Inf Syst Front
DOI 10.1007/s10796-016-9624-3
A system framework for gamified Cost Engineering
Eric Zimmerling 1 & Patrick J. Hflinger 1 & Philipp G. Sandner 2 & Isabell M. Welpe 1
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract This study develops a system framework and an
enterprise IT solution for integrating gamification elements
to efficiently implement and continuously perform Cost
Engineering. Cost Engineering is a systematic approach to
manage knowledge and competencies regarding costs reduc-
tion measures throughout the life cycle of products and is
technology, resource and time intensive. Gamification as a
non-monetary multidimensional incentive system holds great
potential to implement and establish Cost Engineering in a
novel and less resource demanding manner and stipulate
knowledge sharing and dissemination. Building on a review
of the relevant literature we conducted 20 interviews with
experts from eight companies of the German and Austrian
high-tech manufacturing industry to examine the system re-
quirements from an organizational perspective. Analyzing the
interviews, we found that companies need a flexible platform
where the game elements help to align management objectives
with concrete tasks, meet legislative regulations and have
Eric Zimmerling and Patrick J. Hflinger have contributed equally to this
work.
* Eric Zimmerling
eric.zimmerling@tum.de
Patrick J. Hflinger
p.hoeflinger@tum.de
Philipp G. Sandner
p.sandner@fs.de
Isabell M. Welpe
welpe@tum.de
1
TUM School of Management, Technische Universitt Mnchen,
Mnchen, Bayern, Germany
2
Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, Frankfurt, Germany
different evaluation methods. Our proposed system frame-
work combines the organizational and IT requirements with
gamification elements to efficiently steer Cost Engineering
methods and best manage knowledge and competencies.
Keywords System framework . Cost Engineering .
Gamification . Motivation . IT platform
1 Introduction
Effective knowledge and competence management in todays
organizations has become a critical success factor since the in-
formation revolution shrunk time and space dimensions
(Zangiski et al. 2013). Many IS related initiatives fail or are being
cancelled as knowledge is not holistically shared, transferred and
preserved across projects and individuals within organizations
(Standish International 2013; Schacht et al. 2014; Schindler
and Eppler 2003). More than ever before organizations are de-
pendent upon knowledge and learning (Foray and Lundvall
1998). Creating knowledge and developing competences with
the right incentives is key to a competitive positioning and firm
survival (Rosenberg 2000; Hussain et al. 2004; Hustad and
Munkvold 2005; Grant 1996). Especially in high tech industries,
the creation of truly valuable knowledge which is problem relat-
ed, interdisciplinary recognized and affordable, yet difficult to
foster, needs particular attention (Gupta et al. 2000). Cost
Engineering is an example for such knowledge, as it is the link
between product development and the customer, constantly
searching for the best compromise between optimal technical
solutions and low costs (Wildemann 2012).
Especially small companies have trouble performing Cost
Engineering since the approach requires a great level of tech-
nological expertise and resources (Heady et al. 2005). Further,
already the less resource and technology driven methods of

Cost Engineering such as workshops and trainings to raise
cost awareness are not well established (Rajkumar and Jose
2005). Heady et al. (2005) therefore call for a Bmore simply,
more quickly and more cost effectively^ Cost Engineering.
The recent topic of gamification may help to overcome current
problems. Using game elements in non-game contexts,
gamification aims to increase engagement and motivation
through gameful design in non-game digital applications
(Deterding et al. 2011b) and add to monetary incentive sys-
tems in companies. With respect to the effectivity of increas-
ing intrinsic motivation the self-determination theory (SDT)
by Deci and Ryan (1980, 1985) is mostly used to describe the
motivational aspects of gamification (Deterding 2011;
McGonigal 2011; Pavlas 2010; R. M. Ryan et al. 2006).
Gamification and its various components are a multidimen-
sional addition to non-monetary incentive systems. Elements
such as rewards, feedback and evaluation systems can be
found in games in order to create engagement and long-term
commitment (McGonigal 2011; Werbach and Hunter 2012)
and thus complement the monetary and non-monetary incen-
tive systems already used by companies.
We find that gamification holds great potential to imple-
ment and establish Cost Engineering in a novel and more
flexible manner (Rughini 2013; Yeo and Arazy 2012) for
the following reasons. Firstly, game elements have the poten-
tial to motivate and engage users in various contexts (Koivisto
and Hamari 2014). Secondly, gamified platforms are flexible
systems (Nicholson 2012) and employees can contribute to
specific tasks through game elements such as quests in which
they can e.g. obtain points and/or badges (Werbach and
Hunter 2012). Thirdly, we see a gamified platform to function
as a social network to enhance the overall communication
culture (P. K. Ryan 2011), to foster the exchange of informa-
tion (Mller-Birn and Gronau 2007), target the right em-
ployees (by competence) and improve a firms overall knowl-
edge management. In this studies context, a network-based
gamification application is a novel solution to drive and sig-
nificantly improve efficiency of the Cost Engineering process.
To date there is no solution and approach to implement and
perform various Cost Engineering methods in a flexible and
resource friendly manner. As Heady et al. (2005) argue success-
ful Cost Engineering in SMEs for example would have the
potential to overcome structural and economic disadvantages
towards large companies. Second, research translating
gamification into a system framework for internal enterprise
processes compared to the implementation for specific actions
is scarce. Scholars and practitioners so far focused on specific
actions such as sales or ideation alone (see for example: Mollick
and Rothbard 2013; Moradian et al. 2014). We will therefore,
for the first time develop a framework to use gamification for
Cost Engineering and within an interrelated project process.
The question is whether and how a gamified Cost
Engineering platform can increase the flexibility of implementing
Inf Syst Front
and performing Cost Engineering in a more efficient manner.
Thus, this paper seeks to address the following three research
questions: How and why gamification can help to introduce
and maintain Cost Engineering in companies? Which game
mechanism and game elements are most suitable for the Cost
Engineering methods? What needs to be considered in the frame-
work to implement gamification in an enterprise process?
In the following, we will outline the principles of
gamification and Cost Engineering and the rationale why we
consider gamification as useful in introducing and maintain-
ing Cost Engineering with focus on intrinsic and extrinisc
motivation. Following this review of the relevant literature,
we outline the methodology for our expert interviews. We will
then discuss the results of the expert interviews and build a
conceptual model upon which we build our system framework
and exemplify the processes on the IT platform.
2 Theoretical background
2.1 Knowledge and competence management
Since services displaced manufacturing as the major compo-
nent of economic activity (Contractor and Lorange 2002),
economies are increasingly dependent upon knowledge and
learning (Foray and Lundvall 1998). Such assets increasingly
surpass physical assets both in value and contribution to
growth (Lev 2000). According to Gupta et al. (2000) and
Hussain et al. (2004) knowledge management is the organiza-
tion of corporate knowledge and intellectual assets. It helps an
organization to identify, select, organize, disseminate and fi-
nally transfer essential information and expertise (Hussain et
al. 2004). As such it adds value to the processes and opera-
tions, leverages growth and innovation and finally provides a
competitive advantage (Hussain et al. 2004). In the long term,
the most sustainable source of competitive advantage will be
the capability to learn faster than competitors (Senge 1991).
In the industrial era, organizations were able to improve their
efficiency, effectiveness and finally their competitive edge by
automating manual labor (Gupta et al. 2000). Nowadays, orga-
nizations are streamlining their processes of working smarter
together via improved collaboration and communication to
achieve a reduction of risk, duplication of effort and uncertainty
in the everyday work (Hussain et al. 2004). Organizations real-
ize that knowledge assets need likewise to be cost-effective,
managerially effective in problem solving, decision making
and innovation (Gupta et al. 2000). Knowledge within an orga-
nization, however, resides in an unstructured way (Gupta et al.
2000). Therefore, companies increasingly utilize knowledge
management, which can be divided in two processes. Firstly,
knowledge is created, stored, shared, transferred and applied
(Zangiski et al. 2013). Secondly, this knowledge is used for
the organization to sell products and bring out results
Inf Syst Front
(Zangiski et al. 2013). These processes are usually referred as
the life cycle of knowledge, e.g. by McElroy (2003); Wigg
(1993) or Bukowitz and Williams (2000).
Knowledge management has associated processes (e.g. or-
ganizational learning) and is closely bound to organizational
competences (Zangiski et al. 2013). According to Sanchez
(2004) competence is the ability to sustain the coordinated
deployment of assets in ways that help the organization
achieve its goals. Competence is usually used in a strategic
context including core competences decisive for firm survival
and differentiation among competitors. Hustad and Munkvold
(2005) state that competence management focuses on
Bsystematic and innovative methods, practices, and tools for
managing the generation, acquisition, exchange, protection,
distribution, and utilization of knowledge, intellectual capital,
and intangible assets^. Mills and Bourne (2002) divided and
classified competences, differentiating core competences, or-
ganizational or business unit competences, distinctive compe-
tences, and dynamic capabilities or skills.
Knowledge management has become a critical success factor
since the information revolution shrunk time and space dimen-
sions, enabling real-time communication and among geographi-
cally distant people and organizations (Zangiski et al. 2013).
Rosenberg (2000) emphasizes that information and communica-
tions technologies (ICT) have increasingly supported the ad-
vancement of knowledge management, e.g. with access and
the decentralization of information (Walsh and Ungson 1991).
Strategically, firms need to develop an internal strategy and ulti-
mately an environment that favors new idea generation (Yang
2010; Zangiski et al. 2013). Knowledge is often task-specific,
hence needing a proper structuring based on internal processes
and external influences with dynamic interaction (Yang 2010;
Zangiski et al. 2013). Firms need to manage existing compe-
tences and knowledge efficiently, hence in the meantime develop
new ones to stay competitive (Gupta et al. 2000).
In that sense, rather than staying on a theoretical and super-
ficial level, we applied a concrete example of how firms can
adopt an enterprise solution in a new learning approach for
products and processes via an IT platform. Knowledge should
be actionable (Hussain et al. 2004). Therefore we have chosen
cost engineering as a discipline as it is an use-oriented ap-
proach that is already widely used in organizations and by
its traits is closely related to knowledge as well as competence
management. Further, it is a discipline which makes use of
various methods also knows in other areas of the organization
but being so diverse that it has to date not seen many IT
approaches for enterprise solutions.
2.2 Cost Engineering an integrated approach to cost
optimization
Considering the challenges of our globalized economy, com-
panies have to operate as innovators for products, processes,
and configurations. In order to be competitive companies need
to create dynamic work environments and react quickly and
flexibly to the changing environment (Zinser and Boch 2007).
Considering that 70 to 90 % of a products costs are deter-
mined during the product design and conceptualization phase,
even here small optimizations can yield great effects (Schppi
et al. 2005; Coenenberg et al. 2009; Ehrlenspiel et al. 2007).
Further, constant technological changes shorten the product
life cycles and increase in customer demand for quality re-
quires faster innovations to stay in the market (Rggeberg
and Burmeister 2008). Besides, rising customer claims result
in more product complexity to account for individual needs
and requirements. Cost Engineering highlights these trends
and places a special focus on customer requirements and their
willingness to pay for individual solutions.
Cost Engineering is defined by BThe Authority for Total Cost
Management^ (AACE) as Ba systematic approach to managing
cost throughout the life cycle of any enterprise, program,
facility, project, product, or service^ (AACE-International
2014). Considering the customer perspective, several methods
of measuring and analyzing costs are used, including
benchmarking, target costing, or total cost of ownership to re-
duce product cost and development times (Saynisch 2004).
Thereby, cost transparency and forecast accuracy of time and
costs are crucial for success (Wildemann 2012). In this context,
Cost Engineering is highly dependent on vital information shar-
ing and data availability especially on reliable cost data
(Rajkumar and Jose 2005). Especially for forecasting and the
estimation of costs, raw data on product and manufacturing
information, employee experience and knowledge are key par-
ticularly for projects with high uncertainty (Lauven et al. 2010;
Xu et al. 2012). The learning organization, characterized by the
ability to sense changes in the environment and adapt accord-
ingly (Gldenberg 1998) is part of the knowledge management
and hence Cost Engineering as it draws upon the information
and knowledge available in companies. Further, in knowledge
management the interaction and joint learning with the goal to
enhance employee capabilities, experiences and knowledge of
company characteristics is key (Schppel 1996). Therefore,
finding the right incentives to provide knowledge and documen-
tation is a primary objective especially with respect to Cost
Engineering (North 2005).
In general, Cost Engineering as an approach to finding the
optimum between costs, quality and time is underrepresented
in Germany (Rohbeck 2012). In this sense especially small
companies have trouble performing Cost Engineering since
the approach requires a great level of technological expertise
and resources more readily available in larger companies
(Heady et al. 2005). Further, the less resource and technology
driven methods of Cost Engineering such as workshops and
trainings to raise cost awareness are not well established in
SMEs (Rajkumar and Jose 2005). Heady et al. (2005) there-
fore call for a Bmore simply, more quickly and more cost

