Agile development in the video game industry Examining the effects of iteration and methods of limiting it Ioannis-Stylianos Archontakis Umea University, Department of Business Administration Master's Program in Strategic Project Management, European Master Thesis, One-Year, 15 hp. Autumn Semester, 2018 Supervisor: Sujith Nair Abstract This research is examining one of the most dominant managerial methods used in development in the video game industry, Agile development. More particularly, the thesis examines a certain attribute of Agile development, that of iteration. The thesis will set to examine how iteration affects several layers of development during the production of a video game and whether it can be replaced by other managerial technics. As a result, the purpose of this thesis is to raise a different viewpoint against the Agile’s iteration. Furthermore, this thesis aims to contribute to the academic research by concentrating on the video game industry, an industry that is often neglected by the academia. The theoretical framework and literature review concentrate on concepts of Agile development, overworking, development cycle in video games, definitions of project success and project failures and creative process in video game development. The thesis deploys qualitative methodology to address and research its data. The collected data belongs to two categories, data stemming from interviews conducted by the thesis’s author and data stemming from journalistic magazines. The results of both type of data are compared and act supplementary to each other, then they are analyzed to answer the research questions asked by this thesis. The results showcase that iteration has negative effects to video game developers in both a macroscale (company’s resources, annual revenue) and in a microscale (overworking, health issues) level. The results also highlight that Agile is an all-time favorite development methodology of developers in the video game industry. In conclusion, the thesis supports the notion that iteration should be suppressed and proposes a number of solutions for that matter. The suggestions are essentially encouragement towards developers: to seek higher interactivity with customers throughout the duration of all the development stages of a video game, to show more trust to established gameplay mechanics and to place more reliance on a franchise’s profit power and benefits. These measures can be used in a preventive manner in order to limit the appearance of iteration and as a result, to limit its’ negative effects. Keywords: Agile, iteration, video game development, overworking, crunch, creativity, resources Abbreviations AAA: High quality video game, made with high production values APM: Association of Project Managers ii Acknowledgements The author of this thesis wishes to express his gratitude to important persons, whose contributions during the writing process of this thesis was crucial to its completion. First of all, I would like to offer my sincere gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Sujith Nair. His detailed and precious guidance helped me clarify the research questions I needed to examine in this thesis. I had the pleasure to experience a smooth collaboration with him, to be constantly challenged by his intellect and as a result, was helped to delve deeper and more efficiently into my thesis topic. I would like to thank Thomas Biedenbach, one of the MSPME program’s supervisor. He was always available to answer questions about the thesis formalities and bureaucracies, every time I needed his guidance. His presence, quick responses and capable managerial skills provided me with the peace of mind I needed to fulfil my difficult task of writing this thesis without any distractions. Every time, I or a fellow MSPME student encountered issues or obstacles in the program, Professor Biedenbach was always two steps ahead and had already prepared the solution before we even asked him to. Of course, I would like to also thank Tomas Blomquist, responsible for the MSPME program. He provided precious guidance to the early steps of my thesis and was always available to provide information about the bureaucratic necessities of my program than needed to be dealt with. Being among the first figures I met when I first started this program, I can’t but feel emotional and appreciative for this professor who welcomed us to this program and was always there for us, the students, during every semester of these studies. Furthermore, I would like to express my appreciation to the grading committee of my thesis for their commitment and their fair evaluation of my thesis. And last but not least, I thank the administration officials of Heriot Watt and Umea university for allowing me to attend the MSPME program. The last one and a half year of studies was one of the most wonderful experiences in my life. I feel gratitude for this opportunity to travel all over the world, to collaborate with charismatic professors, expand my horizons and reinforce my knowledge in both the management and business administration department. Special thanks to my family, who are always there to support my choices and show an unlimited supply of faith in me. Without them, this thesis would not be possible. Thank you dad, mom and big sis. Ioannis Stylianos Archontakis Athens, 11/1/2019 iii Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 2. Research questions ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1. Iteration, as a practice, can potentially contradict moral values (crunching) ............ 3 2.2. Iteration is costly because it requires a lot of resources, is time consuming and interferes with artistic integrity .......................................................................................... 4 2.3. Iteration is unnecessary based on Hume, from a philosophical point of view ............ 5 2.4. Research questions ...................................................................................................... 5 3. Literature review................................................................................................................. 7 3.1. Literature review summary .......................................................................................... 7 3.2. Creativity ..................................................................................................................... 7 3.3. Innovation .................................................................................................................... 9 3.4. Project failure in IT development .............................................................................. 11 3.5. Project success ........................................................................................................... 12 3.6. Work intensification ................................................................................................... 17 4. Theoretical framework ..................................................................................................... 19 4.1. Theoretical framework summary ............................................................................... 19 4.2. Agile development and waterfall model ..................................................................... 19 4.3. Crunch ....................................................................................................................... 25 4.4 Video game development ............................................................................................ 26 5. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 31 5.1. Research methodology ............................................................................................... 31 5.1.1. Ontology .............................................................................................................. 31 5.1.2. Axiology .............................................................................................................. 31 5.1.3. Epistemology ....................................................................................................... 32 5.2. Data collection ........................................................................................................... 32 5.2.1. Quantitative vs qualitative research .................................................................... 32 5.2.2. Types of collected data ........................................................................................ 33 5.2.3. Interview design .................................................................................................. 33 5.2.4. Research’s limitations ......................................................................................... 34 iv 5.2.5. Participant selection criteria ................................................................................ 35 5.2.6. Interview’s guide and questionnaire ................................................................... 35 5.2.7. Secondary data .................................................................................................... 35 5.3. Data analysis methodology ........................................................................................ 35 5.4. Quality criteria .......................................................................................................... 36 5.5.