科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告
期末報告
線上服務的顧客參與過程：服務主導邏輯觀點
計 畫 類 別 ： 個別型計畫 計 畫 編 號 ： MOST 103-2410-H-004-115-執 行 期 間 ： 103年08月01日至104年07月31日 執 行 單 位 ： 國立政治大學企業管理學系 計 畫 主 持 人 ： 白佩玉 計畫參與人員： 碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：林亭妤 碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：蔡博先 大專生-兼任助理人員：路曉薇 大專生-兼任助理人員：林敬棋 處 理 方 式 ： 1.公開資訊：本計畫涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，2年後可公開查詢 2.「本研究」是否已有嚴重損及公共利益之發現：否 3.「本報告」是否建議提供政府單位施政參考：否中 華 民 國 104 年 10 月 31 日
中 文 摘 要 ： 過往企業強調「為顧客創造價值」，現今企業則追求「與顧客一起 創造價值」；因此，顧客參與(customer participation)成為「服 務主導邏輯」的核心主張，也成為近十年來行銷領域的研究主流之 一。雖然顧客參與的重要性已普遍受到學界及業界的認同，但多數 學術研究聚焦於顧客參與的影響結果，旨在鼓勵企業推動顧客參與 ；然而究竟如何能引發顧客參與的動機，已成為目前重要的研究問 題。尤其是，由於資訊與通訊科技(Information and
communications technology, ICT)的發達，有許多服務已紛紛數位 化，消費者透過網站即可完成訂購交易並立即享受服務。因此，本 研究結合行銷領域的「服務主導邏輯」(service-dominant logic, SDL)概念，以「顧客參與行為」為主要衡量變數，且針對其前置因 素及調節變數，提出「虛擬情境下的顧客參與過程」之概念性架構 ，並以線上旅遊訂購服務進行實證。本研究的研究構念及研究設計 說明如下：顧客參與行為包含了四個構面，即資訊蒐尋
(information seeking)、資訊分享(information sharing)、責任 行為(responsible behavior)、及人際互動(personal interaction)。前置因素的考量上，本研究根據顧客的價值認知四 大層面，提出對應的四個變數：(1)網站的資訊豐富性(site informativeness)─實用性層面(pragmatic dimension)；(2)與企 業的夥伴關係(sense of partnership)─社交層面(social dimension)；(3)樂趣(enjoyment)─娛樂性層面(hedonic dimension)；以及(4)網站品質(site quality)─使用性層面 (usability dimension)。本研究也將探討個人的主動個性傾向 (proactive disposition)對上述四項前因與顧客參與行為之間的調 節效果。研究方法上，首先以深度訪談的方式，了解顧客參與線上 旅遊訂購服務的流程。舉例而言，顧客需先提供個人需求偏好(例如 ：預算、日期、地點、團體或自由行)、由業者提供建議及諮詢(例 如：旅遊及購物行程安排)，顧客自行決定旅遊套組選擇(例如：飯 店等級，搭乘之交通工具選擇)等等。訪談也有助於確認本研究模型 架構，並進一步釐清各構念之間的關係。根據質性研究結果，再進 行實證問卷調查，本研究以曾參與線上旅遊訂購服務的379位顧客為 實證研究對象，並以結構方程模式進行模型分析，主要研究發現如 下：「網站資訊的豐富性」、「與企業的夥伴關係」、「參與的樂 趣」，皆能顯著地影響顧客參與行為；就相對重要性而言，「參與 的樂趣」的影響效果最為顯著，其次為「與企業的夥伴關係」，而 「網站資訊的豐富性」的影響力則相對較小。由此可見，相較於實 用及使用層面的價值，娛樂性價值與社交價值更能驅動顧客參與行 為。此外，本研究發現：消費者個人的「主動傾向特質」顯著強化 了「與企業的夥伴關係」、「參與的樂趣」兩者與顧客參與行為之 間的關係。綜上所述，本研究回應近來資管學者的建議(例如 ：Lusch and Nambisan [2015, in MIS Quarterly])，探討在新科 技環境下企業如何從事服務創新及價值共創。在學理上，本研究期 能深化價值共創、顧客參與行為等相關學理，並延伸相關研究至虛 擬情境的應用與對照；在管理實務上，本研究提供了一個多面向的 參考架構，讓企業能同時考量顧客對於環境面的多元價值認知因素 ，以及個人性格等影響因素，並分析比較其間的影響程度，供企業 作相關決策之參考。
中 文 關 鍵 詞 ： 服務主導邏輯、價值共創、顧客參與行為
英 文 摘 要 ： This research, drawing on service management studies, consumer behavior theories, and information management literature, proposes a research framework that includes the moderating mechanisms underlying the relationships about customer participation process in virtual contexts, as well as between the participation determinants and participation behavior. This current research context focuses on an
online service that necessitates the joint effort of customers and service providers (e.g. online travel booking). The model was tested with 379 respondents from several Taiwanese online travel booking sites, using structural equation modeling. Results show that site informativeness, sense of partnership with companies, and enjoyment significantly influence the respondents’
participation behavior. For the moderating effect of proactive disposition, it is shown that individuals’
proactive disposition can enhance the links between all the antecedents, expect for site quality, and customer
participation behavior. Overall, this research not only advances the theoretical understanding of the customer participation process in virtual service settings, but also examines how multi-dimension factors jointly influence customers’ participation behaviors. In practice, this study offers new insights into the customer participation process and thereby provides a basis for managers to offer appropriate goods and services to support consumers’ value creation.