effectively^ Cost Engineering for SMEs in order to reduce
structural and economic disadvantages SMEs face when com-
peting with larger companies.
Thus, to sum up, Cost Engineering takes different knowl-
edge bases on which competences depend (Sanchez 2004).
(1) Know-how, practical forms of knowledge for improving
products and processes, i.e. by reducing costs for a certain
part via DFMA calculation (2) Know-why, theoretical forms
of understanding for creating new products and processes,
i.e. new technical solutions with the product clinic (3)
Know-what, strategic forms for value creation by combining
the priory mentioned ones., i.e. customer involvement in a
value analysis (Sanchez 1996, 1995; Wildemann 2012).
However, an efficient and coherent application is not yet
satisfactory and holds great potential for knowledge manage-
ment and competence management. In the context of cost
optimization, instruments like employee improvement sug-
gestions are known, but seldomly used proactively in day-
to-day businesses. Therefore, employees only have small
incentives to propose measures for cost reductions so that
they can be critically evaluated and in the best case even be
implemented (Haunerdinger and Probst 2005).
2.3 Gamification, game mechanisms and dynamics
A promising approach to enthuse employees with the topics of
cost optimization and knowledge sharing is gamification. The
principles of gamification were long used for various applica-
tions (see for example Nike+, Miles & More and Foursquare)
but the term gamification was only first defined by Deterding
et al. (2011a) as the use of game design elements in non-game
contexts^. A recent systematic survey on the usage of
gamification in various disciplines found an aggregated defi-
nition emerging and defines gamification as Bthe intentional
use of game elements for a gameful experience of non-game
tasks and contexts^ (Seaborn and Fels 2015). The underlying
assumption is that non-game digital applications, through
gameful design, will grow into more engaging and motivating
applications (Deterding et al. 2011b). In the work environment
that usage is then called Benterprise gamification^ (Werbach
and Hunter 2012). Gamification is further to be distinguished
from serious games which are full games without the purpose
to entertain but rather to educate and train subjects or study
customers (Abt 1987).
There is a myriad of theories to the structures of games. For
gamification the structure from Hunicke et al. (2004) is the
most frequently used in which three game elements determine
the base strucutre of a game, namely: mechanics, dynamics
and aesthetics. Mechanics are the base components of a game,
dynamics describe the run-time behavior of the mechanics
acting on player inputs and aesthetics the emotional reaction
of players (Hunicke et al. 2004). The clear differentiation of
those structures is important for the procedure of meaningful
Inf Syst Front
gamification since one needs to employ mechanics that result
in dynamics in order for the user to experience aesthetics
(Cunningham and Zichermann 2011; Deterding et al.
2011a). In this context, Bajdor and Dragolea (2011) and
Cunningham and Zichermann (2011) see points, levels,
badges and leaderboards as the primary game mechanics in
gamification. This is in line with McGonigal (2011) who sees
points, levels and progress bars as the defining components of
the games feedback systems. Point scores can be seen as the
number one gamification mechanism as other elements such
as levels and leaderboards are only realizable through a certain
tracking of the activity namely points (Gears and Braun 2013).
Leaderboards are visible throughout the gamification applica-
tions and show the users position amongst all users and/or
amongst their direct competitors. Such a ranking system puts
points into a social context namely comparability against
ones peer and is used to stipulate challenges and competition
(Sweetser and Wyeth 2005). The various gamification ele-
ments and their motivational affordance were summarized in
a recent meta-analysis of empirical (mainly descriptive statis-
tics) studies on gamification which found a tendency towards
positive effects on engagement and motivation (Hamari et al.
2014). However, the study further indicates that the context
and the characteristics of the players heavily influence the
success rate of gamification (Hamari et al. 2014).
As indicated above, we will focus our study on the Cost
Engineering process in companies to foster a more efficient
implementation and ongoing Cost Engineering as well as rais-
ing the cost awareness amongst employees. Therefore we ini-
tially do not focus on the performanc of single game elements
but rather on how the above mentioned results can be trans-
lated and implemented on an IT platform that serves the pro-
cesses in Cost Engineering.
2.4 Motivational drivers for knowledge sharing and idea
creation in gamified Cost Engineering
Grounded on the principal agent theory employees (the agent)
receive financial rewards from the company (the principal) for
their efforts to produce output. These financial rewards are
also seen as the main motivation for work (Levai 2009).
Furthermore, the principal agent theory solely relies on extrin-
sic motivation and not intrinsic motivation (Van Herpen et al.
2003). However, amongst others one aspect of this relation-
ship, determining its optimal contract, is the motivation of the
agent (Levai 2009). One main vehicle is a performance
based payment rate to increase motivation and performance,
however, results here show a mixed success rate (Shaw et al.
2003; Beer and Cannon 2004). Thus companies have added
non-monetary incentive systems for example social recogni-
tion to reinforce desired employee behaviors (Long and
Shields 2010). Stajkovic and Luthans (2003) in this regard,
found in a meta-analysis that social recognition as well as
Inf Syst Front
feedback have a positive effect on employee performance.
Gamification and its various components and mechanisms
add a multidimensional dimension to those non-monetary in-
centive systems. Elements such as rewards, feedback and
evaluation systems can be found in games in order to create
engagement and long-term commitment (McGonigal 2011;
Werbach and Hunter 2012) and thus complement the mone-
tary and non-monetary incentive systems already used by
companies.
Humans are seen to be motivated when they perform a
certain task pursuing a certain purpose and in principal
every activity can be motivating. One primarily distin-
guishes between two types of motivation namely extrinsic
and intrinsic motivation (Deci 1972). Within the area of
video games and gamification the self-determination theory
(SDT) by Deci and Ryan (1980, 1985) is widely accepted
(Deterding 2011; McGonigal 2011; Pavlas 2010; R. M.
Ryan et al. 2006). The theory builds on three psycholog-
ical needs of human motivation: competence, autonomy
and relatedness, which are key for ongoing psychological
growth, integrity, and well-being (Deci and Ryan 2000).
Therefore, factors like social connectedness, satisfaction
and epic meaning are seen to trigger intrinsic motivation
(McGonigal 2011) of game players. In his situated moti-
vational affordances framework, Deterding (2011) refers in
large parts on the SDT but also describes its shortcomings
in the area of gamification. Especially with respect to
autonomy at work and its serious consequences in
comparison to general game play. Zhang (2008) outlined
design principles for the motivational affordance for infor-
mation and communication technology systems in general
and also concluded that the design and its support for the
motivational needs are dependent on the context.
Considering the company as a social system, social fac-
tors such as recognition play a major role and can enhance
the perceived competence, hence intrinsic motivation (Deci
and Ryan 2000). Along with the number of users such social
factors were found to be an important prerequisite for
gamification (Hamari and Koivisto 2013). In the workplace
the social factor was found to have an influence on the
creative processes (Amabile 1997). The increased perceived
competence is achieved through positive feedback about
ones performance which was found to increase intrinsic
motivation compared to negative feedback (Deci and
Cascio 1972; Fisher 1978). In order to further address com-
petence, the gamified application should provide a realistic
challenge in line with Csikszentmihalyis (2000) flow
theory.
Such challenges can be in form of quests, which are exer-
cises for individuals or teams, in which points and or badges
can be awarded. They can be set up according to Cost
Engineering methods and address those employees who are
seen to be most knowledgeable and valuable for the
underlying task. In gamification quests are seen similar to
challenges and guide users with specific goals they can
achieve within the gamification platform. Further, quests are
seen to add depth and meaning to the user experience
(Cunningham and Zichermann 2011). SAP for example de-
veloped a BBingo^ gamification approach for their customer
service where the manager sets up different tasks to fulfill (e.g.
reply to a ticket in a certain time or help another agent solve a
ticket) which can each be seen as a quest. The agents can track
their progress and the one who fulfills all tasks first wins that
round of Bingo (Makanawala et al. 2013).
Deci and Ryan (2000) adduce that positive feedback still
requires perceived autonomy in order to affect intrinsic moti-
vation, which is not the case for most gamification applica-
tions in the workplace context (Deterding 2011). The frame-
work therefore takes those aspects into consideration for ex-
ample positive feedback by colleagues should be promoted
within the individual platform elements. The pure usage of
points, as also argued by Werbach and Hunter (2012), does
not lead to an increased engagement of the users per se.
Especially for serving the need of relatedness status and rep-
utation must be put into a social and for the user meaningful
context (Groh 2012). Thus, points can be related to winning
the before mentioned quests within Cost Engineering methods
and are then linked to performance and a meaningful social
context. Such a meaningful social context is further given
through the basic idea of Cost Engineering to reduce costs
and is considered as the epic meaning of our approach. This
is seen as one of the most important game mechanics
(McGonigal 2011).
Further, implementing game elements such as badges can
be related to certain achievements in Cost Engineering
methods. Therefore, they can be considered as rewards, which
are assigned not just for the completion of a task but for the
overall performance of the user. Combined with the recogni-
tion in a social context by other users, they further serve the
need for relatedness. Additionally, it is considered a challenge
for the user as the user will know in advance of the require-
ments necessary to achieve a badge. When the requirements
are realistic and challenging they result in increased intrinsic
motivation (Deci and Ryan 2000; Csikszentmihalyi 2000). It
was found that setting goals in particular high-goals led to an
increased performance compared to letting people simply do
their best (Shalley 1995; Locke and Latham 2002) which
could already be partially proven with respect to gamification
(Hamari 2013).
As mentioned above, companies incentivize and motivate
employees through various incentive systems such as salaries,
promotions, rewards, profit sharing or holiday bonuses (Baker
et al. 1988). Rewarding employees with non-monetary re-
wards for creating new ideas was found to be more effective
than high-powered incentives (Baumann and Stieglitz 2014).
Further, Holmstrom and Milgrom (1994) found that low-

