., leadership styles, intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, and

management strategies, such as ‘new ways of working’). These practices, too, are part of

long-term strategies that include complex managerial processes (Avolio, Walumbwa, &

Weber, 2009; Ten Brummelhuis, Bakker, Hetland, & Keulemans, 2012; Zichermann &

Cunningham, 2011). In terms of its generally accepted definition, gamification refers to using

game design elements in any non-game context (Deterding et al., 2011). This definition

emphasizes the inclusion of game design elements, while excluding the complex managerial

practices that are required for gamification’s effective implementation. Furthermore, this

definition downplays the importance of context. Yet, implementing gamification in a

corporate context, for example, requires a significantly different approach than implementing

it in an education context (Jimenez, 2013; Korn, 2012; Simões, Redondo, & Vilas, 2013).

The explanations above may harm the overall sustainability of the trend, which

significantly increases the outcome uncertainty of gamified innovations. Based on literature

analysis, there are at least two future scenarios for the sustainability of the gamification trend;

an optimistic and a pessimistic future. First, the current popularity of gamification and

Gartner’s hype cycle theory suggest an optimistic future (Anderson & Rainie, 2012).

Moreover, Gartner’s hype cycle theory states that even when 80 percent of current gamified

innovations will fail, this will not necessarily harm the sustainability of the trend itself

(Gartner, 2012b; Linden and Fenn, 2003). Second, the limited amount of criticism and flawed

definition may cause a pessimistic future scenario with regards to the sustainability of the

gamification trend. Criticism may lead to improved definitions. Yet, as the majority of

professionals and scholars remains positive about gamification some of its inherent flaws may

not get sufficient attention. As a result, outcome uncertainty of gamified innovations remains

high, which may prevent professionals to engage in gamification. Moreover, limited

understanding due to flawed definitions and terminology may not only increase the amount of

unsuccessful gamified innovations, it may also prevent a large group of professionals to

engage in gamification at all (Anderson & Rainie, 2012). The use of game mechanics may not

appeal to, for example, serious business professionals or people that do not like to play games.

In order to prevent the pessimistic future scenario, I suggest extending the definition of

gamification by embedding it in specific contexts, such as corporate innovation.

In Business with Super Mario 12

The extended definition of gamification should at least take the following aspects into

account. First, instead of regarding game design as the main aspect of gamification, the

definition should refer to games as a metaphor rather than a phenomenon that is directly

applicable to any non-game context. This prevents simplified interpretations of gamification

and its complexity. Second, the definition should make clear distinctions between larger and

smaller contexts. Corporate innovation, healthcare and education are examples of relevant

larger contexts (Gartner, 2012a; Olding, 2012). With regards to corporate innovation,

specifically, employee or customer engagement and the four innovation types by Edquist et al.

(2001) are examples of smaller contexts. By making these distinctions, new best practices can

be defined in a more specific manner. Moreover, by emphasizing context, gamification may

become more purpose-driven. Finally, whereas the applicability of the term ‘gamification’

can be debated (Herger, 2013; Olding, 2012), I believe that this term should not be changed.

The term has gained significant popularity during recent years and it is now well-known

among the majority of communication professionals (Anderson & Rainie, 2012). Changing

the term may harm the strength of its current associations with engagement practices that are

held by professionals. Further academic research is needed to create an extended definition of

gamification within different contexts. Hereby, the two existing academic definitions can be

used as foundation (Deterding et al., 2011; Huotari & Hamari, 2011).

Managerial Implications

The three main managerial implications of this study largely apply to entrepreneurs or

managers that are responsible for innovation processes within their organization. First, this

study has shown how innovation managers can minimize the outcome uncertainty of

innovations through a set of key practices. Whereas entrepreneurs may want to minimize

innovations’ outcome uncertainty in order to successfully enter a market with a new business

venture, managers in more established organizations may want to do so in order to increase

economic gains (Gopalakrishnan et al., 2010). While these practices are directly applicable to

the gamification trend, some can be applied to other corporate innovations and innovation

trends as well. In this sense, gamification may serve as an example of an innovation trend,

which clearly illustrates how to apply theory on managing outcome uncertainty to actual

innovations. Second, this study increases the knowledge of innovation managers and

entrepreneurs on gamification in particular, which may help to minimize the outcome

uncertainty of gamified innovations specifically (Gartner, 2012b). Finally, the literature on

In Business with Super Mario 13

trends and hype cycles may help organizations to identify trends and when to start

implementing innovations that are based on these trends (Linden & Fenn, 2003).