英 文 關 鍵 詞 ： Service-Dominant Logic, Value co-creation, Customer participation
科技部 專題研究 期末報告
計畫編號： MOST 103-2410-H-004-115 - (103/08/01～104/07/31) 線上服務的顧客參與過程：服務主導邏輯觀點
Customer Participation in Online Service Contexts: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective 中文摘要 過往企業強調「為顧客創造價值」，現今企業則追求「與顧客一起創造價值」；因 此，顧客參與(customer participation)成為「服務主導邏輯」的核心主張，也成為近十 年來行銷領域的研究主流之一。許多學者投入於相關研究，證實了顧客透過參與服務 的設計及傳遞過程，能夠獲得更客製化的服務，因此有助於提升顧客的知覺品質、滿 意度、忠誠度等；對企業而言，當顧客參與服務流程、分擔了員工的部份工作內容 時，有助於降低營運成本，甚至因為與顧客有更多的互動機會，也提升了員工的工作 滿意度。 雖然顧客參與的重要性已普遍受到學界及業界的認同，但多數學術研究聚焦於顧 客參與的影響結果，旨在鼓勵企業推動顧客參與；然而究竟如何能引發顧客參與的動 機，已成為目前重要的研究問題。尤其是，由於資訊與通訊科技(Information and communications technology, ICT)的發達，有許多服務已紛紛數位化，消費者透過網站 即可完成訂購交易並立即享受服務。因此，服務傳遞方式已不再侷限於實體環境下的 面對面服務，顧客參與服務設計流程的管道也已擴及至企業網站及網路社群等。因 此，本研究結合行銷領域的「服務主導邏輯」(service-dominant logic, SDL)概念，以 「顧客參與行為」為主要衡量變數，且針對其前置因素及調節變數，提出「虛擬情境 下的顧客參與過程」之概念性架構，並以線上旅遊訂購服務進行實證。本研究的研究 構念及研究設計說明如下： 顧客參與行為包含了四個構面，即資訊蒐尋(information seeking)、資訊分享 (information sharing)、責任行為(responsible behavior)、及人際互動(personal
interaction)。前置因素的考量上，本研究根據顧客的價值認知四大層面，提出對應的 四個變數：(1)網站的資訊豐富性(site informativeness)─實用性層面(pragmatic
dimension)；(2)與企業的夥伴關係(sense of partnership)─社交層面(social dimension)； (3)樂趣(enjoyment)─娛樂性層面(hedonic dimension)；以及(4)網站品質(site quality)─使 用性層面(usability dimension)。本研究也將探討個人的主動個性傾向(proactive disposition)對上述四項前因與顧客參與行為之間的調節效果。 研究方法上，首先以深度訪談的方式，了解顧客參與線上旅遊訂購服務的流程。 舉例而言，顧客需先提供個人需求偏好(例如：預算、日期、地點、團體或自由行)、 由業者提供建議及諮詢(例如：旅遊及購物行程安排)，顧客自行決定旅遊套組選擇(例 如：飯店等級，搭乘之交通工具選擇)等等。訪談也有助於確認本研究模型架構，並進
一步釐清各構念之間的關係。根據質性研究結果，再進行實證問卷調查，本研究以曾 參與線上旅遊訂購服務的 379 位顧客為實證研究對象，並以結構方程模式進行模型分 析，主要研究發現如下：「網站資訊的豐富性」、「與企業的夥伴關係」、「參與的樂 趣」，皆能顯著地影響顧客參與行為；就相對重要性而言，「參與的樂趣」的影響效果 最為顯著，其次為「與企業的夥伴關係」，而「網站資訊的豐富性」的影響力則相對較 小。由此可見，相較於實用及使用層面的價值，娛樂性價值與社交價值更能驅動顧客 參與行為。此外，本研究發現：消費者個人的「主動傾向特質」顯著強化了「與企業 的夥伴關係」、「參與的樂趣」兩者與顧客參與行為之間的關係。
綜上所述，本研究回應近來資管學者的建議(例如：Lusch and Nambisan [2015, in
MIS Quarterly])，探討在新科技環境下企業如何從事服務創新及價值共創。在學理上， 本研究期能深化價值共創、顧客參與行為等相關學理，並延伸相關研究至虛擬情境的 應用與對照；在管理實務上，本研究提供了一個多面向的參考架構，讓企業能同時考 量顧客對於環境面的多元價值認知因素，以及個人性格等影響因素，並分析比較其間 的影響程度，供企業作相關決策之參考。 關鍵字：服務主導邏輯、價值共創、顧客參與行為
英文摘要
A critical shifting of the value creation perspective is from firms creating value for customers to firms creating value with customers. The significance of customer participation is widely-recognized: Firms can benefit from increasing productivity by outsourcing parts of the service activities to customers and from enhancing customer satisfaction and loyalty; customers can enjoy customized services and gain more control to achieve higher service quality. However, relatively little research, at the customer level, has examined customer motivations to participate in co-creating service and the means to facilitate customer participation.