powered incentive systems within firms spark cooperation and
coordination.
In that sense, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation must
not be seen separately or mutually contradictory since
there are interdependencies between the two especially
in workplace settings (Lepper and Henderlong 2000;
Kehr 2004; Deci 1971). However, one must be cautious
with respect to the overjustification effect which results
in lower or blocked intrinsic motivation due to external
rewards (Wiersma 1992; Lepper and Henderlong 2000;
Amabile et al. 1994). Werbach and Hunter (2012) point
out that for gamification applications, where external
rewards such as points and badges are not thoughtfully
added, one needs to fear a crowding-out of intrinsic
motivation. However, it was found that for subjects
who are highly intrinsically motivated, extrinsic rewards
had no negative influence on the intrinsic motivation
(Arnold 1976). As one can see awards and their out-
comes on performance and motivation are highly depen-
dent on the individual company situation which is also
seen to be the case for gamification (Nicholson 2012).
Further, it was found that humans at work differ greatly
in their individual motivation due to personal aspects
(Amabile et al. 1994) or the task to be performed in a
certain situation (Humphreys and Revelle 1984). This is
also the base assumption of Deterdings (2011) situated
motivational affordance model. Therefore, as mentioned
above in our framework, we particularly pay attention to
the relatedness of points and badges and link them to
the judgment of others (e.g. with votes on comments
that influence the point score).
Building on the outlined motivational aspects, gamification
can be seen as a new multidimensional low-powered incentive
system which acts across hierarchies and through which com-
pany goals can be differentiated.
3 Methodology
Our research aims to combine gamification with Cost
Engineering to build a framework for implementing as well
as executing Cost Engineering in a more flexible and less
resource intensive manner. First, it was important to under-
stand how companies currently deal with Cost Engineering
and which systems are already in place in the context of
knowledge management. An in-depth understanding of
existing processes, requirements and goals is very important
when aiming to develop a gamified solution (Werbach and
Hunter 2012). Due to the explorative nature of the study, we
derive our framework from a qualitative study conducting a
case study analysis (Eisenhardt 1989; Yin 2014). As the aim
of this research is to develop a framework, not to test it, the-
oretical sampling is used as opposed to random or statistical
Inf Syst Front
sampling (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007). We conducted in-
depth interviews with 20 experts in 8 companies from the
German and Austrian high-tech industry. As Cost
Engineering is primarily used by producing companies with
tangible and rather complex products we focused on the high-
tech industry. The companies originate from the following
industries: optics, automotive, mechanical engineering, engi-
neering services and industrial machinery. The companies
hence operate a research and development department. Here
we specifically focused on companies that already used Cost
Engineering and indicated that they see potential to improve
the Cost Engineering process through IT enterprise solutions.
Further, these companies had not implemented any knowl-
edge management tools which could have been utilized for
the purpose of the Cost Engineering. We further focused on
SMEs as they can most profit from a more efficient implemen-
tation through an IT enterprise solution. Above, we also in-
cluded three big companies in our sample to assure the plat-
form can grow with the companies and will thus be
generalizable.
3.1 Data collection
We specifically did not interview IT experts in the companies
or game designers as the focus of our study is the overall cost
engineering process and understanding which knowledge
management tools are already used and how to make a first
step towards integrating gamification into this process and not
designing game elements to improve specific activities on a
platform. For the purpose of this research, we first targeted
future users of the platform and hence interviewed managers
from departments currently working with Cost Engineering
methods and are familiar with the underlying processes in-
volved in these different methods. The experts came from dif-
ferent departments but mainly from engineering, controlling or
research and development units. The interviews lasted approx-
imately one hour and were conducted face - to - face at the
companies by two researchers. Only one interview was con-
ducted via a conference call. We further organized a joint
workshop with representatives from each company to ensure
that the companies were familiar with the topic of gamification,
the workshop was held three months before the interviews took
place to give the companies sufficient time to brief the final
interview partners on the topic. Additional information regard-
ing the topics as well as the questionnaire was provided before
the interviews. The interviews were conducted with open- and
closed ended questions that were divided into four parts: gen-
eral company characteristics, status of Cost Engineering in the
company, status of gamification in the company, and platform
for gamification and Cost Engineering. For the purpose of this
paper, however, we will only focus on the last two parts of the
questionnaire. Questions for the current status of gamification
aimed to understand whether or not the concept was already
Inf Syst Front
used in the companies or just certain elements. Further, the
current usage of monetary and non-monetary incentive sys-
tems was asked. The next part related to the motivation and
goals to implement a gamified platform for the Cost
Engineering process. Here we asked specifically for the ob-
jective of the platform in that process and of which elements
the platform should comprise to best serve the process.
Further, we asked for a mode of initiation of games and
which information the user would need to have in order to
participate. Another set of questions addressed the later user
base which will be eligible to use the platform e.g. the whole
company or only certain departments and how are user rights
to initiate and moderate games on the platform allocated.
Further, characteristics of voting and point systems were
asked. All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed
and documented in a standardized form, in order to enhance
the reliability of the study. As the interviews were structured
the analysis was done primarily with a spreadsheets to aggre-
gate and compare the data across the companies and to iden-
tify similarities and differences. Open ended questions and
parts of the interviews that were not focused on a particular
questions were coded by two researchers according to the
structured questions.
After completing a functional beta version of the plat-
form, we conducted a second round of expert interviews to
present the results and obtain further input particularly for
the work flow of quests. These discussions were very im-
portant and fruitful, as the participating companies could
visually and exemplarily see how the platform would func-
tion within their organization. Thus, this round of interviews
focused on the understanding of possible organizational ob-
stacles and how the system would need to be further con-
figured to meet those. A second part of this interview round
focused on more specific use cases which the experts could
now foresee for the platform in a much more detailed picture
compared to the first round of the interviews. Additionally, it
served to finalize a first set of game elements in more detail,
i.e. possible names for badges, levels and the point structure.
With the additional input we were then able to finalize the
framework and platform to meet all company requirements.
In addition to the before mentioned engineering, controlling
or research and development units, specialists from the IT
department regarding the technical specifications of the im-
plementation and usage of the platform were also
interviewed. The interviews were unstructured and conduct-
ed in the form of an open discussion, leading the experts
through the steps of an exemplary workflow on the online
platform1 (see also Figs. 5 and 6 in Appendix). The inter-
views and discussions lasted two hours and were conducted
face-to-face at the companies. All interviews were digitally
1
The platform can be accessed via www.spielifizierung.com.
recorded, transcribed and documented in a standardized
form relating to the individual platform components.
4 Analysis
We will first present the results from the structured in-
terview round which focused on the current status of
Cost Engineering and knowledge management as well
as possible gamification initiatives. The analysis pro-
vides a holistic picture of how to design the system
framework to meet company requirements and identify
areas for gamification. The first part will highlight the
identified workflow on the platform. The second part
incorporates the results from the second interview round
with more details on obstacles and how the platform has
to be designed in detail.
4.1 Status of gamification and knowledge management
related to Cost Engineering
None of the companies had gamification established in
one or the other way. However, some employees used
continuous improvement programs where they could post
ideas on an online platform which also had game like
mechanisms (such as a currency or stock market element).
The companies further saw great potential for the platform
to share and discuss ideas and mentioned for example that
their employees Bwere surprised by the success of
crowdsourcing^ in ideation. However, they also had
doubts regarding the usage and frequency employees
might log-in and were apprehensive that particularly
young employees might play too much. Therefore, a
platform can only be established when it is in line with
the companys strategy. As one interviewee put it Bplaying
should not be done for the sake of the game - it must
rather be ensured that the companys goal is reached^.
This is in line with Werbach and Hunter (2012) who state
that the first step needs to define the business objective as
the system is actually created to meet those goals.
4.2 Goals and work flow on a gamified Cost Engineering
platform
Regarding more specific objectives of the platform with re-
spect to Cost Engineering the interviewees indicated that there
is a necessity especially for the collection of ideas regarding
specific problems in the companies, collection of precise cost
data and cost estimations, and reaching out to the right com-
petent and knowledgeable people. Further, with respect to
Cost Engineering methods the ideas and solutions should be
evaluated through an efficient mechanism and marked with
key words for future reference to serve the principles of

existing knowledge management systems. With respect to the
game components, the interviewees saw the prominent game
elements, points and badges as a basis. Additionally as one
interviewee put it, the structure of the Bidea origination must
be considered so that for example not only the final solution
gets rewarded but also the fundamental idea itself^.
Across all experts especially idea and solution genera-
tion in quests was mentioned as the preferred game ele-
ment to bring the Cost Engineering methods to the plat-
form and ensure that the process is targeted towards the
overall business objectives. Further, it is important that
Cost Engineers can reach out to various competence areas
with the help of the platform to specifically include the
right people into the process. In that sense it was sug-
gested that Bideally the platform is linked to our address
book identifying the individual departments^. Thus within
quests, answers and comments as well as evaluations of
answers by others should be possible. Further, the quests
can be seen as concrete tasks that can be assigned to
specific employees or departments. Some companies even
stated that the tasks on the platform need to be mandatory
as well. Therefore, as described before, autonomy seen as
a prerequisite of gamification and intrinsic motivation will
be lost to a certain extent (Deterding 2011) depending on
the usage and communication in the individual companies.
Within quests it must further be possible to assign a win-
ner and post a ranking based on which the predefined
points and badges get allocated to the respective em-
ployees. These elements serve the need of relatedness
and the gained status and reputation is put into a social
and for the user meaningful context to enhance motivation
(Groh 2012).
Following the experts, the process of quests should be
split in three stages: Quest set up and participation, eval-
uation of answers, and assigning points and badges. In the
first phase the quest is set up, a detailed description of the
problem is provided and employees are invited. Further, in
the first stage employees should have accepted the quest
invitation and should start posting answers and comments.
In the next stage participants should be able to vote for
answers and the manager who initiated the quest evaluates
the answers and gives feedback as well as defines the
winner or more winners in case it is necessary. In the last
stage the manager should announce winner(s), allocate
points and if desired, have the possibility to assign badges
for special achievement during the quest. We drafted these
three stages derived from the expert interviews in the
flowchart in Fig. 1.
4.3 Organizational obstacles
While showing the platform to the experts in a first beta
version we specifically focused on possible obstacles for
Inf Syst Front
each component and process. Based on these insights we
elaborated a list (see Table 1) of areas which could jeop-
ardize a gamification initiative in a company. Further, we
formulated respective counter measures based on what was
mentioned during the interviews or based on legislations
and the literature. The list is a first overview but by no
means exhaustive, as such an analysis would exceed the
scope of this paper.
One danger mentioned by the experts was that a
shadow organization could evolve on a gamification
platform. For example, how management objectives
can be aligned with objectives and goals on the plat-
form and how the platform can be incorporated in or
exist besides already established performance indicators.
One concern raised in that respect was: BHow can we
ensure that goals on the platform can be aligned with
goals of individual business units or even managers,
especially when cross departmental resources are uti-
lized in the platform.^ Additionally, the interviews re-
vealed that companies must set up internal regulations
on how the gamification platform is implemented and
used. Especially how the platform integrates into the
existing organization in terms of hierarchy, management
objectives and resources allocated compared to daily
business. As one manager put it: Bin our organization
employees have 100 % of their time dedicated to their
supervisor, when they can be invited by other supervi-
sors on this platform we create a parallel shadow
organization^. With respect to communication, execu-
tive support is seen important in order to build an initial
enthusiasm for gamification within enterprises (Noll
Webb and Cantu 2013) also in order to ensure a clear
communication that resources can be allocated to the
gamification platform. Further, as mentioned above
Werbach and Hunter (2012) argue that gamification in
enterprises should only be pursued with a defined busi-
ness objective, hence be in line with or synchronized
with existing management objectives. Additional coun-
termeasures which were discussed in the second round
of interviews were that managers should be notified and
have insights into the activity of their employees (relat-
ing again to the discussions around a shadow organiza-
tion on the platform). Further, clear rules about who can
set up quests as well as how much time can be allocat-
ed to the usage of the platform need to be established.
One interview partner for example mentioned: BIf we do
not have a mandatory participation we should restrict
the platform to be used only in certain time frames^.
However, this is firm specific and must be aligned with
existing organizational structures as well as regulations
on how time is managed.
Another issue mentioned was how to deal with unequal
treatment especially when employees do not have the
Inf Syst Front

