customer and stakeholder engagement in service industries ... sig/2-rod brondie... · customer and...
TRANSCRIPT
UniSA Research Symposium 21st April 2017
Customer and stakeholder engagement in
service industries: exploring new research
frontiers
Roderick J Brodie,
University of Auckland
in association with
Julia Fehrer (University of Bayreuth),
Jodie Conduit, (University of Adelaide),
Elina Jaakkola (Turku University)
Agenda
1. Why Engagement is even more important?
2. Theorizing about Customer Engagement
3. From Customer to Actor Engagement
4. Exploring New Frontiers
CE to AE2N2
1. Why Engagement is even more important?
velocityscope
systems impact
Klaus Schwab
Interaction, Connectedness, Experience in Networks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCGV1tNBoeU
“Moving Forward and making a Difference: Research Priorities
for Service Science” (JSR Ostrom et al., 2010)
comprehensive research agenda
– Leveraging technology to develop and deliver new services and
solutions
– Customer engagement in service innovation
– Value co-creation and customer engagement in service
environments
– Learning from evolving consumer experience
– Open innovation approach to service design
update 2015
– underlying mechanisms that determine ““understanding and
coordinating value creation in multi-actor network and
collaborative contexts”
Why the need for a new concept?• Broadened perspective of relationships
– shift from a goods to a service logic
• interactions among organizations, organizational networks,
customers
– based on experiences of customers beyond purchase
– customer experiences that lead to the co-creation of value
• traditional concepts such as involvement and
participation inadequate
– engagement more fully reflects the nature interactivity &
experience
“when suppliers and customers interact, they are engaged
in co-creation of value” Grönroos - Marketing Theory, 2006
https://www.soulmachines.com/blog/2017/2/18/nadia-to-help-over-500000-disabled-in-australia
Co-creation of Value: a 2-way process (Payne et al 2008)
Value creating process of the customer
Customer Learning & Relationship Experience
Value creating process of the supplier
Organisational Learning & Relationship Experience Design
Organisation supports the customer’s process: thinking, feeling, behaving
Engagement Platforms
Engagement in Business & Marketing
Engagement has always been important in understanding
buyer seller relationships
But in the last decade it has become a buzz-word in business
– Business media as well as social media
– One of the most frequent terms used in business journalism about
..marketing relationships and service management
• superseding Involvement, Commitment, and Participation?
– Theme of numerous business conferences, seminars, round tables
– Job titles from managerial to executive levels, related to
engagement (employee, customer)
– Commercial research (consulting companies)
– Hot topic in Business Blogging
• 350,000+ links on consumer/ customer engagement on Google Blog (January
2010)
Engagement in Academic Marketing Service
Mgt Literature Lagging
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
# o
f A
rtic
les Consumer
Customer
Brand
Total
GS Citations since 2016
Customer Engagement 3,780
Consumer Engagement 2,560
Brand Engagement 1,030
Empirical Domain Theoretical Domain
Theories
in Use
Bridging
Theories
Paradigms
General
Theories
2. Theorizing about Customer Engagement:
Defining the Conceptual Domain of
business practice
discourse (conference
papers, blogs,
company reports)
social science
disciplines (e.g.,
sociology,
psychology,
education,
organisational
behaviour)
marketing literature
(how does engagement
relate to other relational
concepts, is engagement
theoretically distinct?)
Service Dominant Logic
What is Distinctive about the Theorizing Process?
1. Bridging practice to theory: integrating business
practice (theories in use) with social science,
management, marketing literature (bridging and general
theories)
• a creative tension leading to managerial usefulness
2. Bridging theory to practice: using SDL to derive the
engagement concept
• from foundational premises to fundamental
propositions
• facilitating fuller empirical investigation of general
theoretical structures
3. Academic collaboration: using a panel of 12 academic
experts to refine and verify conceptual domain
Conceptual Domain (Fundamental
Premises)
FP1….psychological state, which occurs from interactive
customer experiences within service relationships
FP2….occurs within a dynamic, iterative process of service
relationships that co-creates value
FP3….plays central role within a social/ network of service
relationships
FP4….is a multidimensional concept (cognitive, emotional and
behavioral dimensions)
FP5….different conditions lead to differing levels of
engagement
Engagement is conceptually distinct from participation and
involvement because they don’t explicitly embody interactivity
and experience
3. From Customer to Actor Engagement:
From Dyads to Networks
• “emancipation from the shackles of the dyad (and the
myopia connected to this)” (Storbacka and Nenonen
2011)
• call for research to investigate the underlying
mechanisms that determine “understanding and
coordinating value creation in multi-actor network and
collaborative contexts” (Ostrom et al.’s JSR 2015 )
• need to extend the theoretical scope of engagement
beyond the engagement subject of customers
DISPOSITION OF DIFFERENT ACTORS
Chandler & Lusch (2015)
Storbacka Kaj et al. (2016)
Kumar, & Pansari (2015)
FP1https://www.soulmachines.com/blog/2017/2/18/nadia-to-help-over-500000-disabled-in-
australia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJq5PQZHU-I
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603895/customer-service-chatbots-are-about-to-become-
frighteningly-realistic/
ITERATION OF SERVICE RELATIONSHIPS
Ecosystem
Iteration 0
Iteration 1
Iteration 2Iteration n
Engagement
platform Network of
actors
A
A
A
A
A
A
Actor
Engagement
Jaakkola & Alexander (2014)
FP3
INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT IN ACTOR NETWORKS
Practices
Rules Symbols
Context affects and is
reciprocally affected by AE
AE
endogenous nature of
contextKoskela-Huotari & Vargo (2016)
Orlikowski (2010)
Vargo & Lusch (2016)
FP5
Conceptual Domain of Actor Engagement
FP1
FP2
FP3
FP4
FP5
CE reflects a psychological state, which
occurs by virtue of interactive customer
experiences with a focal agent/object
within specific service relationships.
