Frontline encounters of the AI kind: An evolved service encounter framework

Robinson, Stacey G.; Orsingher, Chiara; Alkire, Linda; Keyser, Arne De; Giebelhausen, Michael; Papamichail, K N; Shams, Poja; Temerak, Mohamed Sobhy

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.038

Cited by 140 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…How do distinct “blurred” combinations impact CX? To what extent do customers want to be aware of the true nature of a touchpoint (e.g., human vs. digital; Robinson et al 2020). Inspiration for field/lab experiments may be drawn from Luo et al (2019) as one of the first studies to provide evidence for negative effects of disclosing the true nature of a touchpoint in financial services sales setting.…”

Section: The Tcq Nomenclature: Scholarly Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving the Customer Experience Field Forward: Introducing the Touchpoints, Context, Qualities (TCQ) Nomenclature

Keyser

Verleye

Lemon

et al. 2020

Journal of Service Research

Self Cite

286

385

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to initial voices that put the customer experience (management) (CX(M)) movement into question, this article aims to introduce a formal nomenclature to push the CX(M) field toward a more mature state. First, drawing from an inductive analysis of 143 CX(M) papers, the authors identify 12 basic CX components that aggregate into three overarching building blocks—touchpoints (T, i.e., points of interaction between the customer and brand/firm), context (C, i.e., situationally available resources internal and/or external to the customer), and qualities (Q, i.e., attributes that reflect the nature of customer responses and reactions to interactions with the brand/firm). The TCQ nomenclature offers a language to make CX actionable, moving beyond the breadth of the current definition and frameworks by disentangling CX into small bite-sized chunks (i.e., the CX components) that any academic and practitioner, regardless of their discipline, may understand and use to discuss and manage CX. Second, using the TCQ nomenclature, the authors assess the current state of the CX(M) literature and identify mature (e.g., firm-controlled touchpoints and cognitive and emotional qualities associated with CX) and underdeveloped (e.g., nonfirm controlled touchpoints and the market and environmental context in which CX emerges) areas ripe for future research. In addition, they also provide a set of recommendations to strengthen the methodological rigor of the field. Third, the TCQ nomenclature may support managers in auditing their current CXM practices and/or serve as a basis for CX design and innovation.

show abstract

Section: The Tcq Nomenclature: Scholarly Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving the Customer Experience Field Forward: Introducing the Touchpoints, Context, Qualities (TCQ) Nomenclature

Keyser

Verleye

Lemon

et al. 2020

Journal of Service Research

Self Cite

286

385

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, future research might consider exploring how and under what conditions technological advancements trigger different value facets more generally. To date, researchers have used mixed methods to explore the creation of customer value in mobile marketing (Andrews, Drennan, and Russell-Bennett 2012; Huang et al 2019) and netnographic analyses to better understand the emergence of customer value in online communities (e.g., Loane, Webster, and D’Allesandro 2015; Seraj 2012), but artificial intelligence contributes to the launch of a wide range of technological innovations—including but not limited to smart products, service robots, and other types of conversational agents (technological actors designed to engage in conversations with human beings; Robinson et al 2020). Does technological progress, and thereby the magnitude in technological change, intensify customers’ experiences and hence their value perceptions (Varshneya, Das, and Khare 2017)?…”

Section: Three Paradigms As Impetus For Five Research Avenuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three Decades of Customer Value Research: Paradigmatic Roots and Future Research Avenues

Zeithaml

Verleye

Hatak

et al. 2020

Journal of Service Research

175

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last three decades have witnessed a resurgence of research on the topic of customer value. In search of a comprehensive integration and analysis of this research—including conceptualization, operationalization, and measurement—we examined the myriad journal publications on the construct. We acknowledge that while some of the literature can be fully integrated, other parts are more difficult because they represent three different paradigms: positivist, interpretive, and social constructionist. We begin by briefly describing these three paradigms. Next, we detail the many studies representing the positivist paradigm, literature capturing customer value from just the customer’s perspective and using deductive logic. We designate the second paradigm as interpretive, in that researchers are interested in understanding the subjective nature of customer value along with its emergence through inductive logic. The third paradigm, the social constructionist, frames customer value as emerging from value co-creation practices in complex ecosystems. Building upon the commonalities and differences among research studies stemming from the positivist, interpretive, and social constructionist paradigms, we propose how researchers can complement one another to move the customer value field forward.

show abstract

“…With the recent interest in robots, AI, and other forms of technology as actors in service processes (e.g. Čaić et al , 2018; Kaartemo; Helkkula, 2018; Robinson et al , 2019), this study can provide a point of reflection as research moves toward thinking about actors and agency as general phenomena pertaining to both human and nonhuman actors. As one potential starting point, differentiating human from nonhuman actors based on personal identity, which directs the agency of human beings across a multitude of roles, seems justified.…”

Section: Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cai c et al, 2018; Robinson et al, 2019;Wirtz et al, 2018) calls for a more thorough conceptualization of humans as actors in order to critically examine the differences and similarities between human and nonhuman actors. In this paper, we dig deeper into the concept of the actor to provide a fuller theoretical grounding for thinking about human actors in the context of service research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, the growing interest toward the role of technology, such as robots and artificial intelligence (AI), in service interactions (e.g. Čaić et al , 2018; Robinson et al , 2019; Wirtz et al , 2018) calls for a more thorough conceptualization of humans as actors in order to critically examine the differences and similarities between human and nonhuman actors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rethinking the actor in service research: toward a processual view of identity dynamics

Koskela-Huotari

Siltaloppi²

2020

JSTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -Only a few concepts in the service literature are as pervasive yet as undertheorized as is the concept of the actor. With a growing interest toward value creation as a systemic and institutionally guided phenomenon, there is a particular need for a more robust conceptualization of humans as actors that adopts a processual, as opposed to a static, view. The purpose of this paper is to build such processual conceptualization to advance service-dominant (S-D) logic, in particular, and service research, in general. Design/methodology/approach -The paper is conceptual and extends S-D logic's institutionally constituted account of the actor by drawing from identity theory and social constructionism. Findings -The paper develops a processual conceptualization of the human actor that explicates four social processes explaining the dynamics between two identity concepts-social and personal identity-and institutional arrangements. The resulting framework reveals how humans are simultaneously constituted by institutions and able to perform their roles in varying, even institution-changing, ways. Research limitations/implications -By introducing new insights from identity theory and social constructionism, this paper reconciles the dualism in S-D logic's current description of actors, as well as posits the understanding of identity dynamics and the processual nature of actors as central in many service-related phenomena. Originality/value -This paper is among the few that explicitly theorize about the nature of human actors in S-D logic and the service literature.

show abstract

Frontline encounters of the AI kind: An evolved service encounter framework

Abstract: The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

Cited by 140 publications

References 88 publications

Moving the Customer Experience Field Forward: Introducing the Touchpoints, Context, Qualities (TCQ) Nomenclature

Moving the Customer Experience Field Forward: Introducing the Touchpoints, Context, Qualities (TCQ) Nomenclature

Three Decades of Customer Value Research: Paradigmatic Roots and Future Research Avenues

Rethinking the actor in service research: toward a processual view of identity dynamics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About