Fig. 1 Three stages of the quest Quest set up and participation

work flow based on experts input
(own illustration) Quest is created by Employees start Participants answer Answers are
cost engineer quest to quest commented

Evaluation of answers

Answers to quests Feedback on Voting by Winner(s) is/are

get elaborated answers participants defined

Assigning points and badges

Winner(s) is/are Points are assigned If applicable

End of quest
announced to winner(s) badges get awarded

possibilities or knowledge to participate in certain quests. This
is especially an issue with respect to a leaderboard for example
and the possibility to have certain quests only visible for a
defined group of employees. One countermeasure could be
to use the platform as a tool only up from a certain hierarchy
level which has the relevant knowledge and know-how to
participate in the quests. This is in line with German
law that does not allow unfavorable treatment of em-
ployees whose activities are comparable, however, al-
lows rewarding special efforts in case all comparable
employees had the same chance to participate and win.
Further, as the participation on the platform must be
differentiated from daily work, performance can only
be evaluated within the platform and not be mixed with
other performance indicators (Justiz 2013). Kumar and
Herger (2013) point out to plan certain approval cycles
and design the gamification approach in a way that
when one element gets no approval the system can still
be implemented.
They also point out that especially employee protection and
data protection have direct impact on gamification (Kumar
and Herger 2013). Those concerns were also raised by the
interview partners. Regarding data collection and perfor-
mance, the evaluation principles must be objective and with
standard rules following the German law regulated by the
Works Council Constitution Act 94 Abs. 2 BetrVG (Justiz
2013). In order to ensure the protection of workers, which is in
Germany especially represented through the workers council
and unions, the platform must stay flexible for adaptions.
Therefore, players must first accept that their data, for example
points, are collected and made public. However due to the
informational self-determination of the German federal data

Table 1 Overview of obstacles

for gamification in enterprises and
possible counter measures (own
illustration)
Obstacle Countermeasures
Shadow organization Executive support (Noll Webb and Cantu 2013)
Set clear rules who can set up quests and how employees can allocate time
(interview input)
Synchronize management objectives and platform usage (Werbach and Hunter 2012)
Notify supervisor once employee is invited to participate at quests of another
manager, department, team etc. (interview input)
Unequal treatment Objective and uniform evaluation (Justiz 2013)
Invite all employees with same organizational level to participate (based on
Justiz 2013)
Output can only be evaluated within the platform (based on Justiz 2013)
Misuse of personal Option to anonymize data and actions on platform (Justiz 2009)
data Information and approval of users of terms for data usage (Justiz 2009)
Revoke the approval at any time (Justiz 2009)
Mobbing Anonymize posts and activity (interview input)
Possibility to report inappropriate posts or comments (interview input)

protection act 4 Abs. 1 und 28 Abs. 1 (Justiz 2009), the
platform must be flexible in a way that players can revoke the
approval and can also accept it partially only.
4.4 Further input for the characteristics of the framework
Further, the comments revealed that experts in all compa-
nies considered a Bclear task and goal orientation^ of the
quests as a powerful vehicle compared to ordinary existing
knowledge management and competency management so-
lutions in particular regarding their usage for Cost
Engineering methods. As one interview partner pointed it
out Bhaving quests in game environments which already
have a goal defined is very good. Then, with the quests
we can basically steer tasks and having the overall goal
continuously in mind^. Combined with the motivational
aspects of gamification it is seen to have great potential
for companies, similar to classrooms in which game as-
pects were successfully combined with mandatory and
non-mandatory tasks (Ibanez et al. 2014).
Thus, during the discussion it was also elaborated
how especially badges can ideally be incorporated. As
the cost engineers should continuously observe the
quests and participation, the discussions revealed that
badges should not be automatized but given manually
by the game master. Thus, the game master should be
able to choose from a predefined set of badges, which
are visible for participants, and decide according to his
or her best judgement.
In this respect, however, the companies are not uniform
whether or not participation is mandatory. Here one inter-
viewee mentioned Bwe would only consider the platform if
the completion of tasks and quests is by invitation as well
as mandatory otherwise we lose the overall business
objective^. In another company both possibilities can be
envisioned. In one case, quests for example should be
mandatory when they are used for the preparation of a
meeting. The idea here was that inefficiencies of meetings
can be avoided, when all participants have to prepare and
think of possible solutions by participating in a quest. In
the other case, quests for complex topics should not be
mandatory and should also not have a strict deadline in
order to give employees the chance to think independently
about solutions decoupled from time. Mollick and
Rothbard (2013) found that sales people who did not con-
sent to the mandatory game elements showed a decreased
positive affect at work, however, those who consented
showed an increase.
Additionally, concerns were raised regarding the complex-
ity and time necessary to complete tasks. Problems arise when
the participation of the platform is in competition with other
organizational or departmental goals. The experts see an issue
particularly in cases when employees are invited to quests and
Inf Syst Front
hence need to allocate time and resources not on behalf of
their direct manager. A possible solution was to notify the
manager once an employee is invited to participate at quests
of another manager, department or team.
One important remark and evaluation during the sec-
ond round of interviews was the strength of the pro-
posed system to serve as a pool for knowledge similar
to enterprise wikis but in a much more structured and
powerful manner. Especially game environments which
enable a certain filtering for topics were seen as a
powerful concept as all information regarding one elab-
orated issue will ideally be saved in here. Thus, the
experts proposed to have an export function in form
of reports which can be generated and which display
the information of the whole game environment in a
structured way and can be used for further processes.
Additionally, the enterprise solution should have an ad-
vanced functionality enabling the search by topic and
key words of game environments, individual quests (in-
dependent from the game environments) and also for
employees.
Based on existing examples and the input from the
experts we first developed a conceptual model for the
system framework necessary to implement the IT plat-
form in an enterprise setting. We will then in detail
describe our system framework and the underlying pro-
cesses on the IT platform. Additionally we will outline
the details for our quest tool box with respect to Cost
Engineering using three examples.
5 Proposed framework to establish Cost Engineering
through a gamified IT platform
The foundation of our system framework is a holistic IT en-
terprise solution (see Fig. 2). It has a social network as its
foundation with basic elements of user profiles, messaging
and a newsfeed. On this basis we establish four pillars as the
backbone of the solution: a task, evaluation, game and an
organizational concept. These concepts represent the experts
requirements to establish Cost Engineering on a gamified plat-
form. Additionally, the central element of the platform in
which the main activities will take place are quests within
game environments.
5.1 Social network
The IT enterprise solution is based on a social network site
with individual profiles, a messaging and notification func-
tionality as well as a newsfeed. Social networks in companies
are defined as a connected community of social entities like
employees or departments (Anja Leist-Villis 2004).
Facilitating communication in social networks via online
Inf Syst Front

Fig. 2 Conceptual model to

Quests collected in one game environment
establish Cost Engineering
through the usage of quests (own
illustration) Game environment for specific products and/or Cost Engineering processes

Task concept Evaluation concept Game concept Organization concept

Various tasks for Evaluation by Points for answers Settings for

one Cost voting of and comments anonymous
Engineering participants Points for participation
method Evaluation by completion of Autonomous vs.
Tasks for Cost
Engineering game master tasks mandatory
methods set up by Mixed evaluation Varying points by participation
designated game degree of Tags to invite
master complexity of equal employer
Definition of tasks groups
visibility of tasks Badges for Revision phase
Points for achievements in after winner was
completion of Cost Engineering assigned
tasks distributed by method
game master
Leaderboard
Redeem points

Profile page (player & game master), messaging, forum, newsfeed

Social network

platforms offer great potential to enhance the overall commu-
nication culture in companies (P. K. Ryan 2011). Essentially,
social networks foster the exchange of information and thus
internal communication (Mller-Birn and Gronau 2007). The
network effects should support knowledge management as the
platform is available throughout the whole company. Hussain
et al. (2004) states that for managing knowledge effectively,
organizational members should be able to Bcollectively inter-
pret the available information by supporting various forms of
channels for conversations and negotiations^. In the specific
knowledge management context of Cost Engineering, a net-
work based gamified application facilitates the communica-
tion of information for example on certain costs or alternative
more efficient processes. Further, the platform enables inter-
disciplinary knowledge transfer within the firm as open tasks
can be freely accessed. Being socially embedded, the network
should enable more efficient Cost Engineering across depart-
ments and the handling of complex tasks (e.g. Von Krogh
2012). In addition, previous studies show that employees
who interactively use social networks feel greater affiliation
towards the company and their work tasks and have a higher
work performance in general (Koch and Richter 2009; X.
Zhang and Venkatesh 2013).
In order to ensure the Cost Engineering process and meet
hierarchical structures we created three user types on the plat-
form. First normal players who can participate in quests to
which they are invited to and game masters. Further, there is
an administrator who manages the platform as a whole. As
most of the Cost Engineering methods need some background
information and knowledge about the procedures, only the
designated game masters can set up game environments and
quests. The game master can be the cost engineer in the
company or a responsible employee working with one or the
other Cost Engineering method. As outlined above, such a
split of control rights and different user groups was preferred
by the companies since they consider it a prerequisite for the
platform to have a certain extent of control and hierarchy. Two
aspects considered as particularly important once resources
are claimed from employees on top of their daily business
responsibilities.
5.2 Task concept
As Cost Engineering methods are mostly complex they need to
be split into small individual tasks, which will then be repre-
sented in individual quests. In order to keep those related tasks/
quest together they are collected in one game environment for a
specific product, process and/or Cost Engineering method.
Only those employees assigned as game masters (by the admin-
istrator) have the right to set up quests and hence game
environments. Employees are invited to these specific quests.
Sanchez (1995, 1996, 2004) finds that competences depend and
derive from different knowledge bases. It can be either practical
(know-how), theoretical (know-why) or strategic (know-what).
Here, the task concept and the invitation contributes another
aspect: know-who. Finding the right expert for a certain quest
within the organization is facilitated and interdisciplinary teams
are set-up quickly, hence their knowledge is connected.
Above, the expert interviews revealed that for Cost
Engineering methods sometimes sensible data needs to be
shared, which should not be accessible for all departments or
employees. Thus, the game master can define the visibility of
the quests and make them either publicly visible or only vis-
ible for a team, department or several individual employees.

