Gamification Framework for Participatory Modeling: A Proposal

Problem structuring methods imply the involvement of stakeholders and aim to create a shared understanding of the problem and commitment among them. The process and outcomes of such interventions entirely depend on the stakeholder’s level of engagement and willingness to contribute to the discussion. Gamification, in its turn, has been extensively used to increase engagement in an activity and nudge certain behaviors. Several gamification frameworks exist for stakeholder engagement; however, none fully considers the context of the modeling workshops with stakeholders. In this paper, we focus on a specific method for problem structuring, called Participatory Modeling (PM), and aim to explore the essential components and steps to gamify the PM process. We look at the literature on gamification, stakeholder engagement, problem structuring methods and, specifically, PM. Based on this analysis, we propose a gamification framework for PM, which includes the steps commonly mentioned in other existing frameworks and more nuanced features within each step that are specific to the PM context. Emphasis is given to analyzing the context of the gamified activity, including such aspects as participants, group interaction, and modeling. In addition, consideration of ethical points and potential risks of gamification is suggested as a necessary step to prevent undesired side effects during the gamified PM process. The gamification framework for PM leads to a variety of ways in which gamified intervention can be designed and incorporated into the process. Further research on the appropriateness of gamification use, practical applications, their evaluation, and risks associated with gamified interventions can contribute to the extension and clarification of the proposed framework.


Introduction
When solving complex problems, decision-making can be much improved with the involvement of stakeholders who can contribute valuable expert perspectives on how the problem evolved while developing a shared understanding and consensus on solutions, among multiple other benefits such as legitimacy, ownership of decisions and others (Antunes et al. 2006;Franco and Montibeller 2010;Kilgour and Eden 2021;Van den Belt 2004a;Videira et al. 2016;Voinov and Bousquet 2010).However, such results are unlikely to be achieved without using methods that allow for deliberation and dialog among the stakeholders.Problem structuring methods and participatory modeling (PM), in particular, are among those.PM is an approach used to improve learning about a problem among the 'problem owners' with the help of modeling methods and group facilitation techniques.The PM process outcomes fully depend on the level of stakeholders' engagement and their willingness to contribute to the model development process.In addition, diverse behavioral challenges associated with learning and group communication can impede the overall success of modeling efforts (Jordan et al. 2018;Vennix 1996).
Gamification is an approach that explicitly targets engagement and behavioral aspects associated with an activity (Hamari et al. 2014;Kapp 2012;Schöbel et al. 2019).This approach implies incorporating game elements in a non-game context and is guided by the consideration of motivational drivers (Deterding 2012;Deterding et al. 2011;Hamari et al. 2014).Multiple generic gamification frameworks elaborate on the steps and factors that should be counted in when designing a gamified intervention (see, systematic review by Mora et al. 2017).However, such frameworks, by definition, provide general guidance, which in some cases might not be enough, especially considering the need to customize gamification design to the context (Schöbel et al. 2019).At the same time, just a few specific frameworks target stakeholder engagement in problem analysis and decision-making.Hassan (2017) proposes a theoretical framework for gamifying online and offline civil engagement platforms.Kazhamiakin et al. (2016) and AlSkaif et al. (2018) suggest more nuanced frameworks for gamifying smart city platforms and engaging residents in energy applications.Yet, the type of stakeholder engagement targeted in these frameworks differs from the engagement happening during the PM workshops (specifically, PM workshops are not limited to interaction on online platforms and include a modeling component).
In response to this gap, this paper proposes a nuanced gamification framework for PM.First, we elaborate on the existing literature related to stakeholder engagement, problem structuring methods, specifically PM, and the mechanisms of gamification.This background creates a foundation for specifying the standard steps of the gamification process with the aspects reflecting the PM context.Finally, we discuss the proposed gamification framework and suggest several directions for future research.

Stakeholder Engagement
Multiple researchers suggest that stakeholder engagement is helpful for addressing messy problems which are complex and include the interests of different parties (Ackermann 2021;de Gooyert et al. 2017;Mingers and Rosenhead 2004;Voinov and Bousquet 2010).First, stakeholders can enrich the content of the analysis as they know the problems from the inside.Second, they can learn from each other, improve their knowledge about the problem, and potentially come up with a shared understanding of the problem (Blackstock et al. 2007;Mingers and Rosenhead 2001;Voinov and Bousquet 2010).Finally, while working on the problem, they gain ownership and commitment over the decisions made; hence, it can help implement them (Eden 1992;Rouwette et al. 2002;Vennix 1996).However, such results can be achieved through a more in-depth deliberative process rather than simply informing the stakeholders about the decisions.