Limitations

Like all empirical research, the present study has several limitations. First, gamification is a

relatively young topic of academic research, and there are few well-established theoretical

frameworks (Hamari et al., 2014). As a result, a relatively large number of additional sources

(e.g., blogs and business reports) was used. Including these sources may have harmed the

reliability of this study (Babbie, 2007). Yet, this varied sample allowed the creation of a

comprehensive review of all currently available literature on the studied subject, which may

aid future research on this subject significantly. Second, while this study shows effective

ways on minimizing the uncertainty outcome of gamified innovations, the limited amount of

available research increases the outcome uncertainty in itself. However, this is an inevitable

result of studying a new trend. At an early stage of innovation trends, however, knowledge on

this innovation may be most relevant – early adoption of an innovation generally hold the

biggest rewards (Linden & Fenn, 2003). Nevertheless, future studies should include

experiments that test direct and longitudinal effects of a variety of gamified innovations in

order to increase knowledge on gamification’s effects (Hamari, 2013). Third, this study is a

victim of its own findings. As it was found that the scope of discussion on gamification in

both academic and ‘popular’ literature is small, the direct practical applicability of this study

is limited. In order to minimize this limitation, a relevant case study is presented in appendix I

to place the findings of this study in a practical context and increase its practical applicability.

Moreover, the case study may enhance readers’ understanding of gamification.

Conclusion

This study has presented ways to minimize the outcome uncertainty of gamified innovations,

based on the available body of literature. While applying a set of best practices may certainly

be useful, the timing of implementation may be of significant importance for innovation

trends specifically. For gamification, however, perhaps its currently high outcome uncertainty

could mostly be caused by poor conceptualization. As a result, organizations may implement

gamification with little knowledge of the concept; this increases the probability of failure. So,

before going in business with Super Mario, it might be wise to do a background check.

In Business with Super Mario 14

References

Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of

innovations. Academy of management review, 16(3), 586-612.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2012, May 18). The future of gamification. In PEW Research

Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/05/18/the-future-of-

gamification

Asplund, M., & Sandin, R. (1999). The survival of new products. Review of Industrial

Organization, 15, 219-236.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,

research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.

Babbie, E. (2007). The Basics of Social Research (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Publishing.

Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in

organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102-1119.

Bogost, I. (2011, August 9). Gamification is bullshit [Blog post]. Retrieved from at

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/gamification-is-

bullshit/243338

Burns, C. (2013, February 13). How gamification can make you do almost anything [Blog

post]. Retrieved from https://www-304.ibm.com/connections/blogs/socialbusiness/

entry/how_gamification_can_make_you_do_almost_anything1?lang=en_us

Cornelissen, J. (2011). Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cozijnsen, A.J., Vrakking, W.J., & van IJzerloo, M. (2000). Success and failure of 50

innovation projects in Dutch companies. European Journal of Innovation Management,

3, 150-159.

Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi‐dimensional framework of organizational

innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management

Studies, 47(6), 1154-1191.

Daft, R. L. (1978). A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of Management

Journal, 21, 193-210.

In Business with Super Mario 15

Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of

innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service

organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 650-675.

Deci, E., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivations in

education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1). 1-27.

Deloitte Development LLC. (2013). Tech trends 2013: Elements of postdigital. Retrieved

from http://www.deloitte.com/us/techtrends2013

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September). From game design

elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 2011

International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media

Environments, ACM Press, 9-15.

Edquist, C., Hommen, L., & McKelvey, M. (2001). Innovation and Employment: Process

versus Product Innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Fenn, J., & Raskino, M. (2008). Mastering the Hype Cycle: How to Choose the Right

Innovation at the Right Time. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Gartner. (2012a, October 24). Gartner reveals top predictions for IT organizations and users

for 2013 and beyond [Press release]. Retrieved from

http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2211115

Gartner. (2012b, November 27). Gartner says by 2014, 80 percent of current gamified

applications will fail to meet business objectives primarily due to poor design [Press

release]. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2251015

Gopaladesikan, S. (2012, December 11). Following gamification through Gartner’s hype

cycle [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.gamification.co/2012/12/11/following-

gamification-through-gartners-hype-cycle

Gopalakrishnan, S., Kessler, E. H., & Scillitoe, J. L. (2010). Navigating the innovation

landscape: Past research, present practice, and future trends. Organization

Management Journal, 7(4), 262-277.

Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on

gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic commerce

research and applications, 12(4), 236-245.

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014, January). Does gamification work? – A literature

review of empirical studies on gamification. In Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS, 6-9.

In Business with Super Mario 16

Hein, R. (2013, June 6). How to use gamification to engage employees [Blog post]. Retrieved

from http://www.cio.com/article/734521/How_to_Use_Gamification_to_Engage

_Employees

Herger, M. (2013, May 14). The term gamification: Why I hate it and why I love it [Blog

post]. Retrieved from http://www.gamification.co/2013/05/14/the-term-gamification-

why-i-hate-it-and-why-i-love-it

Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2011, May). “Gamification” from the perspective of service

marketing. In Proceeding of the CHI 2011 Workshop Gamification, ACM Press.

Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation,

exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and

environmental moderators. Management Science, 52, 1661-74.

Jimenez, S. (2013, November 6). Gamification Model Canvas [Blog post]. Retrieved from

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/SergioJimenez/20131106/204134/Gamification_Model_C

anvas.php

Kapp, K. M. (2014, February 25). 10 best practices for implementing gamification [Blog

post]. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/Publications/Blogs/Learning-Technologies-

Blog/2014/02/10-Best-Practices-for-Implementing-Gamification

Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. (1981). Organizational innovation: the influence of

individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological

and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 679-713.

Kleinberg, A. (2012, July 23). Brands that failed with gamification [Blog post]. Retrieved

from http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/32280.asp#multiview

Korn, O. (2012, June). Industrial playgrounds: How gamification helps to enrich work for

elderly or impaired persons in production. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCHI

symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems, ACM Press, 313-316.

Kuo, I. (2013, December 18). Gartner: 80% percent of poorly designed gamification

initiatives still on track to fail by 2014 [Blog post]. Retrieved from

http://www.gamification.co/2013/12/18/gartner-bad-gamification-initiatives-still-fail-

2014

Linden, A., & Fenn, J. (2003, May 30). Understanding Gartner’s hype cycles: Strategic

Analysis Report. In Gartner. Retrieved from http://www.ask-

force.org/web/Discourse/Linden-HypeCycle-2003.pdf

In Business with Super Mario 17

Meade, P. T., & Rabelo, L. (2004). The technology adoption life cycle attractor:

Understanding the dynamics of high-tech markets. Technological Forecasting and

Social Change, 71(7), 667-684.

Nicastro, D. (2013, December 13). Gartner sticks to its failing gamification prediction.

Retrieved from http://www.cmswire.com/cms/social-business/gartner-sticks-to-its-

failing-gamification-prediction-023464.php

Nwagbara, U., & Reid, P. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and management

trends: Changing times and changing strategies. Petroleum-Gas University of Ploiesti

Bulletin, Technical Series, 65(2), 12-19.

Olding, E. (2012, November 14). “Engagification” of the enterprise – gamification and

employee engagement [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.gartner.com/elise-

olding/2012/11/14/engagificationof-the-enterprise-gamification-and-employee-

engagement

Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation: A Handbook for

Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. Hoboken, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Bacharach, D. G. and Podsakoff, N. P. (2005). The

influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management

Journal, 26, 473–88

Porter, M. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance.

New York, NY: Free Press.

Pulizzi, J. (2011, July 28). Gamification: Four examples to gamify your content marketing

[Blog post]. Retrieved from

http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2011/07/gamification-examples-content-

marketing

Rauch, M. (2013). Best practices for using enterprise gamification to engage employees and

customers. Human-Computer Interaction: Applications and Services, 276-283.

Simões, J., Redondo, R. D., & Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework for a K-6

learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 345-353.

Taylor, M. (1986). The product-cycle model: A critique. Environment and Planning A, 18(6),

751-761.

Tellis, G. J., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. (2009). Radical innovation across nations: The

preeminence of corporate culture. Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 3-23.

Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., & Keulemans, L. (2012). Do new ways

of working foster work engagement?. Psicothema, 24(1), 113-120.

In Business with Super Mario 18

Tidd, J. (2001). Innovation management in context: environment, organization and

performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(3), 169-183.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing

evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British

Journal of Management, 14, 207-22.

Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management

Science, 32, 590-607.

Van der Panne, G., Van Beers, C., & Kleinknecht, A. (2003). Success and failure of

innovation: a literature review. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(3),

309-338.