The game environment and quest should further contain all
necessary information about the goal and tasks to be per-
formed. Quests can, moreover, have a due date.
Additionally, the game master has to assign points to the
quests according to the complexity level and effort needed to
participate and contribute to the quest. However, each game
master only has a certain amount of points to allocate to dif-
ferent quests but can request more from the administrator. This
concept should prevent the system from being gamed when
game masters can set up an unlimited amount of quests and
hence distribute an unlimited amount of points.
Considering those preferences we see the quest design of a
single-user experience most suitable for the platform. Users
are contributing to a quest individually but the input is shared
and discussed with other users (Cunningham and Zichermann
2011). As mentioned before, gamification is already
established in the educational sector (e.g.: Hakulinen et al.
2013; Cheong et al. 2013; Domnguez et al. 2013; de-
Marcos et al. 2014). Thus, for the quest approach we focus
especially on the approach of classroom gamification where
teachers utilize the gamification platform for the various tasks
during lessons or a course (Salen et al. 2011) which is com-
parable to the cost engineer and employee situation. In this
sense de Freitas and de Freitas (2013) defined and developed
the Classroom Live platform, a gamified platform focusing on
the usage of quests, set up by the instructor of the course. Here
the instructor can for example create a quest for a written
homework and combine it with multiple-choice quests with
related course material to complete (de Freitas and de Freitas
2013).
5.3 Evaluation concept
In the interviews the experts expressed the need for flexibility
how answers to quests get evaluated. Thus, we derived three
different concepts for evaluation which are: a democratic eval-
uation, an authoritarian evaluation or a mixed evaluation.
When choosing the democratic evaluation, the winner gets
elected by the rating of the answers which are derived from
votes of the other participants. In the authoritarian evaluation
the game master, as the expert, considers a certain answer to
be most valuable for the quest and assigns the winner or if so,
up to three winners. As before mentioned, the selection of
more winners should be possible as the experts saw the need
to also reward posts which inspired the final solution. During
demonstration the companies considered a mix of both con-
cepts as interesting, meaning that the quest participants can
vote on answers but the game master has still the possibility to
define the winner(s). In this concept the participants are en-
gaged to participate in the voting and the game master receives
an impression of which answer is preferred by the participants.
Further, as outlined above the game master can still assign
more than one winner and/or decide that another answer,
Inf Syst Front
regardless of its score, wins the quest due to its valuable con-
tribution to his or her problem at hand. The evaluation concept
enables knowledge curating as the ideas and suggestions are
being evaluated (Litchfield and Gilson 2013). The key to an
effective knowledge and competence management is the abil-
ity to identify and select crucial information (Hussain et al.
2004). By providing different evaluation modes (democratic,
authoritarian or mixed), the proposed IT enterprise solution
enables sophisticated curating of knowledge in line with the
organization.
5.4 Game concept
Within quests each player can only post one answer but
several comments to answers. Here, players can receive
points through simple participation. Every time players
write an answer or a comment, they receive five points
or one point, accordingly. As it was found in other
incentive systems that employees strategically gamed
the system (Besley and Ghatak 2008; Gubler et al.
2013), we try to counteract this behavior by subtracting
points when answers and, or comments get deleted and
reposted. By only giving the possibility to answer once,
we avoid that points are given excessively without cre-
ating meaningful answers.
As mentioned above game masters define the points one
can earn in order to win a quest. In order to have quests with
comparable point scores, the game master can assign a max-
imum of 200 points to a single quest and should vary the
point score depending on the complexity. Considering the
points received for answers and comments are rather low,
we predefine easy, medium and difficult quests with 25, 50
and 75 points, accordingly. The point score is additionally
shown in a leaderboard. Depending on the company prefer-
ence, one can establish a normal leaderboard, a relative lead-
erboard or none at all. In addition, it is also possible to keep
the leaderboards anonymous to fulfill privacy issues which
will be further specified in the organization concept.
However, this is subject to modification since we have to
analyze the motivational aspects of players who do not have
the possibility to take part or contribute in many quests and
hence have less chance to reach a good position in the
leaderboard.
In addition to the points, players can also receive badges
based on achievements in quests. As the experts expressed
different preferences, the badges can either be based on a
quantitative measure such as the amount of answers or points
received within quests for one Cost Engineering method or a
qualitative measure applied by the game master. The latter is
less objective but gives the game master the possibility to
award for example answers which are very innovative but
not yet feasible by a BThink outside the box^ badge. On the
other hand, if a player achieves a predefined goal (defined by
Inf Syst Front
the individual company) in a Cost Engineering method based
on qualitative metrics, one can be awarded a badge
representing a certain level for that method for example
BExpert in Total Cost of Ownership Calculations^.
Further, companies expressed the necessity that players
should have the possibility to redeem points for pre-defined
prizes. However, as outlined above one must be cautious with
respect to the overjustification effect which results in a lower
or blocked intrinsic motivation due to external rewards
(Wiersma 1992; Lepper and Henderlong 2000; Amabile
et al. 1994). Thus we recommend that companies should follow
for example the case of SAP as they achieved positive expe-
riences with linking achievements from their gamified
Community Network to a donation employees can make to
the UN World Food Programme (SAP 2007).
5.5 Organization concept
Considering the above mentioned obstacles, we integrated
different elements into the platform to meet the firms require-
ments and also the German law. As outlined above the con-
ceptual model considers different evaluation principles and an
additional revision phase to give players the possibility to
question and discuss the game masters final decision regard-
ing the winner. This should ensure an objective evaluation and
the entire process remains on the platform.
Regarding privacy and data collection issues, the platform
is flexible in terms of anonymous participation. This means,
players can for example accept that their data is collected to
take part in games and earn points and rewards but the identity
is not revealed. Thus, a player can choose if his or her name is
visible for other players next to activities and if he or she is
listed in the leaderboard. Further, in case answers receive in-
appropriate comments we included the possibility to report
those to the system administrator.
For convenience reasons and to ensure that all users with a
similar background or similar level are considered for the
same quests, we included an invitation by tags. Thus, inviting
employees to quests can simply be done by tags, representing
business units, project teams or a hierarchy level. However,
that this is in contrary to the desired functionality of inviting
individuals to quest. Similar to the mandatory and non-
mandatory participation, such peculiarities are subject to firm
specific characteristics and decisions. We, however, included
the possibility of individual invitation as well as the possibility
to send along an invitation text stating whether or not the quest
is mandatory or not.
5.6 Detailed systems framework of the IT enterprise
solution
We translated the requirements of the enterprise solution into a
system framework (see Fig. 3) to implement Cost Engineering
through an IT platform. One of the central aspects of the system
framework is the game environment. The game master is respon-
sible for creating a game environment which holds information
about the different quests (see also Figs. 5 and 6 in Appendix).
For the systems framework we considered the defined 21 Cost
Engineering methods (excluding project management, risk man-
agement and development partnerships as they are too unspecific
for platform quests) as outlined by Wildemann (2012). For
usability reasons we allocated the Cost Engineering methods
to three categories; market and customer focus, strategy and
process optimization, and product focus. Depending on the
selection, the game master can in the next step choose a Cost
Engineering method in the specific category and add a detailed
description. For each game environment the game master can
define the visibility level. Thus, the game environment can
either be public and every user of the platform can join
or only by invitation. The invitation can be carried out either
by selecting employees individually or by inviting multiple
employees by the before mentioned tags. Here, departments
and different competence areas should be considered, to easily
address the right people within the organization. Every newly
invited user receives a notification in his or her inbox. After
accepting the invite, the user is able to join the game environ-
ment and may participate in quests.
We further considered how users can contribute to certain
methods by posting novel ideas, improvements on processes
or costs of product components. Another aspect which was
mentioned in the interviews and especially when presenting
the workflow during the demonstration is the complexity and
time needed to contribute to quests within the different
methods, especially when employees have no free resources
allocated to contribute to quests. Thus, the amount of back-
ground information and level of detail for the description
needed might vary and needed to be taken into consideration.
This goes along with the above mentioned theory that the
quests should be a realistic challenge so that the employees
are not overwhelmed and can reach a status of flow for knowl-
edge sharing and knowledge seeking on the platform
(Csikszentmihalyi 2000; Yan et al. 2013). Taking these as-
pects into consideration, we classified 15 out of the remaining
18 methods as promising to be implemented and executed on
the platform in form of quests. Methods such as virtual engi-
neering are, however, too complex to be executed in a timely
manner without overwhelming the users (although on the cog-
nitive basis, not every user is familiar with reading complex
3D drawings on a screen).
5.6.1 Workflow of individual quests
After setting up the before mentioned game environment, the
game master can continue with the quest workflow
(summarized in Fig. 4). The three phases are divided in con-
figuration, participation, and evaluation and relate in large
 Inf Syst Front

System Framework for enterprise IT solution

Process Enterprise Knowledge
Feed Management
Game Environment(s) related to
Cost Engineering method
Structured knowledge
game master base by topic and aim of
creating & Quests workflow - representing tasks and work
moderating flow for specific cost engineering method game environments
Assigns Invites
winner(s) for participants and
individual sets visibility level Quest 1 Reports of each game
quests Quest 2 environment as CSV
collaborate Quest 3 output
participants
evaluate

managing
Search function on
n platform by keywords
Receive feedback,
administrator points and badges
through individual
quests and game
environments
managing
Identification of
employees by
contribution to specific
Virtual Machine / Website
topics (by keyword) in
Voting Badges Points Shop Reports Ranking AskBot
game environments

