The Gamification of Task Force Meetings

Abstract 

Mega projects frequently struggle with ineffective governance mechanisms, particularly in the execution of cross-disciplinary meetings. Traditional status meetings often result in disengagement, lack of accountability, and limited decision-making impact. This paper introduces a novel governance innovation: the gamification of Task Force Team (TFT) meetings. Developed within the context of mega‑project delivery, the approach integrates agile ceremonies, peer-driven accountability, and a scoring system that motivates participation and transparency. Using an action research methodology, the paper demonstrates how daily gamified evaluation (scoring from +3 to –3) transformed underperforming meetings into high-performing governance rituals. The findings advance the theory of agile governance and provide practitioners with a scalable model for enhancing engagement, accountability, and continuous improvement in complex project environments. 

Introduction 

Mega‑projects are notorious for cost overruns, schedule delays, and governance breakdowns (Flyvbjerg, 2014; Merrow, 2011).^{1 2} Among the root causes is the ineffectiveness of traditional meeting structures, which often fail to foster accountability, collaboration, or timely decision‑making (Turner, 2009).³ In practice, project teams frequently report meetings as being time-consuming yet unproductive, leading to disengagement and further risks to delivery (Kerzner, 2019).⁴ 

This paper introduces the gamification of Task Force Team (TFT) meetings as an innovative governance mechanism. By applying concepts from agile project management (PMI, 2017),⁵ behavioural psychology (Deci & Ryan, 2000),⁶ and gamification theory(Deterding et al., 2011),⁷ the TFT approach re-engineers governance rituals to embed accountability and intrinsic motivation. The innovation lies in the use of peer-scoring systems, transparency of contributions, and leader-driven cultural reinforcement. 

Literature Review 

Project governance research emphasises the importance of structured decision-making and accountability mechanisms (Turner, 2009; PMI, 2017). However, scholars such as Hackman (2002)⁸ highlight that team effectiveness is not merely a function of structure but also of motivation, norms, and behavioural dynamics. Gamification, defined as the use of game elements in non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011), has been widely adopted in fields such as education (Hamari et al., 2014)⁹, and management,¹⁰ yet its application to mega‑project governance remains underexplored. 

Agile frameworks emphasise ceremonies such as daily stand-ups, sprint reviews, and retrospectives to maintain momentum (Rigby et al., 2016).¹¹ These ceremonies leverage transparency and accountability but rarely integrate formalised gamification. Lean construction principles similarly emphasise flow and waste reduction but largely leave behavioural governance unaddressed (Koskela, 1992).¹² The TFT gamification model represents a novel hybrid that applies gamified accountability to project governance, contributing to both agile governance theory and practice (Luna et al., 2015).¹³

Methodology 

This study employs an action research methodology (Reason & Bradbury, 2001) to capture reflective practice across mega projects in the energy, infrastructure, and transportation sectors.¹⁴ Data was gathered from governance meeting records, peer‑scoring logs, and qualitative feedback from participants. The iterative cycles of design, implementation, observation, and reflection allowed the gamified TFT model to be refined over time. The methodology positions the researcher as both practitioner and analyst, consistent with action research traditions. 

Findings: Gamification of Task Force Meetings 

1. Daily Peer‑Scoring Mechanism 

At the close of each TFT meeting, participants rated one another on contribution and accountability using a scale from –3 (lowest performance) to +3 (exceptional). A random participant was assigned to evaluate another, ensuring fairness and diversity of judgment. The aggregated team score was displayed openly, creating transparency and reinforcing team accountability. 

2. Leadership by Example 

The TFT lead was expected to contribute beyond peers, modelling commitment and reinforcing a culture of accountability. This aligns with transformational leadership theory, which holds that leaders inspire through example and effort (Bass, 1999).¹⁵ 

3. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation 

The gamification system leveraged intrinsic motivation by appealing to personal pride, recognition, and peer respect (Deci & Ryan, 2000). At the same time, it enabled extrinsic motivation through tangible recognition of high scores and public reinforcement of contributions. 

4. Agility and Backlog Integration 

The scoring was combined with backlog-driven agendas and daily stand-ups, echoing agile ceremonies. This hybrid system ensured that meeting outcomes were directly tied to prioritised deliverables, accelerating decision-making and removing scope from the critical path. 

5. Cultural Transformation and Engagement 

Feedback indicated that the gamified system transformed perceptions of meetings. Participants reported higher engagement, greater psychological safety, and stronger team cohesion. The mechanism created a safe yet accountable space where contributions were valued, and underperformance was constructively surfaced. 

Discussion 

The gamified TFT governance model extends the literature on agile governance (Luna et al., 2015) by embedding behavioural accountability into governance rituals. It operationalises Hackman’s (2002) dimensions of team effectiveness—clear direction, enabling structure, and supportive context—through daily gamified scoring. The model also resonates with Deci and Ryan’s (2000) self-determination theory, as it fosters autonomy, competence, and relatedness. 

Gamification in this context should not be seen as superficial but as a structured reinforcement mechanism. By quantifying behaviour and making performance transparent, the TFT system created a self-regulating environment. This represents an innovation in project governance, with potential scalability beyond mega‑projects into other complex organisational environments. 

Conclusion 

This paper presents the gamification of Task Force Team meetings as a novel governance innovation for mega-project delivery. By integrating peer‑scoring, leadership by example, and agile ceremonies, the model transformed governance meetings from disengaged rituals into performance-driving practices. The implications for practice are significant: gamification can enhance accountability, intrinsic motivation, and cultural transformation. Future research should examine the longitudinal impacts of gamified governance systems and their adaptability across industries and cultural contexts. 

References 

1. Bent Flyvbjerg, Project Management Journal, 2014, What You Should Know About Megaprojects and Why: An Overview ↩︎
2. Edward W. Merrow, Wiley, 2011, Industrial Megaprojects: Concepts, Strategies, and Practices for Success ↩︎
3. John R. Turner, McGraw-Hill, 2009, The Handbook of Project-Based Management: Leading Strategic Change in Organizations ↩︎
4. Harold Kerzner, Wiley, 2019, Using the Project Management Maturity Model: Strategic Planning for Project Management ↩︎
5. Project Management Institute, 2017, Agile Practice Guide ↩︎
6. Edward L. Deci & Richard M. Ryan, Psychological Inquiry, 2000, The What and Why of Goal Pursuits ↩︎
7. Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled & Lennart Nacke, Association for Computing Machinery, 2011, From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining Gamification ↩︎
8. J. Richard Hackman, Harvard Business Review Press, 2002, Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances ↩︎
9. Jonna Hamari, Jari Koivisto & Harri Sarsa, Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2014, Does Gamification Work? A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification ↩︎
10. Karl Seaborn & Deborah I. Fels, Elsevier, 2015, Gamification in Theory and Action: A Survey ↩︎
11. Darrell Rigby, Jeff Sutherland & Hirotaka Takeuchi, Harvard Business Review, 2016, Embracing Agile ↩︎
12. Lauri Koskela, Stanford University CIFE, 1992, Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction ↩︎
13. Anna J. H. Luna, Paul Kruchten & Hugo P. de Moura, arXiv, 2015, Agile Governance Theory ↩︎
14. Peter Reason & Hilary Bradbury, Sage Publications, 2001, Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice ↩︎
15. Bernard M. Bass, Taylor & Francis, 1999, Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership ↩︎