Stakeholder engagement implies the need to define whom to involve, ensuring both the legitimacy and efficiency of the process.On the one hand, providing for the legitimacy of the process and results requires a broad representation of different groups (Ginger 2014).On the other hand, engaging too many stakeholders may be difficult because large groups of participants are hard to manage, and it is harder to organize the process in a meaningful way (Van den Belt 2004b).However, Community operational research suggests cases of effective involvement of larger groups of participants and targeting the community development (Midgley et al. 2018).In addition, emerging online tools such as discussion forums with embedded analytical functionality also gain traction (for example, see (Anjum et al. 2021).Still, besides the challenge of organizing an effective process with large groups of participants, it is necessary to ensure legitimacy and representation.Therefore, we need to identify and prioritize the participants, which commonly happens based on analyzing their power in decision-making and interest in participating in the deliberation process.Gregory et al. (2020) propose a set of guiding questions that help to consider power relations, focal issues and stakeholder interactions when identifying stakeholders.Ackermann and Eden (2011) also suggest looking beyond the individual characteristics of the stakeholders and focusing on how those characteristics manifest themselves when the actors interact.In such interaction, it is important to identify the stakeholders' goals and to which extent they may be in conflict (Eden and Ackermann 2021).Similarly, the decision-making power of the involved actors should be considered relative to the power of other actors.All this constitutes the dynamics that emerge from the interactions among the stakeholders with different interests, decision-making power, and perspectives on the issue.
Understanding individual characteristics and interaction dynamics is essential for planning the deliberation process with stakeholders effectively and managing stakeholders' interactions further during the decision implementation stage.

Participatory Modeling (PM) as part of Problem Structuring
Problem structuring is a necessary step for messy, ill-defined problems, and there is a group of associated methods that help to organize the process of stakeholder involvement in deliberation over such problems (Mingers and Rosenhead 2004).Following the existing literature, Smith and Shaw (2019, p. 6) define problem structuring methods as the ones for 'exploring systemic issues, aiming to build shared understanding and commitment across stakeholders through facilitation, participation and stimulating dialogue through a structured decomposition of issues.'Problem structuring methods imply developing a model that is, most commonly, qualitative (Ackermann 2012).Eden and Ackermann (2021) suggest that such a model operates as a transition object through which a group of stakeholders can enhance their knowledge and track how their understanding of the problem changes.In a similar context, Luna-Reyes et al. ( 2019) talk about the role of the model as a boundary object for framing a dialog among stakeholders.Both perspectives seem relevant for tackling messy problems because such problems are hard to define and require knowledge exchange among multiple involved parties.Another characteristic of problem structuring methods is their special attention to group processes and facilitating dialog among the stakeholders (Eden and Ackermann 2006).The ultimate goals of using these methods comprise learning among the stakeholders, developing a shared understanding of the problem, and reaching an agreement on further actions.
Participatory Modeling (PM) contributes to problem structuring and can also be perceived as part of this group of methods.However, traditionally operational research literature refers to Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland 1981; Checkland and Scholes 1999), Strategic Choice Approach (Friend and Hickling 2005), and Strategic Options Development and Analysis (Eden andAckermann 2001, 2010).Overall, PM includes qualitative and quantitative modeling methods.Respectively, PM-based models can be qualitative (mind maps, causal-loops diagrams, rich pictures, etc.) or quantitative (stock-and-flow diagrams, agent-based, Bayesian, GIS models, etc.) (Voinov et al. 2018).The premise of PM is the same as of other problem structuring methods since it is a 'purposeful learning process for action that engages the implicit and explicit knowledge of stakeholders to create formalized and shared representations of reality' (Jordan et al. 2018, p. 1).Also, PM, similar to other problem structuring methods, highlights the importance of the process (Voinov and Bousquet 2010).