Database Apache Web Application / Django

Server / Ubuntu minimum

Fig. 3 Detailed system framework visualizing the relation of enterprise knowledge management, virtual machine / website, roles and workflows (own illustration)

parts to the three stages derived from the first round of inter-
views outlined in section 4.2. We drew it as an open-ended
workflow since the quest on the platform might be ended, the
results, however, will be further used within the company. This
further processing and management of the generated knowledge
is also shown in the system framework above (Fig. 3), as the
generated knowledge within the game environments and quests
is managed by the IT enterprise solution through report and
search functionalities. An approach that comprises common
knowledge management processes where knowledge is created,
stored, shared, transferred and applied later (Zangiski et al.
2013). Thus, knowledge that was generated is structured within
the platform by the categorization of the game environments but
also through keywords within the description of the game envi-
ronments. Additionally the search function works similarly for
quests. By this, the generated knowledge is easily available for
future reference making the IT enterprise solution a powerful
knowledge management tool. Inspired by the second interview
round we added a functionality to match employees with certain
competence areas depending on their contribution on the plat-
form and make them searchable in the same manner.
The quests each have individual descriptions and the game
master can attach additional information to the description if
necessary. The quests again can be made public for all players
of the game environment or solely for specific players or player
groups. The following additional configurations are necessary to
configure a new quest (see also Fig. 3 and Table 2):
& Due date: Defines how long a quest is open and players
can participate in this quest. After the defined time the
quest is automatically closed. A high usability is achieved
by using a calendar input widget.
& Complexity level: The company administrator can define
three levels of difficulty. These difficulty levels guide the
game master regarding the complexity and approximate
time required to participate. The preset levels are easy,
medium and difficult.
& Points: The game master has a limited amount of points
which he or she can assign to quests. Those points are stored
in the profile of the game master and more points can be
requested from the administrator. Depending on the com-
plexity level, quests have preset 25, 50 and 75 points,
accordingly.
& Visibility: Three different visibility levels are used. The
quest can either be visible to all members of the game
environment, or it can be visible only by invite, or the
visibility can be defined by tags.
Once the quests are set up, each employee who accepted
the invitation can participate and write an answer or a

Fig. 4 The three phases of the Quest configuartion Quest participation Quest evaluation
quest work flow (own illustration)
Description Players accept or decline Voting on answers
Due date Comments by game master and Definition of winner(s)
Invitations and visibility players Closing of quest
Complexitiy level Answers by players
Attachments
Inf Syst Front

Table 2 Overview of three quest examples with different characteristics

Criteria Characteristics Example 1 Example 2 Example 3

Cost Engineering One of the defined 15 Cost-Out-Workshop Product Clinic Benchmark

Method
Quest description Defined by game master Workshop preparation: Function related product Internal and external best-
Read attachments and analysis: Compare practice comparison Identify
find further information product functionality service Y, relevant four
to familiarize yourself and component Z with our current best practice
with the workshop topic competitors solution. and benchmark it
Post further information and Find a cheaper solution Consider also other industries
start a discussion and start for same functionality. with similar production
a discussion and form focus factors.
groups by interest
Goal Defined by game master Prepare for a more efficient Optimization of the Identify quantifiable differences
workshop and already products cost which reveal improvement
start workshop discussion efficiency potential to defend market
online position
Invitation Individually Individually only certain By tag include relevant Individually and all in game
By tag employees from different units or by expertise environment
All in game environment units
Mandatory Yes Yes No Yes/no
No
Visibility Public Non-public Public Public
Non-public
Due Date Fixed Fixed Open-end Fixed
Open-end
Level Easy Easy Difficult Medium
Medium
Difficult
Points 25 25 75 50
50
75
Other
Badge to receive Yes No Yes Yes
No
Evaluation Mode Participants Game master those actively Participants Combination
Game master contributing to discussion
Combination

comment to a quest, for which they receive five or one point(s).
As outlined above the number of answers is limited to one by
each player. If players want to discuss or clarify something
they can always use comments to the quest description or to
the answers of others. Game masters can also be part of quests
from other game masters in which they are treated like normal
participants and can also contribute answers and comments.
Game masters have the possibility to comment on answers
and also edit the quest description anytime.
After quests reach their due date or the game master ends
the participation phase, the game master can decide whether
or not participants can vote on the answers to define a win-
ner. In case a voting phase is started, players can vote an-
swers of others up +1 and down 1. This ensures that ideas
are not evaluated right away, are up or down graded or
considered good or bad by other players who are still in
the search or brainstorming phase. Giving participants the
chance to vote relates to the before mentioned democratic
evaluation concept and ensures an objective evaluation of
the answers. Further, game masters can decide to skip the
voting phase in case they see no necessity. Additionally, we
included the option for the game master to let the participa-
tion and vote phase run simultaneously as it is found in
ideation where social comparison plays a significant role to
participants who try to match their performance with high-
quality answers (Valacich et al. 2006). Upon this concept,
players might not see the exact vote count, however, the
platform is configured in a way that the vote count deter-
mines the ranking of answers, where the best rated ideas are
visible on top and will be read by players first.
In the last phase, the game master can also assign up to
three winners for each quest and distribute the predefined

amount of points. In case participants can vote and the game
master assigns the winner(s), the process is a combination
between a whole democratic, solely by the players, and an
authoritarian, solely by the game master. If different answers
have the same score, the game master has the possibility to
make a final decision regarding the winner or is able to
assign more than one winner. Further, in case the game
master being the expert considers a certain answer to be
most valuable, he or she has the opportunity to select
this answer to win the quest, despite its score. In case
there is no voting phase, the game master solely decides
the winner(s) and thus makes use of the authoritarian
concept as mentioned above. The game master further
has the chance to assign badges to participants of quests
or in game environments. The badges, in addition to the
specificities on what needs to be achieved in order to
receive the badges, should be predetermined to give
players another goal they can reach besides winning
quests.
5.6.2 Examples of quests and their different characteristics
Table 2 gives an overview of sample quests with different
characteristics to develop a better understanding on how mul-
tifaceted quests can be. These quests are one task within the
Cost Engineering methods and are embedded in game
environments.
The sample quests have different complexity levels ranging
from easy for a workshop preparation (example 1) to difficult
in terms of technical analysis within the product clinic (exam-
ple 2). The underlying task at hand for each quest is also
reflected in the visibility of the quests. Thus, example 1 is only
visible for a certain group of employees as it is a quest to
prepare a cost-out workshop in which not every employee
can participate. Example 3 on the other hand is public
and invites all employees who are part of the game envi-
ronment in addition to individual employees for whom the
quest is mandatory. Hence, in example 3 the game master
has the chance to receive relevant information by a de-
fined due date for a specific task from employees who are
directly addressed and are considered to have the relevant
knowledge. On top of that, other employees can see the
quest and participate in case they have significant ideas,
too. Compared to the other two examples, example 2 (see also
Figs. 5 and 6 in Appendix) is a quest without any due date
which is due to the complexity of the task. This gives
employees the chance to think about solutions anytime without
time pressure. It addresses only units or employees who have a
certain expertise of the product component under investigation.
However, it is still kept visible to every employee to capture
sticky information of other employees.
Example 1 is not a quest where given answers can be eval-
uated. For this reason, there is no voting phase. However, a
Inf Syst Front
winner is still assigned by the game master who has the best
overview of which player shared the most valuable infor-
mation for the workshop preparations and was capable of
steering discussions. Example 2 uses a democratic approach
as the answers posted can be qualitatively and quantitative-
ly evaluated. Since the task is complex and requires a cer-
tain expertise to evaluate, the judgment of the experts is
important and an objective decision can be made based on
facts about the costs and functionality. Example 3 uses a
combined approach as the answers can be evaluated in
terms of their quality so participants can vote for their
preferences. Further, there might be more answers that ful-
fill the game masters request so he or she can still assign
more than one winner.
6 Conclusion and outlook
6.1 Summary
Gamified Cost Engineering has the potential to revolu-
tionize companies by building on non-monetary motiva-
tional stimuli and thereby optimizing the Cost
Engineering processes across teams and divisions.
Based on previous research and expert interviews we
developed a system framework to implement and use
Cost Engineering methods in companies in a gamified
IT enterprise solution. The interviews revealed that es-
pecially quests for the Cost Engineering methods are
favored by the experts as they are task and goal orient-
ed. The system framework builds on a social network
and comprises four concepts namely a task, evaluation,
game, and organizational concept. These concepts repre-
sent the experts requirements to establish Cost
Engineering in a gamified IT enterprise solution. The
central element of the platform are quests which are
collected in game environments for specific Cost
Engineering methods. In game environments and quests
game masters can invite specific employees according to
their competencies and draw upon their knowledge
which is then stored and searchable by topic and cost
engineering method. In order to enhance the usability
for the cost engineer (here the game master) and also
to consider organizational aspects, we gave the game
master a number of configuration possibilities for setting
up the game environments and quests. We further
highlighted the flexibility and different characteristics
of quests in three examples. With our proposed game
concept based on quests, points and topic specific
badges we aim to increase the intention to share knowl-
edge within the IT enterprise solution. All this knowl-
edge generated is then managed through advanced
reporting and search functionalities to be available for
Inf Syst Front
future reference and processing. Taken together, the pro-
posed IT enterprise solution is able to support sophisti-
cated knowledge and competence management. The dis-
advantages of traditional Cost Engineering approaches
(Heady et al. 2005) can be met by the flexible applica-
tion options of gamification in our framework and es-
pecially within quests.
6.2 Implications for researchers and practitioners
With our IT enterprise solution, we provide a Cost
Engineering approach to make Cost Engineering more
flexible and less resource intense. We promote quests
as the central mechanism to flexibly initiate and run
Cost Engineering methods and outline the different
tasks that the cost engineer has to set up. This means
that the application of gamification in Cost Engineering
facilitates the adaption towards a dynamic environment
and thus helps reduce complexity for employees and man-
agers. The overall social embeddedness and company-wide
accessibility via the social network promotes an adequate IT
enterprise solution.
Furthermore, required cost awareness can be raised
and the identification with the job can be increased for
all employees. The platform also considers that valuable
information especially estimations from cost experts
might be lost when they leave their company (Alroomi
et al. 2012). Thus, through a novel approach of incor-
porating gamification aspects we intent to set the right
incentives as outlined by North (2005) to share and
document such knowledge within the company. This
helps knowledge preservation for the organization and
its future.
In addition, the evolution of gamification has just
reached its early stages (Goasduff and Pettey 2011)
and many companies will tap into this trend, trying to
utilize its potential as a non-monetary incentive system
in the future. Our approach is not only limited to the
use for Cost Engineering and hence universally adapt-
able. The module of game environments and quest
based data and information gathering can be adjusted
to different needs and improve the task efficiency of
employees working across several departments in pro-
ject related processes. They are dependent on the input
of other employees who pursue own tasks and goals
and therefore need incentives to contribute valuable in-
formation and knowledge. We developed a foundation,
which can be selected by researchers to identify the
motivational affordances in various contexts also outside
of company settings and relate to more task driven and
process oriented contexts than traditional platforms only
enhancing one activity (e.g. brainstorming).
6.3 Limitations
Our approach is intended to foster advanced Cost Engineering.
Hence, the final design of the platform elements, primarily the
quest, take into consideration the results from our expert inter-
views in German speaking companies. Especially concerns re-
garding the German privacy law were considered and incorpo-
rated into the design and settings of the platform. Further, we
focused on Cost Engineering methods and set up templates
solely for this purpose. However, we kept the platform config-
urations flexible leaving space for individual adaptions. Thus,
companies can either set up a completely anonymous platform
or choose to have only certain or no elements anonymous. In
addition, the quest templates can be exchanged for other
methods which are suitable for the usage on our platform and
are therefore not limited to Cost Engineering only.
The platform is designed and set up primarily for internal
company use and offers a single sign-on possibility for em-
ployees to access the platform with their company email address.
This is due to sensible and confidential data that is provided by
the cost engineer and exchanged during the discussions. Hence,
we did not consider participation of customers or business part-
ners of companies to leverage external sources for innovation
(West and Bogers 2013). However, if companies choose to use
the platform for purposes other than Cost Engineering, where no
confidential data is uploaded and discussed, companies can also
invite external participants to participate on the platform.
6.4 Future research
As the usage and effectivity of gamification in companies is not
yet well understood, there are several areas for research to be
considered. We will use the platform to analyze the usage of
gamification in German speaking companies especially for the
usage in Cost Engineering. It is intended that we analyze the user
behavior as well as perform surveys regarding the motivational
affordance of the game elements in a company setting, with
particular focus on the underlying autonomy as suggested by
Deterding (2011). Additionally, research could focus on the spill-
over effects of gamification on the motivation and performance
of employees in general, as it was done previously with status
incentives (Besley and Ghatak 2008; Gubler et al. 2013). This
also implies that future research would benefit from a better
understanding of how companies can use gamification in an
interplay with existing rewards, incentive systems and awards
already established in companies. In order to add to the manage-
rial aspects, we further suggest research to investigate cultural
differences in the acceptance of gamification in a workplace
setting such as research for traditional incentive systems.
Acknowledgments This project has received funding from the
Arbeitsgemeinschaft industrieller Forschungsvereinigungen Otto von
Guericke e.V (AiF) under grant agreement no. 17852-N.
 Inf Syst Front

