Search results

Focusing on the social influence processes in the context of massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), this study aims to investigate the nomological network of social influence factors, a topic seldom explicitly articulated in the literature in this unique context.

This study adopts a mixed-methods approach to develop and test a context-specific model of social influence processes in MMORPGs. First, the authors conducted qualitative interviews with MMORPG players to identify the drivers shaping players' perceptions of social influences. Second, the authors formulated and tested a research model with quantitative data collected from 450 respondents of an online survey.

Through the qualitative study, the authors identify leader enthusiasm, social support and social presence as the critical drivers of social influence factors. The result of the quantitative study validates the influences of the critical drivers and demonstrates the impact of social influences on MMORPG players' we-intention to continue playing games.

This research extends the social influence theory by identifying contextualized drivers that shape MMORPG players' perception of social influences determining their we-intention to continue playing games. MMORPG service providers can draw on these drivers to leverage social influences to increase players' we-intention of continuance.

Integrated project delivery (IPD) project that does not use multiparty agreement is identified as IPD-ish. The use of IPD-ish arrangement by incorporating integration practices in conventional contract can be viewed as the part of the adoption process of IPD. Moreover, inappropriate integration practices invite new forms of risks and the absence of multiparty agreement adds to the challenges of risk management in IPD-ish projects. This study discusses such challenges and proposes the use of joint risk management to address the potential pitfalls in IPD-ish arrangement.

A mixed research method was applied. First, the criticality of IPD-ish general and integration-specific risks was examined through a survey. Second, a real IPD-ish project was used to exemplify the use of joint risk management (JRM) to manage IPD-ish risks.

Two types of risks, namely integration risks (IRs) and general risks (GRs), are identified in IPD-ish projects. Two major findings for the IRs: (1) the most critical IRs are related to unbalanced incentivization and inefficient multidisciplinary teams; and (2) only team formation related pre-contract JRM strategies affect IRs. As for the GRs, the most critical ones are associated with design issues and can be effectively mitigated by post-contract JRM.

Using IPD-ish arrangement is an inevitable part of implementation of full IPD. This happens as many change-averse owners would like to test the integration principles using a conventional contract that they are familiar with. In fact, success in IPD-ish would pave the path for further adoption of IPD. This study offers insight into categorization of risks in IPD-ish projects. Appropriate use of post-contract and organization related pre-contract JRM would improve the chance of teasing out the values of IPD through IPD-ish arrangements. Care should be taken to introduce some contracting integration initiatives, such as risk/reward sharing incentive.