Playing the Project: Elevating Software Development Team Performance through Gamification

Gamification refers to the use of game-design elements, such as points, badges, and leaderboards, in non-game settings to influence user engagement, motivation, and behaviour [2]. In educational contexts, gamification has been employed to make learning experiences more interactive, encouraging participation and persistence. In parallel, free-riding (or social loafing) refers to the tendency of individuals to contribute less effort in group settings, relying on others to complete the task. This phenomenon is particularly prevalent in student group projects and negatively affects both individual and group performance [3], [4].

Team performance in a collaborative learning environment is often hindered by unequal effort distribution. According to Hall and Buzwell [3], free-riding can seriously undermine learning outcomes, while Gedamu and Shewangezaw [4] observed that students with lower levels of interest are more likely to disengage. Ramdeo et al. [5] further argued that successful teamwork can be fostered through peer evaluations, transparency of workload, and effective team leadership.

Agile software development emphasises collaboration, self-organisation, and iterative progress, making it a fertile ground for gamification techniques that increase engagement and accountability. In both industry and education, gamification has been explored as a means to motivate software developers and students alike [6][7][8]. Monteiro et al. [9] proposed a framework to evaluate gamified software engineering training programs, highlighting commonly used criteria such as engagement, satisfaction, and productivity.

Several empirical studies have supported the use of gamified elements, such as leaderboards, badges, and point systems, in software engineering education. Garcia-Iruela et al. [10] and Souza et al. [11] demonstrated that gamification improved student motivation and participation in project-based learning. Similarly, Portela [12] and Castro et al. [13] found that interactive teaching with game elements enhanced classroom engagement and learning outcomes. Stol et al. [14] confirmed that gamification fosters job satisfaction and productivity in professional software teams.

In the educational domain, Lesley [15] found that transparent gamification strategies helped address free-riding by increasing visibility and accountability among students. John and Fertig [16] reinforced this by showing that badges and points provided students with a clear sense of achievement, thereby improving their sustained motivation throughout software projects.

Although promising, many existing gamification implementations treat game elements as supplementary rather than integrated mechanisms for assessment and project tracking. Most do not combine peer, self, and client feedback with real-time dashboards or performance analytics. Moreover, few frameworks actively monitor free-riding behaviour or integrate gamification into Agile-based workflows tailored to educational contexts.

Galeano-Ospino et al. [17] and Barbosa Monteiro et al. [9] emphasised the need for more objective and holistic evaluation models that combine both qualitative and quantitative data. Despite the growing literature on the benefits of gamification, a lack of scalable, integrated frameworks remains which address behavioural issues such as free-riding while enhancing learning transparency and motivation.

To address these gaps, this study proposes the TPGM (Team Performance Gamification Measurement) framework, a structured, gamified system that embeds evaluation into the project development cycle. It incorporates visual feedback mechanisms, multi-source assessment, and role-specific tracking to promote equity and performance in team-based software development courses.

A design-based, quasi-experimental research design was employed to evaluate the effectiveness of a course-level operational system in addressing free-riding behaviour. The study was conducted within the TME3413 Software Engineering Laboratory course at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, a semester-long, project-centric course structured around Agile development, sprint execution, and iterative assessment.

The TPGM framework was not introduced as an external tool or optional intervention. Instead, it was operationalised as a web-based course management system that replaced fragmented tools (e.g., spreadsheets, ad-hoc peer assessments) with a single integrated platform combining:

• task and sprint management,
  
• individual and team performance measurement,
  
• multi-source evaluation,
  
• and gamified performance feedback.
  

By embedding the framework directly into the course workflow, the study evaluates how system design and assessment architecture influence behaviour, rather than relying solely on self-reported motivation.

The participants comprised 201 undergraduate software engineering students enrolled in the Software Engineering Laboratory course, organised into small Agile development teams. Each team was responsible for designing, developing, and delivering a complete software system across multiple sprint cycles, following iterative Agile practices. This course structure provided an authentic environment for examining collaboration dynamics, contribution distribution, and accountability within team-based software development.