Wajcman, J. (2002). Addressing technological change: The challenge to social

theory. Current Sociology, 50(3), 347-363.

Walker, R. M. (2006). Innovation type and diffusion: an empirical analysis of local

government. Public Administration, 84, 311-35.

West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity

and innovation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51,

355-424.

Woodward, A. (2012, September 10). Gamification – Putting the fun back in [Blog post].

Retrieved from http://www.21apps.com/sharepoint/gamification-putting-the-fun-back-

in

Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behaviour in the workplace: The role of

performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53,

323-342.

Zichermann, G. (2011, June 15). Gamification has issues, but they aren't the ones everyone

focuses on [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/06/gamification-

criticism-overjustification-ownership-addiction.html

Zichermann, G. (2013, January 23). Gamification: The hard truths [Blog post]. Retrieved

from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabe-zichermann/gamification_b_2516376.html

Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by Design. Sebastopol, CA:

O’Reilly Media.

In Business with Super Mario 19

Appendix I: ‘Starbucks Cups’ Case Study

Below, I will present a case study, which may help to increase understanding of

gamification’s use for corporate innovation in a practical context. It also allows for an

increased practical applicability of the findings, which may aid managers that attempt to

create a gamification strategy with minimized outcome uncertainty.

Case study

The paper cups of popular coffee company Starbucks are known around the world. During

specific seasonal celebrations, the company uses paper cups with a special holiday theme

(Radic, 2013). Due to the popularity of these special cups, holiday seasons can be a time of

high stress for the company that delivers these cups to all Starbucks stores in the United

States. The deliverer has to closely cooperate with both Starbucks stores and cup

manufacturers in order to make sure that there are enough special cups in the right warehouses

to cover store demand (Hugos, 2012).

In one holiday season, Starbucks was considering to renew the contract with the

delivery company for three more years. To aid in this decision, Starbucks increased the

demand per store increased with over 50 percent by means of a test. Since the supply chain

system of the delivery company would not be able to make this new demand but still wanted

on new contract, the organization needed an innovative change (Edquist et al., 2001; Hugos,

2012). Based on an evaluative analysis, the CIO (Chief Information Officer) of the delivery

company at that time decided to make the supply chain process into a game by creating an

internal database that collects relevant data from all the involved companies – suppliers,

distributors and Starbucks stores. The data were updated every day and every employee in the

supply chain of the special cups could log in on a website to see it. This way, all members of

supply chain could see each other’s performance and if, for example, someone was shipping

late, this would result into bad reputation points for their respective organization. As such,

this gamified system functioned much like a traditional leaderboard that connected

organizations in the entire supply chain process. However, the goal of this leaderboard was

not to point out a winner, but to prevent organizations from falling behind. The reward for all

organizations was the same; reaching the common goal of making all deliveries in time and

therewith having the Starbucks contract renewed (Hugos, 2012; Sheely, 2013)

By adopting this gamified innovation, the supply chain system went from a defensive,

bureaucratic operation to a collaborative system between organizations, whereby the

In Business with Super Mario 20

organizations engaged in self-organizing practices instead of fights. As a result, the

challenging new demand of special paper cups by Starbucks was met and the delivery

organization decided to permanently implement the innovation to improve the efficiency of

all their supply chain processes (Hugos, 2012; Sheely, 2013). Herewith, this case study shows

that gamified innovations have to start from a clearly defined problem and need to implement

game elements in a meaningful way. The CIO could have chosen to simply appoint a winning

organization in order to increase engagement, however, the reward of reaching a goal together

proved to be significantly more meaningful and satisfying for all employees. Moreover,

implementation through an easily accessible database is invaluable, since this way all

employees could be engaged to participate actively.

Case study references

Edquist, C., Hommen, L., & McKelvey, M. (2001). Innovation and Employment: Process

versus Product Innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Hugos, M. (2012, November 21). Games for better supply chains. Retrieved from

http://www.enterpriseefficiency.com/author.asp?section_id=2741&doc_id=254682

Radic, K. (2013, November 5). The emotional side of Starbucks’ Christmas packaging.

Retrieved from http://www.brandingmagazine.com/2013/11/05/starbucks-christmas-

packaging-2013

Sheely, E. (2013, November 18). Case study: How gamification improved supply chain

efficiency [Blog post]. Retrieved from

http://www.gamification.co/2013/11/18/fostercooperationgamfication