This research, drawing on service management studies, consumer behavior theories, and information management literature, proposes a research framework that includes the moderating mechanisms underlying the relationships about customer participation process in virtual contexts, as well as between the participation determinants and participation behavior. This current research context focuses on an online service that necessitates the joint effort of customers and service providers (e.g. online travel booking). The model was tested with 379 respondents from several Taiwanese online travel booking sites, using structural equation modeling. In addition, moderating analyses were conducted to understand the effect of individuals’ proactive disposition on the link between the proposed antecedents (i.e. site informativeness, sense of partnership, enjoyment, and site quality) and customer participation behavior. Results show that site informativeness, sense of partnership with companies, and enjoyment significantly influence the respondents’ participation behavior. Particularly, enjoyment is playing more important roles than the other antecedents in triggering customer participation. For the moderating effect of proactive disposition, it is shown that individuals’ proactive disposition can enhance the links between all the antecedents, expect for site quality, and customer participation behavior.
Overall, this research not only advances the theoretical understanding of the customer participation process in virtual service settings, but also examines how multi-dimension factors jointly influence customers’ participation behaviors. In practice, this study offers new insights into the customer participation process and thereby provides a basis for managers to offer appropriate goods and services to support consumers’ value creation.
Customer Participation in Online Service Contexts: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective
1. INTRODUCTION
The past decade has witnessed a shifting of the value creation perspective, from firms creating value for customers to firms creating value with customers (Prahalad and
Ramaswamy, 2004). The core of service-dominant logic (SDL; Vargo and Lusch, 2004) claims that customers are always value co-creators; thus customer participation has become an important theme with the emergence of SDL. The topic of SDL and service co-creation appears in information systems research as well, as evidenced in Lusch and Nambisan’s (2015) most recent article in MIS Quarterly. Furthermore, according to Nambisan (2013, p. 219), “a digital component in a service platform may ‘seek out’ and pursue unique resource integration opportunities on its own and, in the process, engage with (or act upon) other actors in the innovation ecosystem, thereby leading to innovation or value co-creation.”
In the case of online services, customers usually participate in stages: (1) specification or design of the product or service they expect; (2) use of input, production, and realization; and (3) consumption of outcomes (Troye and Supphellen, 2012). Value is co-created in interactions with service providers (e.g., discussing, consulting) or by making use of service providers’ resources (e.g., website functions). Previous studies on customer participation have demonstrated that by playing a more active role in the service setting (e.g., booking a holiday trip online), customers can unlock more value from purchased goods and services and, in doing so, attain the benefits they seek, participate in the activities they demand, and enhance their abilities (Moeller et al., 2013; Payne et al., 2008; Vargo and Lusch, 2008). As such, customers have become collaborative partners in relational exchanges with firms and co-create value through involvement in the entire service-value chain (Yi and Gong, 2013).
This shift to a service-oriented approach has become one of the greatest challenges for firms today (Ostrom et al., 2010; van Doorn et al., 2011). Research suggests that customer participation in the service process benefits both firms and customers. Customers enjoy customized services and gain more control to achieve higher service quality (Chan et al., 2010; Xie et al., 2008), and firms benefit from increasing productivity by outsourcing parts of the service activities to customers and from enhancing customer satisfaction and loyalty (Auh et al., 2007; Bendapudi and Leone, 2003). Thus, customer participation can be a competitive advantage for companies (Bendapudi and Leone, 2003).