Prior to system design, a system-oriented needs assessment was conducted to identify structural limitations in existing team-based learning and assessment practices. Survey findings indicated that team project development was perceived as the most challenging learning component, with 58% of respondents identifying it as such. More importantly, the prevalence of free-riding behaviour emerged as a significant and recurring issue. As illustrated in Figure 1, 65 respondents (32.34%) reported sometimes encountering free-riding, 35 respondents (16.92%) often encountered it, and 10 respondents (4.98%) consistently encountered it. In contrast, 58 respondents (28.86%) stated that free-riding occurred seldom, while 34 respondents (16.92%) reported never encountering such behaviour.

Frequency of Encountering Free-Riding Behaviour in Team Projects

Collectively, these findings demonstrate that a substantial proportion of students experienced uneven contribution to varying degrees, confirming that free-riding represents a systemic challenge rather than an isolated incident within team-based software projects. From a system needs perspective, this prevalence highlights limitations in existing assessment and monitoring mechanisms, particularly in visibility into contributions, early identification of underperforming team members, and sustained accountability throughout sprint execution. Furthermore, over 81% of respondents expressed that a structured, gamification-supported system could enhance accountability and improve assessment fairness, providing strong empirical support for a system-level intervention grounded in process and infrastructure design.

To support scalable system deployment, three formal roles were operationally defined and implemented within the platform:

• Lecturer: responsible for system configuration, assessment orchestration, performance monitoring, and grading oversight;
  
• Student: responsible for task execution, sprint participation, self- and peer-evaluation, and progress tracking;
  
• Client: responsible for providing external, practice-oriented evaluation of project deliverables.
  

These roles were not merely conceptual distinctions but functional system actors, each interacting with dedicated modules and workflows within the platform. This role-based operationalisation ensured that accountability, evaluation, and feedback processes were embedded directly into the system architecture, rather than relying on ad-hoc coordination or instructor-mediated enforcement.

Guided by the issues identified during the needs assessment phase, the Team Performance Gamification Measurement (TPGM) framework was structured around five key components that integrate performance measurement, gamification, evaluation, and feedback within a unified web-based system. The integration of these components was intended to address key concerns related to assessment fairness, contribution transparency, and accountability, as identified by students as critical (Figure 2). Table 2 provides an overview of the TPGM framework's core components and their respective roles.

Participants' Perception of the Fairness of Project Assessment Criteria

Data collection was conducted using multiple complementary sources to support triangulation. First, survey questionnaires were used to capture student perceptions of collaboration effectiveness, assessment usefulness, and free-riding behaviour. Second, system-generated data were automatically recorded, including task completion status, peer- and self-evaluation scores, badge acquisition, and leaderboard rankings. Finally, assessment records from lecturers and clients provided formal performance indicators aligned with project deliverables.

Together, these data sources enabled both perceptual and behavioural analysis of team performance and supported a comprehensive evaluation of the TPGM framework.

The effectiveness of the TPGM framework was evaluated using a multi-method empirical approach combining system-generated metrics, survey data, and qualitative observations. This approach enabled a comprehensive examination of student engagement, accountability, and perceptions of fairness during the team-based software development process.

The Software Engineering Lab Project Management system follows a role-based architecture comprising three primary user roles: Lecturer, Student, and Client, each with distinct access privileges and functional responsibilities. All users interact with the system through a responsive web interface, while backend services manage authentication, evaluation logic, gamification processing, and centralised data storage to support consistent and secure operation.

• Lecturer: Oversees batch creation, user management (students and clients), project deliverables, evaluations, and project marking. Lecturers also configure and manage gamification components, including badges and visibility of the leaderboard.
  
• Student: Engages with the system by managing personal profiles, forming or joining project groups, executing tasks, submitting deliverables, and participating in self- and peer-evaluations. Students monitor their progress through a real-time, gamified performance dashboard.
  
• Client: Functions as an external evaluator who assesses project deliverables and provides professional feedback through simplified access using secure evaluation links.
  

Figure 3 presents the refined use case model of the system, organised around role-centric operational responsibilities. Lecturer use cases focus on course orchestration, assessment configuration, and performance monitoring; student use cases emphasise sprint execution, contribution accountability, and continuous self- and peer-evaluation; while client use cases provide external validation of deliverables. System support services, such as authentication, are abstracted to reduce visual complexity and highlight core instructional workflows. This structure reflects the system-level operationalisation of accountability embedded within the TPGM framework.