The PM process strongly depends on the participants' contributions and engagement.The most commonly mentioned are associated with three aspects: (1) sustaining engagement of the participants in a long and iterative PM process, (2) high cognitive load created by the use of modeling, and (3) difficult group communication in the presence of power imbalances and pre-existing historical conflicts between participants also known as leveling the playing field (Jordan et al. 2018;Van den Belt 2004b;Vennix 1996).These challenges can be partially eliminated with the help of a good facilitator.Still, there is also an opportunity to look at other disciplines that can provide tools for increasing engagement and achieving productive interaction in a group modeling activity.

Gamification
The challenge of involving people in some activity or nudging a certain behavior has been broadly targeted by gamification (Landers et al. 2018;Shpakova et al. 2017;Zichermann and Cunningham 2011).Gamification represents the process of applying game elements and techniques in a non-game context (Deterding et al. 2011;Werbach and Hunter 2012).The consideration of motivational aspects drives the game elements' choice and the gamified process's design.Self-determination theory, applied in multiple contexts, including gamification, explains motivation through the desire to satisfy the psychological needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Ryan and Deci 2000).In addition, there are two types of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic.Gamified design that targets extrinsic motivation works well in the short term but cannot sustain participants' engagement once the rewards are removed from the process (Nicholson 2012a, b;Reiners 2015;Walz and Deterding 2014;Zichermann and Cunningham 2011).To target intrinsic motivation, one needs to consider the psychological needs of the self-determination theory.The fulfillment of these needs leads to a feeling of enjoyment (Deterding 2015).To sum up, game design elements incorporated into some activity target specific types of motivation, reinforcing enjoyment and subsequently nudging behavior changes.In the context of stakeholder involvement in problem analysis and decision-making, such changes in behavior can be related to increasing the level of engagement in the process, promoting more collaborative actions within the group, preventing negative group dynamics, and others.
Gamification can be accomplished by incorporating game elements along some activity and following a set of steps.Shpakova et al. (2017) provide an overview of classifications for game elements.All of these classifications mention (but are not limited to) such common game elements as points, badges, and leaderboards as part of the mechanics for gamification.Points are the scoring units gained after the completion of an action; badges correspond with the achievement of a certain goal in the process; leaderboards represent ranking achieved through getting points and badges (Hassan 2017).Despite the simplicity of game elements, their incorporation into an activity requires effort and analysis to make gamification meaningful.Mora et al. (2017) conducted a systematic review of the existing generic and domain-specific gamification frameworks.Many of these suggest gamifying a process by following a series of steps, which can be generalized to the following five: (1) analyzing context, (2) defining objectives, (3) designing the process, (4) playtesting, and (5) evaluating the results.The level of detail for each of these steps differs greatly from one framework to another.
Earlier research by Bakhanova et al. (2020) included a comprehensive literature review and concluded that serious games and gamification have a high potential for improving social learning and engagement at different stages of the PM process.However, the question of which aspects should be considered for PM gamification remained and prompted for formulating a specific approach for creating gamified PM process.In addition, although generic gamification frameworks can be potentially applicable to PM, they do not entirely account for the specifics of the PM process and difficulties associated with stakeholder engagement in this context.At the same time, the existing gamification frameworks for stakeholder engagement focus specifically on online platforms and digital applications for citizen engagement which is not fully compatible with the needs and the process of PM.All this served as a driving force and motivation to develop a more nuanced gamification framework for PM.

Gamification Framework for PM: A Proposal
We propose a gamification framework for PM that is structured around a procedural logic similar to existing frameworks and follows four steps: context analysis, design, playtesting, and implementation and evaluation (Fig. 1).Yet, the content and specific aspects for consideration at each step are adjusted to the PM process's context and most common challenges.
The Context Analysis step requires examining the characteristics of participants, group interaction, and the modeling aspects.PM deals with stakeholders with diverse backgrounds, skills, and values.For example, a lack of modeling skills and overall unfamiliarity with the modeling approach for problem analysis can create a perception barrier and lead to reluctance to contribute to the discussion (Van den Belt 2004b; Vennix 1996).This challenge can become a goal for gamification.For instance, it can be tackled by proposing a step-by-step interactive process that implies rewards and reduces the cognitive load from applying modeling techniques.Also, the low interest in participating in the modeling workshops can end up with the exclusion of important actors (Voinov and Gaddis 2008).Understanding this early creates an opportunity for designing a gamified intervention to sustain interest.
Another component of the Context Analysis step looks at group interaction as its effectiveness is necessary for the PM process.However, differences in decision-making power, goals, and interests can lead to difficulties in reaching a consensus, dominant behavior of some participants, groupthink, and other undesired group dynamics.