However, despite widespread recognition that firms should integrate customers in value creation, “little is known about how customers engage in co-creation” (Payne et al., 2008, p. 83). Previous studies on customer participation at the firm level have tended to focus on why customer should engage in the value co-creation process, by advocating the benefits
of engaging customers as co-producers or “partial employees” for productivity gains, quality improvements, customization, and so on (e.g., Bendapudi and Leone, 2003; Lovelock and Young, 1979). Such research has mainly examined the effect of customer participation on service outcomes, such as customer satisfaction and repurchase intentions (Yim et al., 2012) and employee satisfaction and stress (Chan et al., 2010). In contrast, relatively little research, at the customer level, has examined customer motivations to participate in co-creating service (e.g., Olsen and Mai, 2013) and the means to facilitate customer participation (e.g., Goodwin, 1988). Furthermore, previous studies on customer participation have mostly focused on traditional offline buyer–supplier relationships that emphasize direct, interpersonal interactions between individual customers and the company (Ritter and Walter, 2003). However, customer participation in virtual environments involves different stimuli and responses, thus it is uncertain about the generalizability of the findings from previous service literature in offline contexts (Nimbason and Baron, 2010).
Against this backdrop, this study focuses on why and how customers are motivated to participate in the service co-creation process; thus, it considers the process of customer participation for conceptual framework development. The study proposes and tests a model of how online environmental and social factors influence customer participation behavior. According to Olsen and Mai (2013, p. 1), “whether and how much consumers participate in value-creation activity are explicitly a result of consumers’ motivation (e.g., values and attitudes) and decisions with several behavioral consequences.” Thus, for research construct selection, this study coincides with and extends Olsen and Mai’s work by investigating online service environmental factors to explain customer participation behavior, factors that should be of interest for both academic and practical reasons.
Section 2 presents a discussion of the concept of customer participation in the service literature and online community studies. This section also provides a discussion of each selected construct’s concepts in the model, followed by arguments for the hypotheses. Section 3 then delineates the research method. Section 4 shows the results; Section 5 concludes by presenting the contributions and suggestions for future research.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
Scholars in various fields have focused on value creation with different emphases: In addition to marketing research (e.g., Vargo and Lusch, 2004), organizational research and innovation research (e.g., Franke et al., 2010; Nambisan and Baron, 2010) has focused on the impact of customer participation on contributing innovative ideas to firms and on maintaining the customer–company relationship (e.g., customers’ commitment to firms); these studies, however, mostly address the firm as the beneficiary instead of taking a customer perspective (Moeller et al., 2013). Information systems research typically views customers as information users, and researchers tend to focus on their interactions with the systems or the actors
holding information (e.g., Lamb and Kling, 2003; Rishika et al., 2013). Building on this research, the current research combines studies in consumer psychology and online user behavior to explain the customer participation process on an online service platform.
2.1. The Process of Customer Participation
2.1.1. The definition and concept of customer participation
Customer participation refers to “the degree to which the customer is involved in producing and delivering the service” (Dabholkar, 1990, p. 484; see also Bendapudi and Leone, 2003; Olsen and Mai, 2013) and can include both physical and mental inputs (Yoo et al., 2012). With regard to customers’ involvement in the service context, this study adapts previous definitions of customer participation, which conceptualize it as a behavioral construct, and defines it as the extent to which customers expend time and effort to share information, provide suggestions, and get involved in decision making during the service production and delivery process (Auh et al., 2007; Chan et al., 2010; Gallan et al., 2013; Yim et al., 2012). During customer participation, activities such as information seeking,
information sharing, discussion, and interactions enable both service providers and customers to learn more about the capabilities and needs of each other (Gallan et al., 2013; Jaworski and Kohli, 2006).
It is worth noting that the concept of customer participation is consistent with the notion of value co-creation in SDL (Vargo and Lusch, 2004), which views customers as value co-creators in the service provision process through participation. Similarly, in a recent study based on the literature on co-creation, customer participation, involvement, and
integration, Moeller et al. (2013, p. 472) discuss the value co-creation process and provide a new term “collaborative value creation,” which they define as “a process through which customers perform roles to derive benefits by either jointly with the service provider or independently leveraging their own and the service provider’s resources.”
In light of the current research context (i.e., online travel booking), customer
participation in this study is also comparable to the idea of “customizing consumers,” a term that describes “the consumer who takes elements of market offerings and crafts a customized consumption experience out of these” (Firat et al., 1995, p. 50). It is also similar to the concept of “presumption,” which refers to customers’ value creation activities that result in the production of products they eventually consume and that define their consumption experiences (Xie et al., 2008).