Appendix: Platform screenshots

Fig. 5 Screenshot showing the set-up of a game environment which is open for the public and which holds the quest in example 2

Fig. 6 Screenshot showing the set-up of a quest which has no due date (Bearbeitungsende), difficult complexity level (Questschwierigkeit = Schwer)
and has a special invitation for individual employees
Inf Syst Front
References
AACE-International (2014). What is Cost Engineering? http://www.
aacei.org/mbr/whatIsCE.shtml. Accessed 04.05 2014.
Abt, C. C. (1987). Serious games. Lanham, USA: University Press of
America.
Alroomi, A., Jeong, D. H. S., & Oberlender, G. (2012). Analysis of cost-
estimating competencies using criticality matrix and factor analysis.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(11),
12701280. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000351.
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in orgnaizations: in doing
what you love and loving what you Do. California Management
Review, 40(1), 3858.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994).
The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic mo-
tivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66(5), 950967.
Anja Leist-Villis, A. L. (2004). Zweisprachigkeit im Kontext sozialer
Netzwerke (vol. 15, ). Mnster: Waxmann.
Arnold, H. J. (1976). Effects of performance feedback and extrinsic re-
ward upon high intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 17(2), 275288.
Bajdor, P., & Dragolea, L. (2011). The gamification as a tool to improve
risk management in the enterprise. Annales Universitatis Apulensis:
Series Oeconomica, 13(2), 574583.
Baker, G. P., Jensen, M. C., & Murphy, K. J. (1988). Compensation and
incentives: practice vs. Theory. The Journal of Finance, 43(3), 593
616. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1988.tb04593.x.
Baumann, O., & Stieglitz, N. (2014). Rewarding value-creating
ideas in organizations: the power of low-powered incentives.
Strategic Management Journal, 35(3), 358375. doi:10.1002/
smj.2093.
Beer, M., & Cannon, M. D. (2004). Promise and peril in
implementing pay-for-performance. Human Resource
Management, 43(1), 320.
Besley, T., & Ghatak, M. (2008). Status incentives. The American
Economic Review, 98(2), 206211.
Bukowitz, W. R., & Williams, R. L. (2000). The knowledge management
fieldbook: Financial times/prentice hall.
Cheong, C., Cheong, F., & Filippou, J. (2013). Quick Quiz: A Gamified
Approach for Enhancing Learning. Jeju Island, Korea: In Pacific
Asia Conference on Information Systems.
Coenenberg, A. G., Fischer, T. M., & Gnther, T. (2009).
Kostenrechnung und Kostenanalyse (7ed.). Stuttgart: Schffer-
Poeschel Verlag.
Contractor, F. J., & Lorange, P. (2002). The growth of alliances in the
knowledge-based economy. International Business Review, 11(4),
485502.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety:
Experiencing flow in work and play. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cunningham, C., & Zichermann, G. (2011). Gamification by design:
Implementing game mechanics in Web and mobile apps.
Sebastopol: OReilly Media.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1),
105115.
Deci, E. L. (1972). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and in-
equity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(1), 113
120.
Deci, E. L., & Cascio, W. F. (1972). Changes in Intrinsic Motivation as a
Function of Negative Feedback and Threats. Boston: In Eastern
Psychological Association Meeting.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic
motivational processes. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 13(2), 3980.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The Bwhat^ and Bwhy^ of goal
pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior.
Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227268.
Deterding, S. (2011). Situated Motivational Affordances of Game
Elements: A Conceptual Model. Vancouver: Paper presented at the
CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011a). From Game
Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining BGamification^.
Tampere, Finland: In 15th International Academic MindTrek
Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments.
Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L. E., & Dixon, D. (2011b).
Gamification: Toward a Definition. Paper presented at the CHI
2011 Workshop Gamification: Using Game Design Elements in
Non-Game Contexts,
Domnguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernndez-Sanz,
L.,., Pags, C., & Martnez-Herriz, J.-J. (2013). Gamifying learning
experiences: practical implications and outcomes. Computers &
Education, 63(April 2013), 380392. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.
2012.12.020.
Ehrlenspiel, K., Kiewert, A., & Lindemann, U. (2007). Kostengnstig
entwickeln und konstruieren (5ed.). Heidelberg: Springer.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research.
Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from
cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management
Journal, 50(1), 2532.
Fisher, C. D. (1978). The effects of personal control, competence, and
extrinsic reward systems on intrinsic motivation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 21(3), 273288.
Foray, D., & Lundvall, B. (1998). The knowledge-based economy: from
the economics of knowledge to the learning economy. The
Economic impact of Knowledge, 115-121.
DE Freitas, A. A., & DE Freitas, M. M. (2013). Classroom live: a
software-assisted gamification tool. Computer Science Education,
23(2), 186206. doi:10.1080/08993408.2013.780449.
Gears, D., & Braun, K. (2013). Gamification in Business: Designing
Motivating Solutions to Problem Situations. Paris: In CHI 2013
Changing Perspectives.
Goasduff, L., & Pettey, C. (2011). Gartner says by 2015, more than 50
percent of organizations that manage innovation processes will
gamify those processes.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environ-
ments: organizational capability as knowledge integration.
Organization Science, 7(4), 375387.
Groh, F. (2012). Gamification: State of the Art Definition and Utilization.
Ulm,: Paper presented at the 4th Seminar on Research Trends in
Media Informatics.
Gubler, T., Larkin, I., & Pierce, L. (2013). The Dirty Laundry of
Employee Award Programs: Evidence from the Field. Harvard
Business School NOM Unit Working Paper.
Gldenberg, S. (1998). Wissensmanagement und Wissenscontrolling in
lernenden Organisationen: Ein systemtheoretischer ansatz (4ed
(vol. 2), ). Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universittsverlag.
Gupta, B., Iyer, L. S., & Aronson, J. E. (2000). Knowledge management:
practices and challenges. Industrial Management & Data Systems,
100(1), 1721.
Hakulinen, L., Auvinen, T., & Korhonen, A. Empirical Study on the
Effect of Achievement Badges in TRAKLA2 Online Learning
Environment. In Learning and Teaching in Computing and
Engineering (LaTiCE), 2013, 2124 March 2013 2013 (pp. 47
54). doi:10.1109/LaTiCE.2013.34.
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),
236245. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2013.01.004.
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2013). Social Motivations To Use
Gamification: An Empirical Study Of Gamifying Exercise. Utrecht,
Netherlands: In Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on
Information Systems.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does Gamification Work?
A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. Paper
presented at the System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii
International Conference on, Hawaii,
Haunerdinger, M., & Probst, H.-J. (2005). Kosten senken: Checklisten,
Rechner, Methoden. Freiburg: Haufe-Mediengruppe.
Heady, R., Maples, G., & Greco, A. (2005). Cost engineering for small
businesses. AACE International Transactions, 04, 0104.05.
Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. (1994). The firm as an incentive system.
The American Economic Review, 84(4), 972991.
Humphreys, M. S., & Revelle, W. (1984). Personality, motivation, and
performance: a theory of the rerlationship between individual differ-
ences and information processing. Psychological Review, 91(2),
153184.
Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. MDA: A Formal Approach to
Game Design and Game Research. In Proceedings of the AAAI-04
Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, San Jose, CA, 2004 (pp. 15).
doi:citeulike-article-id:7399560.
Hussain, F., Lucas, C., & Ali, M. (2004). Managing knowledge effective-
ly. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 5(1), 112.
Hustad, E., & Munkvold, B. E. (2005). IT-supported competence man-
agement: a case study at Ericsson. Information Systems
Management, 22(2), 7888.
Ibanez, M.-B., DI Serio, ., & Delgado Kloos, C. (2014). Gamification
for Engaging Computer Science Students in Learning Activities: A
Case Study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, PP(99),
11. doi:10.1109/TLT.2014.2329293.
International, S. G. (2013). Chaos manifesto 2013- think big, act small.
Justiz, B. D. (2009). Bundesdatenschutzgesetz. In B. D. Justiz (Ed.).
Berlin.
Justiz, B. D. (2013). Betriebsverfassungsrecht. In B. D. Justiz (Ed.).
Berlin.
Kehr, H. M. (2004). Integrating implicit motives, explicit motives, and
perceived abilities: the compensatory model of work motivation and
volition. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 479499.
Koch, M., & Richter, A. (2009). Enterprise 2.0: Planung, Einfhrung
und erfolgreicher Einsatz von Social Software in Unternehmen.
Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag.
Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differences in perceived
benefits from gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 35(0),
179188, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.007.
Kumar, J., & Herger, M. (2013). Gamification at work: Designing en-
gaging business software. Aarhus, Denmark: Interaction Design
Foundation.
L a u v e n , L . , Wi e de nm a nn , S. , & G e l d e r m a n n , J. ( 20 1 0) .
Lebenszykluskosten als Entscheidungshilfe beim Erwerb von
Werzeugmaschinen. Gttingen: Univ., Wirtschaftswiss. Fak.
Lepper, M. R., & Henderlong, J. (2000). Turning^ Play^ iNto^ Work^
and^ Work^ into^ Play^: 25 Years of Research on Intrinsic Versus
Extrinsic Motivation. In C. SANSONE, & J. M. HARACKIEWICZ
(Eds.), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Search for Optimal
Motivation and Performance (Vol. XIX, pp. 257307). San Diego,
CA,: Academic Press.
Lev, B. (2000). Intangibles: Management, measurement, and reporting:
Brookings institution press.
Levai, R. (2009). Teacher incentives and performance: an application
of principalagent theory. Oxford Development Studies, 37(1), 33
46. doi:10.1080/13600810802660844.
Inf Syst Front
Litchfield, R. C., & Gilson, L. L. (2013). Curating collections of ideas:
museum as metaphor in the management of creativity. Industrial
Marketing Management, 42(1), 106112.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory
of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. American
Psychologist, 57(9), 705.
Long, R. J., & Shields, J. L. (2010). From pay to praise? Non-cash em-
ployee recognition in Canadian and Australian firms. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(8),
11451172. doi:10.1080/09585192.2010.483840.
Makanawala, P., Godara, J., Goldwasser, E., & Le, H. (2013). Applying
Gamification in Customer Service Application to Improve Agents
Efficiency and Satisfaction. In A. Marcus (Ed.), Design, User
Experience, and Usability. Health, Learning, Playing, Cultural,
and Cross-Cultural User Experience (vol. 8013, pp. 548557).
Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
de-Marcos, L., Domnguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., & Pags, C.
(2014). An empirical study comparing gamification and social net-
working on E-learning. Computers & Education, 75(June 2014),
8291. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.012.
McElroy, M. W. (2003). The new knowledge management: Complexity,
learning, and sustainable innovation: Routledge.
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and
how they can change the world. New York: Penguin Group US.
Mills, J., & Bourne, M. (2002). Strategy and performance: competing
through competences (vol. 2, ). Cambridge: University Press.
Mollick, E. R., & Rothbard, N. (2013). Mandatory Fun: Gamification and
the Impact of Games at Work. The Wharton School Research Paper
Series.. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2277103 or http://dx.doi.org/10.
2139/ssrn.2277103.
Moradian, A., Nasir, M., Lyons, K., Leung, R., & Elliott Sim, S. (2014).
Gamification of Collaborative Idea Generation and Convergence.
Toronto: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the extended ab-
stracts of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in
computing systems.
Mller-Birn, C., & Gronau, N. (2007). Analyse sozialer Netzwerke und
Social Software - Grundlagen und Anwendungsbeispiele. Berlin:
GITO.
Nicholson, S. (2012). A User-Centered Theoretical Framework for
Meaningful Gamification. Pittsburgh: Paper presented at the
Games + Learning + Society 8.0.
Noll Webb, E., & Cantu, A. (2013). Building Internal Enthusiasm for
Gamification in Your Organization. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), 15th
International Conference on HumanComputer Interaction (pp.
316321). Las Vegas, Nevada: Springer.
North, K. (2005). Wissensorientierte Unternehmensfhrung (vol. 5, ).
Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
Pavlas, D. (2010). A Model of Flow and Play in Game-based Learning:
The Impact of Game Characteristics, Player Traits, and Player
States (vol. 226, ). Florida.: University of Central.
Rajkumar, R., & Jose, R. (2005). Virtual Cost Engineering Studio (V-
CES): a Framework for Cost Engineering Services. Munich: In
International Conference in Europe.
Rohbeck, S. (2012). In Deutschland unbekannt? Cost Engineering eine
Nische?! http://www.vdi.de/fileadmin/media/content/fml/mann2/
27.pdf. Accessed 18.05.2014.
Rosenberg, D. (2000). Complex information environments: issues in
knowledge management and organizational learning. Emergence,
A Journal of Complexity Issues in Organizations and
Management, 2(4), 136150.
Rggeberg, H., & Burmeister, K. (2008). Innovationsprozesse in kleinen
und mittleren Unternehmen (Vol. In 41, working papers of the insti-
tute of management berlin at the berlin school of economics).
Berlin: Fachhochsch. fr Wirtschaft.
Rughini, R. (2013). Work and Gameplay in the Transparent Magic
Circle of Gamification. In A. Marcus (Ed.), Design, User
Inf Syst Front
Experience, and Usability. Health, Learning, Playing, Cultural, and
Cross-Cultural User Experience (vol. 8013, pp. 577586). Berlin
Heidelberg: Lecture Notes in Computer Science): Springer.
Ryan, P. K. (2011). Social networking. New York: The Rosen Publishing
Group.
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull
of video games: a self-determination theory approach. Motivation
and Emotion, 30(4), 344360.
Salen, K., Torres, R., Wolozin, L., Rufo-Tepper, R., & Shapiro, A. (2011).
Quest to learn: Developing the school for digital kids (the John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation series on digital media and
learning). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Sanchez, R. (1995). Managing articulated knowledge in competence-
based competition: University of Illinois at urbana-champaign.
Sanchez, R. (1996). Strategic product creation: managing new interac-
tions of technology, markets, and organizations. European
Management Journal, 14(2), 121138.
Sanchez, R. (2004). Understanding competence-based management:
identifying and managing five modes of competence. Journal of
Business Research, 57(5), 518532.
SAP (2007). Members inspire new SAP community network recognition
program. http://global.sap.com/press.epx?pressid=8631. Accessed
08.05 2014.
Saynisch, M. (2004). Neue Prozesse und IT-Systeme zur Produktentwicklung
in dynamischen Mrkten - Neue Projektgestaltungen im
Projektmanagement und eine neue Generation von IT-Systemen. In A.
Frick, G. Kerber, D. Lange, & R. Marr (Eds.), Konferenz zur Zukunft
im Projektmanagement, Glashtte, Taunus. GPM-Verlag.
Schacht, S., Morana, S., & Mdche, A. (2014). The project world-
gamification in project knowledge management.
Schppi, B., Andreasen, M. M., Kirchgeorg, M., & Radermacher, F. J.
(2005). Handbuch Produktentwicklung. Munich: Hanser.
Schindler, M., & Eppler, M. J. (2003). Harvesting project knowledge: a
review of project learning methods and success factors.
International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 219228.
Schppel, J. (1996). Wissensmanagement: Organisatorisches lernen im
Spannungsfeld von Wissens- und Lernbarrieren. Wiesbaden:
Gabler.
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: a
survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74(0),
1431, doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006.
Senge, P. M. (1991). The art and practice of the learning organization.
Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal
setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management
Journal, 38(2), 483503.
Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., Mitra, A., Lockhart, D. E., & Bowler, M.
(2003). Reactions to merit pay increases: a longitudinal test of a
signal sensitivity perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(3), 538.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (2003). Behavioral management and task
performance in organizations: conceptual background, meta-analy-
sis, and test of alternative models. Personnel Psychology, 56(1),
155194.
Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: a model for evaluating
player enjoyment in games. Computers in Entertainment, 3(3), 1
24. doi:10.1145/1077246.1077253.
Valacich, J. S., Jung, J., & Looney, C. A. (2006). The effects of individual
cognitive ability and idea stimulation on idea-generation per-
formance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
10(1), 1.
VAN Herpen, M., VAN Praag, C. M., & Cools, K. (2003). The Effects of
Performance Measurement and Compensation on Motivation: An
Empirical Study (vol. 48, ). Tinbergen Institute: Discussion Paper.
VON Krogh, G. (2012). How does social software change knowledge
management? Toward a strategic research agenda. The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 21(2), 154164.
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy
of Management Review, 16(1), 5791.
Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can
revolutionize your business. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press.
West, J., & Bogers, M. (2013). Leveraging external sources of innova-
tion: a review of research on open innovation. Product Innovation
Management, 31(4), 118.
Wiersma, U. J. (1992). The effects of extrinsic rewards in intrinsic moti-
vation: a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 65(2), 101114.
Wigg, K. (1993). Knowledge management foundations. Knowledge
Management foundations.
Wildemann, H. (2012). Cost engineering Leitfaden zur Gestaltung von
Produktkosten (1 (Auflage ed., ). Munich: TCW Transfer-Centrum
GmbH & Co. KG.
Xu, Y., Elgh, F., Erkoyuncu, J. A., Bankole, O., Goh, Y. M., Cheung, W.
M., et al. (2012). Cost engineering for manufacturing: current and
future research. [article]. International Journal of Computer
Integrated Manufacturing, 25(4/5), 300314. doi:10.1080/
0951192X.2010.542183.
Yan, Y., Davison, R. M., & Mo, C. (2013). Employee creativity forma-
tion: the roles of knowledge seeking, knowledge contributing and
flow experience in web 2.0 virtual communities. Computers in
Human Behavior, 29(5), 19231932. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.03.
007.
Yang, J. (2010). The knowledge management strategy and its effect on
firm performance: a contingency analysis. International Journal of
Production Economics, 125(2), 215223.
Yeo, M. L., & Arazy, O. (2012). What Makes Corporate Wikis Work?
Wiki Affordances and Their Suitability for Corporate Knowledge
Work. In K. Peffers, M. Rothenberger, & B. Kuechler (Eds.), Design
Science Research in Information Systems. Advances in Theory and
Practice (vol. 7286, pp. 174190). Springer Berlin Heidelberg:
Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5ed.).
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Zangiski, M. A. D. S. G., DE Lima, E. P., & DA Costa, S. E. G. (2013).
Organizational competence building and development: contribu-
tions to operations management. International Journal of
Production Economics, 144(1), 7689.
Zhang, P. (2008). Motivational affordances: reasons for ICT design and
use. Communications of the ACM, 51(11), 145147. doi:10.1145/
1400214.1400244.
Zhang, X., & Venkatesh, V. (2013). Explaining employee job perfor-
mance: the role of online and offline workplace communication
networks. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 695722.
Zinser, S., & Boch, D. (2007). Flexible Arbeitswelten: so gehts!: Dos
and Donts aus dem flexible-office-netzwerk. Zurich: VDF
Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH.
Eric Zimmerling is a doctoral student and researcher at the Chair for
Strategy and Organization at the Technische Universitt Mnchen
(TUM). He focuses his research on the recent trend of gamification
inparticular on the usage of gamification in the enterprise setting and
innovation management. In addition he is working on a research project
regarding open innovation for sustainable products/services
(EUinnovatE).
Patrick J. Hflinger is a doctoral student and researcher at the Chair for
Strategy and Organization at the Technische Universitt Mnchen
(TUM). His work is focused on the relation of intellectual property rights,
strategy and economics. He studied at the Technische Universitt
Mnchen, HEC Paris and the University of St. Gallen (HSG).