Fig. 1 The proposed approach for gamification of PM PM literature traditionally suggests addressing these challenges by using group facilitation techniques and an experienced facilitator.Gamification, in its turn, can be one of the options to consider for applying as part of the facilitator's toolkit.
Finally, in the Context Analysis step, one needs to consider specific features arising from modeling.PM implies modeling procedures that can be time-consuming, iterative and hard to comprehend by non-modelers.Vennix (1996) refers to the earlier research by Dorner (1980) on the difficulty in grasping the causality in complex systems (linear vs. systems thinking, feedback in the system).In addition, explaining a new modeling language to the participants can take time so that they feel comfortable using it (Van den Belt 2004a; Vennix 1996).All these add to participants' cognitive load during the modeling sessions.Another challenge is finding a balance between using sophisticated modeling tools that are hard to engage with for non-modelers and using more straightforward tools that compromise on model precision but are easy to grasp by the stakeholders (Jordan et al. 2018).All these together impact the engagement of the participants, which can become a potential target for gamification.For instance, if the workshop participants are expected to be unfamiliar with any kind of modeling, one can think of designing a gamified learning process to make them feel comfortable with the basics of how models look and operate.Overall, each modeling method implies a certain level of technical skills, steps, and visual elements (for example, causal-loop diagrams and GIS-based models are very different in this regard).PM includes multiple steps (preliminary preparation, conceptual model development, scenario testing, etc.) and formats (face-to-face, virtual, etc.).It influences the engagement of the participants and the choice of game design to use (digital, analog, etc.).
Participants, group interaction, and modeling are the aspects to look at when analyzing the context.However, it does not immediately imply the presence or importance of all of them altogether for a specific PM project.The Context Analysis step helps adjust the goal of gamification to a single or a group of contextual factors (level of conflict in the group, familiarity with modeling language, power imbalance, and so forth).As a result, one should have goals and target behaviors for gamification.
The Design step implies the decomposition of each stage of the PM process into a set of step-by-step activities and adding game elements throughout it, separately or in combination.When choosing game elements, one needs to consider motivational aspects.Although gamification literature commonly suggests targeting intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation can also be a quick fix for simple tasks and sustaining engagement in the short run.As for choosing particular game elements, the frameworks of Chou ( 2016 The literature mentioned above suggests a variety of game design elements and mechanics in correspondence with motivational drives and expected effects.We suggest PM practitioners to use this literature as a source of inspiration and take the task of gamifying PM creatively.This is because there is no ultimate list of elements for gamification.Also, by definition, game design implies experimentation, and the way how exactly a certain game element is incorporated into the process predetermines the outcomes.For example, Table 1 provides several examples and concentrates on those game design elements that use traditional PBL (Points -Badges -Leaderboards) in a more targeted way.Still, these examples show just one of the ways how these elements can be used.One might think of incorporating them differently or combining several game design elements at some stages of PM activities.Overall, the Design step should conclude with the formulation of a gamification strategy.
Playtesting is an iterative process tightly connected to the previous, design-related block.Gamification strategies should be refined by testing the game mechanics and dynamics.Although it could be hard to simulate actual PM context, playtesting cannot be omitted entirely as it helps to reduce, at least, the technical risks (e.g., incomplete process, instructions, and so forth), which is why it is a staple within the game design and development industry itself (Fullerton 2019).Additionally, before applying a gamification strategy during real workshops, it is necessary to consider ethical aspects and potential side effects.Often, gamification might be perceived as a 'fun' addition to some activity that will not hurt the process in any case.The emerging research on side effects shows that badly designed gamification can be detrimental (Algashami et al. 2019;Hammedi et al. 2021).Ethical concerns related to manipulation and transparency are also among the commonly mentioned problems in A player gets a superpower/feature/ object in the beginning of the activity.
Before the start of the modeling workshops some of the participants can be given superpowers that are beneficial for equal and collaborative process.E.g., a superpower of 'peacemaker' whose role would be to emphasize commonalities rather than differences in the views of participants.A player is given a possibility to monitor something (object/performance) during the activity which, in turn, can increase the feeling of ownership.