2.1.2. Customer participation behavior
To participate in service delivery, customers engage in behaviors such as information seeking, information sharing, responsible behavior, and personal interaction, which Yi and
Gong (2013) classify and measure as customer participation behavior. This study adopts this categorization and explains such behaviors as follows.
First, customers seek information to clarify service requirements and satisfy other cognitive needs (Kellogg et al., 1997). Such information reduces uncertainty and thereby enables customers to understand and control their co-creation environments; moreover, information seeking enables customers to master their role as value co-creators and become integrated into the value co-creation process (Yi and Gong, 2013).
Second, customers provide resources, such as information, with service providers for use in value co-creation processes to ensure that the service meets their particular needs (Ennew and Binks, 1999; Lengnick-Hall, 1996). For example, patients provide their doctors with proper information about their condition so that the doctors can make accurate diagnoses. If customers fail to provide accurate information, the quality of value co-creation decreases.
Third, during the participation process, customers must recognize their duties and responsibilities to collaborate with service providers, a function that previous research calls “partial employees” (Bettencourt, 1997). Their interactions with service providers and other customers help them understand appropriate participatory behaviors, by observing norms through self-learning or by following explicit instructions (Yi and Gong, 2013; Yoo et al., 2012).
Fourth, good interactions between customers and service providers are also necessary for effective value co-creation (Ennew and Binks, 1999), including courtesy, friendliness, and respect (Kelly et al., 1990). Positive interpersonal relationships between customers and service providers are necessary for customers’ continuous engagement in value co-creation (Yi and Gong, 2013).
2.2. Antecedents of Customer Participation Behavior
This study regards the values of customer participation as motivational forces that encourage consumers to participate in related service activities (see Etgar, 2008). Four dimensions associated with customer perceived value in the service environment include
pragmatic, sociability, hedonic, and usability experience designs.
2.2.1. Pragmatic value: Site informativeness
Pragmatic value refers to the pragmatic or utilitarian value customers experience from interacting on the online service platform (Nambisan and Watt, 2011), such as the
convenience or efficiency the online service platform provides so that they can access information without concerns about time and geographical limits. Pragmatic value can also reflect whether the customer found the shopping experience on the online service platform useful, valuable, and/or worthwhile (Mathwick et al., 2001). Because most customers visit an online service platform to acquire information (Nambisan and Nambisan, 2008), help them
make a decision, or evaluate the alternatives, this study suggests that site informativeness is a key construct of pragmatic value.
This study defines site informativeness as the degree to which an online service platform offers information that customers perceive as useful (Pavlou et al., 2007). Thus, this
perceptual construct captures whether customers perceive the information as accurate, relevant, and credible, which differs from the objective levels of information available (Chakraborty et al., 2002). When an online service platform offers an important source of information in support of consumers’ decision making, the valuable offer has important implications for the customer–company relationship (Wellman and Gulia, 1999). For example, customer satisfaction derives from interactions deemed resourceful (Preece and Shneiderman, 2009), which may lead to customer positive affect toward the online service platform. Moreover, customers feel more attached to the online community and reciprocate with information sharing when they perceive the information they gain from the service platform information as useful (Dholakia et al., 2004; Wasko and Faraj, 2000). This study proposes a positive association between site informativeness and customer participation behavior.
H1: Site informativeness has a positive impact on customer participation behavior. 2.2.2. Social value: Sense of partnership with the service provider
In line with the work of Nambisan and Watt (2011), social value in this study refers to the social experience customers derive from interactions on the service platform. Social value pertains to customers’ perceptions of the service provider’s overall openness, friendliness, and politeness, as well as the underlying social and relational aspects of interactions between customers and the online service provider (Nambisan and Nambisan, 2008). Thus, this study proposes that customers’ sense of partnership with the service provider influences customer participation behavior.
Social value in this study pertains to the “company–customer tie” in Nambisan and Baron’s (2010) study; this tie is a central focus in research on customer co-production
(Bendapudi and Leone, 2003). The main argument is that with better communication with the company, customers become more involved as part of the extended organization or as partial employees (Mills and Morris, 1986). For example, online service providers usually share information about their main service process and current offers and ask customers’ opinions on future offerings. Customers’ expectations are built and modified through these
interactions, and their inputs are addressed through the company’s rapid feedback (telephone, e-mail, or online forums). These activities can help customers gain a sense of partnership with the company (McAlexander et al., 2002) and feel a sense of ownership of the value co-creation process (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004) because they feel they are valued and recognized by the service provider. Consequently, customers play an active role in co-created
service activities. Thus, this study proposes the following:
H2: Customers’ sense of partnership with the service provider has a positive impact on
customer participation behavior.