Prof. Dr. Philipp Sandner is Professor for Manufacturing at the Frank-
furt School of Finance & Management since October 2015. His expertise
also includes innovation management, technology management, entre-
preneurship and intellectual property rights. He studied management at
the University of Mannheim and finished his PhD dissertation at the
Munich School of Management at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University
Munich on BThe Valuation of Intangible Assets: An Exploration of Patent
and Trademark Portfolios^. From 2010 to 2012, he was research fellow at
the Chair of Strategy and Organization at the Technische Universitt
Mnchen (TUM).
Prof. Dr. Isabell M. Welpe holds the Chair for Strategy and Organization
at the Technische Universitt Mnchen (TUM). Her research interests are
in New Public Management, leadership, future concepts of work and
Inf Syst Front
organisations, impact of digital technologies and social media and strate-
gic innovation. Isabell M.Welpe studied management at the Ludwig-
Maximilians-Universitt in Munich, Germany and at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Boston, USA. She completed an additional MSc
at the London School of Economics before finishing her PhD at the
University of Regensburg. She has been a visiting professor at the Keck
Graduate Institute, Claremont, USA and a postdoctoral fellow at the
Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. Before
taking over the Chair for Strategy and Organization at the Technische
Universitt Mnchen, she worked at the Max Planck Institute for Eco-
nomics. Isabell Welpe teaches Leadership, Human Resource Manage-
ment, and Managing People and Organizations. She has taught on the
faculty of Claremont University, EM Lyon, Ludwig-Maximilians-
Universitt and the University of Berne, Switzerland.