During the workshop the participants can monitor their learning about the problem, their agreement within the group or, other aspects related to the modeling (e.g., number of feedback loops that they managed to identify).A player is given information about her/his performance along the activity.gamification (Nyström 2021).Consideration of ethics and potential risks is especially important for PM.The group dynamics might already be complicated due to the difference in interests and power imbalance.Unintended reinforcement of undesired behavior can make the situation even worse and have long-term consequences that go beyond one single workshop.Therefore, the PM team needs to think of possible responses and coping strategies for the risks they envision during playtesting.
The Implementation and Evaluation step includes assessing the intended effects of a gamified intervention on engagement, individual or group behaviors, and other aspects.Evaluation should be goal specific.For example, if a gamified intervention targeted the learning aspect of PM, then the assessment of the learning effect could be grounded on one of the multiple learning theories.Aubert et al. (2019) mention, among others, Kolb's experiential learning, relational theory of multi-party collaboration processes, and multi-level social learning.As for the evaluation methods, one can draw upon the approaches suggested for serious games and gamification.Den Haan & Van den Voort (2018) summarise the most commonly used methods (in descending order): questionnaires, observations, debriefing, interviews, data logging, control groups and others.Bas et al. (2020) analyze the evaluation of simulation games and mention such methods as unobtrusive observation, storyboarding, thinkaloud protocols and others.Dyer (2015) suggests that the evaluation of gamification should combine both quantitative methods (i.e., questionnaires, data on players' decisions in a game) and observational ones.Keeping in mind that group interaction is the distinctive feature of the PM process, the approach proposed by Dyer (2015) looks more appropriate.It will help to capture the effects of gamified intervention from the internal perspective of the participants (e.g., self-reflection via questionnaire) and from the external perspective (e.g., observation of group dynamics).As for the subject of evaluation, the framework of Aubert et al. (2019) suggests looking at the individual, group, organization/society or the game itself.Evaluation of gamified PM can focus on one, several or all of these categories.For example, one might want to tackle the challenge of power imbalance in the group with the help of gamification.Then s/ he can evaluate the effects of this intervention not only on group dynamics during the workshops but also on the long-term effects of how such group dynamics influenced the actual decision-making process.In such a case, group and organization/society categories should be considered when designing evaluation procedures.

Discussion
Promoting engagement and other behavioral responses are the targets of gamification that can potentially be useful for problem structuring methods and specifically for PM.This study elaborates on the existing literature on stakeholder engagement, problem structuring methods, and gamification to propose a more nuanced gamification framework for PM.
We suggest that consideration of the context is crucial for designing gamification strategies in PM.This aligns with the claims made by other researchers in the field who acknowledged the importance of customization of the gamified intervention to the users and environment of the activity (see Schöbel et al. (2019) elaborating on the outcomes of the panel discussion on gamification research).We also specify several directions to focus on, namely, the characteristics of the participants, group interaction, and modeling.The rationale behind it is related to the most common PM challenges that impact the engagement and flow of the PM workshops.Yet, the list of aspects within each direction shows essential ones which can be extended and specified further for a particular PM project.In addition, potential PM challenges can be one of the starting points for designing a gamified intervention for a PM workshop.Alternatively, one might use game design and target participants' engagement even when there are no preconditions for low interest from the participants.Still, in this case, the context analysis would be the first step to define the goal of gamification and determine the desired behaviors.
The design step of the proposed framework includes looking at specific activities within the PM stage and adding game elements considering the motivation drivers.Although we wish to make it more precise and provide clear guidance on which game element to use to achieve a certain effect, it is not possible because the same game element can lead to various impacts depending on when and how it is incorporated into some activity.This aligns with the observation of other researchers who emphasize the iterative process of designing a gamified activity and ambiguity in defining game elements and their effects in certain conditions (Hamari et al. 2014;Morschheuser et al. 2017;Schöbel et al. 2019).This leads to the discourse that despite seeming simplicity, well-designed gamified intervention requires specific skills and experience, which could be a barrier to the broader adoption of gamification among PM practitioners.Besides, the incorporation of gamified intervention raises multiple questions about the role of the facilitator in the process.As highlighted in the soft OR literature, the success of group interaction is significantly dependent on the level of the facilitator's skills (Eden and Ackermann 2006).We presume that in the case of gamified PM, the role of the facilitator will depend on the design of the certain intervention.A gamified process similar to the board game would require the facilitator to explain the rules and be involved to a minimum level later.At the same time, less structured gamification might require higher input from the facilitator.