Software Engineering Lab Project Management System Use Case Diagram

All interactions occur through a responsive and intuitive web interface, ensuring smooth integration with the project-based learning workflow. The backend architecture supports user authentication, data processing, and real-time tracking of tasks, evaluations, and gamification metrics, with centralised data management enabling seamless information sharing among lecturers, students, and clients.

The framework was deployed on a custom-built web platform, accessible via https://seproject.net. Interface snapshots illustrating authentication, navigation, batch management, and badge configuration are shown in Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7. Key modules, including user authentication, batch creation, project management, badge assignment, and leaderboard display, were validated through comprehensive functional test cases. These test cases confirmed the system's ability to automate essential operations, including badge generation, performance scoring, and evaluation form management, demonstrating its robustness and deployment readiness.

Login page

Application menu

Students and batch management

Badge management

The system features role-specific interfaces tailored to the needs of three primary user types: lecturer, students, and clients. As shown in Table 4, each interface grants access to a defined set of modules aligned with its responsibilities within the project workflow.

The baseline survey revealed critical issues affecting collaborative performance in team-based software development projects prior to the introduction of the TPGM framework. As shown in Figure 8, nearly half of the respondents (49.26%) reported experiencing or observing free-riding within their project teams. In addition, 65% expressed dissatisfaction with the fairness of traditional assessment methods in accurately capturing individual contributions.

Frequency of Encountering Free-Riding Behaviour in Team Projects

These findings establish a clear pre-intervention context, highlighting persistent challenges related to accountability, contribution visibility, and assessment equity. The prevalence of free-riding and dissatisfaction with existing evaluation practices provides a necessary baseline against which post-intervention outcomes can be interpreted.

Post-intervention survey results indicate a substantial positive shift in student perceptions following the implementation of the TPGM framework. As illustrated in Figure 9, 81.69% of participants reported that the introduction of gamification enhanced team accountability and reduced free-riding behaviour. This contrasts with the baseline findings, suggesting a strong perceived impact of the framework after deployment.

Students’ perceptions of free-riding and the impact of gamification

The effectiveness of individual gamification elements was evaluated using post-intervention perception surveys, supported by verification of consistent interaction patterns in system usage logs across sprint cycles. As shown in Figure 10, students rated badges and real-time points as the most effective motivational tools, followed by dashboards and leaderboards. These features were perceived to support engagement by providing continuous recognition and real-time feedback on progress.

Effectiveness ratings of gamification elements by students

Although some students expressed concerns regarding leaderboard-induced anxiety, a substantial majority (73%) viewed leaderboards as promoting healthy competition and timely task completion. The performance dashboard was also positively received for transparently displaying contribution scores and enabling self-reflection. As illustrated in Figure 11, visible achievement tracking played a key role in supporting both motivation and self-regulation within teams. Collectively, these findings indicate that the effectiveness of gamification arises from the complementary roles of its components rather than any single element in isolation.

Impact of visible achievement tracking

Qualitative feedback from key stakeholders further supports the observed trends. Lecturer observed improved participation levels and increased punctuality in deliverable submissions. They noted that the system made previously hidden group dynamics and individual efforts more visible, enabling more evidence-based and objective assessment.

Client evaluators, invited through secure evaluation links, successfully reviewed project deliverables and provided structured feedback. Their input was integrated into the evaluation module, enriching the assessment process with external professional perspectives.

Student reflections indicated that gamification features enhanced engagement and reduced complacency through progression indicators and recognition mechanisms. Some students suggested additional refinements, such as customisable badges and private peer feedback, to further support personalised learning experiences.

Taken together, the convergence of feedback from students, lecturers, and clients indicates improved transparency, accountability, and engagement, strengthening the practical validity of the TPGM framework.

Across baseline survey data, post-intervention perceptions, system usage verification, and stakeholder feedback, a consistent trend emerges: increased visibility of individual contributions through dashboards, evaluations, and gamification feedback is closely associated with improved accountability and engagement. Students who reported clearer insight into their performance also expressed greater satisfaction with collaboration and with the fairness of assessments.

While the findings are based on descriptive statistics and self-reported perceptions, and thus do not support causal inference, the observed patterns suggest that integrating gamification with continuous performance tracking can meaningfully address free-riding behaviours in team-based software engineering education.