2.2.3. Hedonic value: Enjoyment
As an intrinsic value, the hedonic dimension of customers’ perceived value of customer participation reflects the extent to which customers derive enjoyment and excitement from their interactions on the online service platform (Nambisan and Watt, 2011). In online contexts, enjoyment is a critical factor for online users’ decision-making processes, for both new technology adoption (Davis et al., 1992; van der Heijden, 2003) and online community participation (Cheung and Lee, 2009; Novak et al., 2000; Preece and Shneiderman, 2009). Enjoyment can encompass the interactions with both online service providers and functional tools and technologies (Nambisan and Nambisan, 2008).
This study agrees with Nambisan and Baron’s (2010) contention that the hedonic experience of past group engagement encourages the development of individuals’
psychological bonds with the group. The psychological bonds between customers and service providers can lead to customer positive affect, which in turn can result in customer
participation, mainly for two reasons. First, research on affective processing mechanisms suggests that emotions related to consumption leave strong affective traces or markers in episodic memory (Westbrook and Oliver, 1991). These memory elements are highly accessible during cognitive operations. Customers draw on affective traces to evaluate hedonic experiences and integrate them into their participation decisions. Second, enjoyment also reflects the intrinsic reward customers gain during past interactions, which induces them to imagine the pleasant, successful aspects of an upcoming experience (Babin et al., 1994). Research on community behavior indicates that members’ integration in a community is a function of their pleasurable experiences during participation (Rothaermel and Sugiyama, 2001), and thus the hedonic experience of online interactions also facilitates the development of attachment to the service providers (Nambisan and Baron, 2010); as such, customers are more likely to participate in service activities. Building on this discussion, this study suggests the following:
H3: Enjoyment has a positive impact on customer participation behavior. 2.2.4. Usability dimension: Site quality
The value of usability refers to customers’ experiences in navigating and using the online service environment and captures the ease of use and clarity of the environment’s technological features (Nambisan and Watt, 2011). Customers must be able to navigate the online service platform smoothly, effortlessly, and without any obstructions or annoyances that might distract them from their goals or interest in the service (Preece, 2000; Shneiderman
and Plaisant, 2004). In the online context, customer interactions and participations are based on using information technology, so this study suggests that site quality is important because it can dominate the quality of human–computer interactions and influence customer affect and customer participation in the service co-creation process.
Perceived site quality refers to the attractiveness and usability of the site in terms of both its function and its design (McKnight et al., 2004). This study treats perceived site quality as a signal of trust that prompts favorable first impressions of the online service platform (e.g., McKnight et al., 2002) and offers cues regarding the investment the service provider
contributes to its platform (e.g., Schlosser et al., 2006). In general, people might believe that better site quality reflects a greater investment of time, effort, and related resources by the service provider. Such investments not only send strong signals of trustworthiness, by suggesting that the service provider has confidence in the sustainability of its business (Kirmani, 1990;), but also indicate that the service provider dedicates resources to provide a good service environment for customer participation in the service co-creation process. Thus, this study suggests that site quality can enhance customer participation.
H4: Perceived site quality has a positive impact on customer participation behavior. 2.3. Moderating Effect of Proactive Disposition
Researchers interested in online behavior (e.g., Dabholkar and Bagozzi, 2002; Wiertz and de Ruyter, 2007) have argued that external factors (e.g., individual traits) may be more meaningfully investigated for their moderating impact rather than as direct effects. In accordance with these studies, this study investigates the moderating effects of individual traits (i.e., proactive disposition) on the link between the customer participation value and their customer participation behavior in co-creating customized services to suit their own needs.
Proactive disposition describes the differences among people in the extent to which they take action to influence their environments and is considered a “relatively stable behavioral tendency” (Bateman and Crant, 1993, p. 105); this means that proactive individuals are proactive across multiple contexts and over time, regardless of the contingencies of a situation. Research suggests that people with proactive dispositions tend to take initiative or anticipatory action to affect their personal comfort and/or their environments (Bateman and Crant, 1993; Crant, 2000; Grant and Ashford, 2008). The key characteristics of proactive people include self-starter, change oriented, and future focused; they usually attempt to take control to make things happen rather than watch things happen (Parker et al., 2010).
This study argues that two customers with identical level of customer participation value may make different decisions about their participation depending on their personal utility functions or proactive disposition. For example, in an online service context, people with a higher proactive disposition are more likely to actively seek out information from and offer
their opinions to the service provider, not only to reduce uncertainty but also to dominate the online service environment. In addition, according to theories of personal control
(Greenberger et al., 1988), proactive people have a greater sense of self-determination and self-efficacy in their actions. Thus, comparing to people with low proactive disposition, people with a high proactive disposition likely exert more efforts to accomplish their expected service outcomes through participation, because they are relatively confident in their capabilities. That is, they pay more attention to their responsible behavior and are more involved in personal interactions. Building on this discussion, this study proposes the
following:
H5: The link between customer participation value (i.e. social, hedonic, pragmatic, and
usability value) and their participation behavior is stronger for people with a high proactive disposition.
