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

Experience Environments & Networks

Ecosystem

New Strategic Spaces for Service Innovation

Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2003)

“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)

Key concepts

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

Scopus Analysis

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/

NETWORK AND PLATFORMS

Engagement

Access to

network

Access to

network

Breidbach et al. (2014)

FP2

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

CONNECTEDNESS IN ACTOR NETWORKSFP4

Frow et al. (2014)

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.