Playtesting is an essential part of the gamification framework for PM.However, there may be obstacles to its fulfillment.First, there may exist a time constraint.Modeling workshops require significant preparation time (Jordan et al. 2018), so iterative playtesting and re-design will inevitably lead to an additional workload.Second is that playtesting with a random group of people may not provide an accurate evaluation as this group will likely lack the context of the actual stakeholders, who will have their specific behaviors and group dynamics.The third potential obstacle is associated with biases.If the gamified modeling activity is playtested with the team members involved in the previous stages, some design drawbacks might stay unnoticed.Still, once PM practitioners are aware of these obstacles, they can organize playtesting in a better way.
The ability to create meaningful gamification is a skill that requires practice (Chou 2016).Hence, PM professionals must start with small gamified interventions to master the skill step-by-step.Alternatively, they can consider bringing game designers into the PM design and facilitation team.

Final Commentary
With the increase in the complexity of the problems that society and businesses face, there is a need to improve problem structuring methods and use the benefits of a transdisciplinary approach (Eden and Ackermann 2006).This research elaborated on how participatory modeling can be combined with gamification.The proposed gamification framework for PM is our attempt to provide a starting point and a basis for more extensive use of game design by PM practitioners and researchers.This framework leads to various ways in which gamified intervention can be designed and incorporated into the process.Further progress in this field largely depends on the more comprehensive practical application of gamification strategies and analyzing the results of such interventions in PM.There are several possible directions for future research in the gamification of PM to extend upon, clarify, and evaluate the proposed framework.
When to use gamification in the PM context?There are no clear criteria of gamification applicability for different situations during the PM process.For example, one of the challenges that might influence group dynamics is an existing historical conflict between the groups of stakeholders.In this case, the decision of whether to use game design can be based on many factors, one of which is the severity of the conflict.If the level of conflict is high, it is most likely that other methods, such as conflict resolution, can be more effective.Gamification is not a panacea for any engagement challenge, either.If there is no vested interest in taking part in the modeling workshops, the engagement of the stakeholders can stay low regardless of the quality of the designed gamified process.Additionally, some researchers suggest considering the cost factor when deciding on whether to use gamification or not (Aubert et al. 2018).If a gamification strategy is sophisticated and requires the involvement of game developers, it will take more resources (time, funding) to be implemented.This seems to be critical in most PM projects as the time and interactive nature of the PM method are perceived as significant barriers even without the gamification component.Finally, there is a need to assess the potential risks of a particular gamification strategy in PM when deciding whether to use it or not.Hämäläinen and Lahtinen (2016) elaborate on the concepts of path dependence and lock-in during the modeling process, i.e., how the process was initially organized predetermines its further evolvement.If a gamified setting unintendedly creates undesired adverse effects, it will add to an already complicated group dynamics that commonly accompanies the PM process.Hence, the risks can overweight the potential benefits of gamification.Still, as we mention further in this section, there is no clear guidance on how to assess potential risks and, therefore, to support the decision whether to use gamification in a particular PM project or not.
What should the evaluation of gamified PM include?The examples of gamification of the PM process are limited (to explore some of them, see Fraternali et al. 2012;Ruud and Bakken 2003;Zhou and Mayer 2010).More cases of gamified PM will help to make precise conclusions about the pros and cons of doing so and recommendations for how to implement gamification in this context.It is also important that such cases are properly documented and evaluated.PM approach can include processes that are different in their nature (for example, brainstorming, modeling, communicating in a group, learning, and so forth).Therefore, it is important to define what exactly should be evaluated; for instance, level of engagement, learning, communication dynamics, shifts in attitudes, changes in behavior, or several of these aspects simultaneously.In addition, there is still a question of how to distinguish the positive effects arising from the application of the PM methods themselves from the effects that appeared due to the use of gamification strategies.
What could be the risks of gamifying PM, and how to prevent them?In the proposed approach to the gamification of PM, we mentioned that considering risks and ethics should be an essential step before implementing the gamified strategy with the actual participants.Still, there is no detailed guidance or framework of common expected risks in gamifying PM and how to identify them.Although professional intuition and understanding of a particular project's context will help guide a PM practitioner, there are still risks arising from game dynamics that might be overlooked due to limited experience with gamification.

Table 1
Game design elements and their potential use in the PM process (non-exhaustive list)