3. METHODS 3.1. Sample and Procedures
This study focuses on an online service that necessitates the joint effort of customers and service providers. Such collaboration requires customers to provide data about their
preferences and either independently or jointly configure the customized output, an action termed “configuration offering” (Moeller et al., 2013). Online travel booking is a particularly rich area in which to evaluate service co-creation topics because of the depth and variance of the service experience. For example, service providers offer products bundled with respective services that support substantial customization to match customers’ demands (e.g., Franke et al., 2010), and such offerings usually involve modularized product parts (e.g., travel pack of hotels and flights), services to help customers make choices (e.g., travel agent consultation), and information about customer preferences (e.g., sight-seeing vs. shopping activities). Value provided by online travel agents in such offerings resembles value creation in value chains, in which inputs get transformed into outputs (Stabell and Fjeldstad, 1998).
Before the empirical survey, 12 existing customers were invited for in-depth (face-to-face) interviews to verify the proposed constructs and to determine whether other potential factors might influence customer participation in online service settings. Respondents’ online booking experience and preference are helpful in selecting appropriate traveling websites for further empirical study. In addition, interviews with the four travel agents have done to have a better understanding of the core value they provide for customers, the ways of customer relationship management, and how they facilitate customer participation behavior through website design and/or customer service.
To empirically test the research framework, this study collects data from customers of several Taiwanese online travel booking sites (e.g., Eztravel.com.tw, Ezfly.com.tw, and Lion
Travel etc.). The research context is online, so a web-based survey will be considered. The travel agents help forward the invitation e-mails to their customers to explain the purpose of the survey and encourage participation, as well as guarantee the confidentiality of all
responses. To provide an incentive to complete the questionnaire, this study offered a reward of NTD100 voucher for each valid response. Each respondent’s user name, date, and time of completion were recorded to avoid double responses. A total of 3,000 emails were sent to potential respondents; 566 responses were returned, and after excluding the invalid responses, 379 usable responses remained.
It is worth noting that all the constructs in the framework are defined at the individual level. That is, although the respondents evaluated different online booking websites when answering the questionnaires, their perceptions of the characteristics of the websites were compared with the perceptions of other respondents who may or may not have evaluated the same selected online booking website. This rationale is in line with previous studies; for example, Algesheimer et al. (2005) examine user behavior in brand communities with 529 respondents belonging to a total of 101 different car clubs, and Bagozzi and Dholakia (2006) explore user participation in open source software user communities with 402 participants from 191 different Linux user groups.
3.2. Measures
The multiple measurement items used for each construct are mainly adapted from validated scales obtained from the literature, but with minor adjustments to fit the scenario in the study. All the variables will be measured by participant responses to questions on a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” In addition, the entire survey will be translated from English into Chinese and then back-translated into English by two independent bilingual researchers to ensure equivalency of meaning (Brislin, 1980).
3.2.1. Customer participation behavior
Yi and Gong (2013) developed and validated the scale of customer value co-creation behavior, which includes customer participation behavior and customer citizenship behavior, and this study follows this scale to operationalize customer participation behavior as a second-order construct with the previously mentioned reflective first-order constructs. The first-order construct items are multiple-item, Likert-type scales, including information seeking (3-item scale), information sharing (4-item scale), responsible behavior (4-item scale), and personal interaction (5-item scale). Sample items include “I have paid attention to how others behave to use this service well” (for information seeking), “I provided necessary information so that the online service provider could perform its duties” (for information providing), “I adequately completed all the expected behaviors” (for responsible behavior),
and “I was friendly to the online service provider” (for personal interaction).
In addition, following Fang et al. (2008), this study considers both the breadth and the depth of customers’ involvement in the value co-creation process. In this study, breadth captures the scope of participation across the customer participation behaviors, such that a customer could be involved in just one activity (e.g., information sharing) or in a wide range of activities (information seeking, information sharing, responsible behavior, and personal interaction). Depth represents the customer level of involvement in a phase of the
participation process, such that some customers may only be superficially involved and others may be deeply involved. The level of customer participation can play a role in the key drivers to the value creation process.
3.2.2. Informativeness
Informativeness relies on a three-item scale adapted from Chen and Wells (1999). The items include “The information provided by this online service provider is useful,” “The information provided by this online service provider is valuable,” and “This online service platform is a very good source of information.”
