They just need to make sure that the game aligns with organizational goals and the tradeoffs of that gaming are something the organization is willing to accept.

They just need to make sure that the game aligns with organizational goals and the tradeoffs of that gaming are something the organization is willing to accept. The problem is that few organizations are willing to explicitly state their accepted trade offs. They want everything. So, say that the goal is feature release so that sales can satisfy a major client and land the contract. Your options are: 1. Have the feature quickly, but buggy. Well enough to demo, but regular use would see problems. 2. Have the feature work well, but build it more slowly. Tell the client "no." 3. Dedicate more hours of development time to the feature and cut other priorities to have it faster (this only works up to a point, so hiring 20 devs for a week onto a team of 10 doesn't cut the time from 3 weeks to 1). Any of those are possible. But getting firm agreement on one of those is something I have never seen. If a company incentivized speed, quality, or flexibility, it would get it as long as it accepted the trade offs. Instead, the company usually wants to measure speed while complaining about reduced quality.