CE states occur within a dynamic,
iterative process of service relationships
that co-creates value.
CE plays a central role within a
nomological network of service
relationships.
CE is a multidimensional concept subject to
a context- and/or stakeholder-specific
expression of relevant cognitive, emotional
and behavioural dimensions.
CE occurs within a specific set of
situational conditions generating
differing CE levels.
AE reflects an internal disposition, which occurs by
virtue of interactive experiences resulting from
connections with other actors and is manifested in
engagement behaviors.
Disposition &
Connections
AE occurs within a dynamic process of network-
centric connections facilitated by engagement
platforms, framed by institutional contexts.
Network &
Platforms
AE is embedded in an iterative process where its
antecedents and consequences affect the internal
disposition and external connections of actors in a
network of service relationships.
Iteration of Service
Relationships
AE is a multidimensional concept that comprises
focal cognitive, emotional, social and behavioral
dimensions
Connectedness
in Networks
AE occurs within a specific set of institutional
contexts and the actor’s individual conditions,
generating differing AE intensities and valence
over time.
Institutional
Context
4. Exploring New FrontiersEvolutionary Phases
Network/
Service System
Perspective
Phase 3 (2014 onwards)
Broadening of
conceptualization CE to
AE
Phase 4 (2016 onwards)
empirical refinement in the
conceptualizations &
operationalization of AE
Dyadic
Perspective
Phase 1 (2009-2011)
identification &
conceptualization of CE
and CEB
Phase 2 (2012 onwards)
empirical refinement in the
conceptualizations &
operationalization of CE/ CEB
Conceptual Focus Empirical/ Managerial Focus
FP1:
DISPOSITION
OF
DIFFERENT
ACTORS
.
interactive
experiences in
specific contexts?
manifest
engagement
behaviors
change, maturation
and/or termination
over time?
customer behavior
outcomes
Managers can identify
customers, and other actors,
with a disposition to engage,
and can develop strategies to
foster this engagement.
Managers can develop
strategies to encourage actor-
to-actor engagement in an
organizational context.
Managers can design
interactive experiences to
foster engagement with
multiple actors.
Managers need to identify
and understand the
connections of actors and
actor groups collaborating
within their network.
FP2:
NETWORK AND
PLATFORMS
How is value created
in networks through
engagement patterns
leading to value in a
network?
interfaces on physical
and virtual
engagement
platforms
design of
engagement
platforms
boundary objects of
an engagement
platform
Managers should revise their
business models in order to
engage with actors on their
preferred or most effective
engagement platform.
Engagement patterns should
be taken into account as
primary activity patterns to
create value for an
organization.
When designing a business
platform, managers should
develop strategies to
facilitate AE efficiently for all
actors joining this platform.
Managers need to explore
strategically, the degree of
openness concerning their
organizational boundaries
which most efficiently
orchestrates AE of various
actors.
FP3:
ITERATION OF
SERVICE
RELATIONSHIPS
antecedents and/or
consequences for
specific types of
actors
explain relational
phenomena in
different service
systems
influence relational
processes of
different types over
time?
dynamics and
cumulative effects
Managers need to identify
what drives engagement by
relevant actors in their
network, as addressing these
antecedents may trigger
engagement.
Managers need to look beyond
their immediate customers and
understand also how suppliers,
interest groups, or other types
of actors become engaged.
Managers of public and non-
profit organizations should
explore how different types of
stakeholders can be mobilized
to engage around a common
cause.
Managers should track how the
engagement of their key
stakeholders develops over
time, and design approaches to
react to unwanted changes in
the engagement cycle.
FP4:
CONNECTEDNESS
IN NETWORKS
key drivers of actors’
cognitive, emotional,
and behavioral
dimensions
relative importance
of dimensions
outcomes that occur
across different
institution-, network-
and service
ecosystem-
effects of focal actor
engagement
dimensions are
universally applicable
across differing AE
settings?
Managers need to establish
specific actions and activities
that capitalize on and leverage
these specific AE dimensions.
Managers should allocate
adequate resources to the actor
and service related factors that
facilitate the desired dimensions
of AE for their offering.
Managers are advised to identify
the extent to which the various
offerings in their portfolio are
driven by the cognitive,
emotional or behavioral
dimension of AE.
Managers should identify the
factors which will engage
customers’ peer groups with the
firm’s offerings.
FP5:
INSTITUTIONAL
CONTEXT
influence of
specific
institutional
arrangements
different levels of
the service system
inter-relationships
and associated
outcomes
experiences trigger
changes
outcomes are
associated with
different intensities
Managers and policy makers
should manage for the specific
institutional arrangements
that facilitate AE (e.g. reward
actors with desired
engagement behaviors)
Managers must recognize that
not all customers will be
disposed to high engagement
and provide offerings for
different engagement
intensities
Managers should build
organizational structures and
processes to facilitate and
support the interrelated
nature of AE at all levels.
Managers and policy makers
need to recognize the
potentially destructive
influence of negative
engagement and seek to
isolate or mitigate this effect
on the service system.