3.2.3. Sense of partnership
A four-item scale is adapted from Nambisan and Baron (2010). The respondents will be asked to indicate whether they agree or disagree with each of the statements. Sample
questions include “I understand how my suggestions will be considered by the online service providers” and “I generally receive quick reaction/feedback from the online service providers on my ideas and suggestions.”
3.2.4. Enjoyment
Enjoyment is a three-item scale adapted from Koufaris (2002). The three items include “I find the interactions on the service platform interesting,” “I find the interactions on the service platform enjoyable,” and “I find the interactions on the service platform fun.”
3.2.5. Perceived site quality
The measurement of perceived site quality is based on McKnight et al. (2002). The five items include “The site worked well technically”; “This site resembled other sites I think highly of”; “The site was simple to navigate”; “On this site, it was easy to find the
information I wanted”; and “This site clearly showed how I could contact or communicate with [X Service provider].”
3.2.6. Proactive disposition
four items include “No matter what the odds, if I believe in something, I will make it happen”; “I love being a champion for my ideas, even against others’ opposition”; “I am excellent at identifying opportunities”; and “If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it happen.”
3.2.8. Customer behavioral loyalty
Finally, in order to measure customers’ actual behavior, the customer loyalty scale relies on behavioral measurement (c.f. Yun and Good, 2007). The three items include: “How many times have you made a purchase from your favorite online retailer in the last 12 months?” “ How much did you spend at your favorite online retailer in the last 12 months?” and “How many people have you referred your favorite online retailer to?”
4. RESULTS
Following Anderson and Gerbing (1988), a two-step approach was adopted to test the models. First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the measurement properties of the reflective latent constructs. Second, structural equation analysis was performed to test the research hypotheses. All tests used LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1999).
4.1. Measurement model evaluation
All the items loaded significantly on their respective latent factors and they all had a standardized loading above 0.7 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) on any factor. Two measures were used to evaluate the internal consistency of constructs: composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). The CRs range from 0.82 to 1 and the AVEs range from 0.52 to 0.69. Except for CP, all above the recommended cut-off levels of 0.60 and 0.50, respectively (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).
The discriminant validity of the measures was assessed using three approaches. First, in the correlation matrix, the diagonal elements (square roots of the AVE for each construct) were greater than the off-diagonal elements, which is in support of discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Second, the correlations among the latent variables should be significantly less than 1 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). According to 95% confidence intervals for each correlation coefficient, none of the confidence intervals included a value of 1, which is in additional support of discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Third, chi-square difference tests was done, in which I freely estimated the correlations between all possible pairs of constructs, then constrained them to equal 1. I checked whether the constraint caused a significant degradation in fit. Taken together, these results suggest that all measures of the
constructs in the measurement model achieved discriminant validity.
4.2. Structural model evaluation
The overall fit statistics indicate that the hypothesized model offers a good representation of the structures that underlie the observed data (χ2 (502) =1726.48 ; RMSEA =
0.080; SRMR = 0.072; NNFI = 0.95 and CFI = 0.96). Firstly, the relationships related to the proposed antecedents of proactive participation in virtual team contexts were examined. The results support the positive, direct relationship between site informativeness and customer participation, as proposed in H1 (γ = 0.17, p < 0.05). In addition, the relationship between the sense of partnership and customer participation is positive and significant (H2: γ = 0.24, p < 0.001). There is also a positive and significant relationship between enjoyment and customer participation (H3: γ = 0.32, p < 0.001). However, the relationship between site quality and customer participation is not significant (H4: γ = 0.15, p > 0.05). Secondly, the consequences of customer participation of the online service was examined.
Finally, the control variables were examined (i.e., customers’ past behavioral loyalty, gender, and age). Customers’ past behavioral loyalty is significantly related to customer participation behavior (γ = 0.44, p < 0.001), but the other 2 control variables are not significantly correlated with customer participation behavior.
4.3. Moderating influences of proactive disposition
Multiple-group analyses (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1999) was used to test the moderating effects in the relationship between customer participation value and their participation behavior, in line with Baron and Kenny (1986), in which they suggest that “the levels of the moderator
are treated as different groups” (p.1175). After calculating the average score of related
measurements for each member, the groups were separated using a median split approach. Separate structural models for the two subsamples were subjected to moderation tests to identify any differences in the respective coefficients of the hypothesized paths (i.e., H5a-d). In the first (i.e., baseline) model, the effect of site informativeness on customer participation was allowed to vary across groups. In the second model, this effect was constrained to be equal across subsamples. If the model with the equality constraint fits the data significantly worse than the baseline model, the moderator variable is interpreted as influencing the relationships under consideration.
The path from site informativeness to customer participation did not differ significantly for the low (coefficient = 0.15) versus high (coefficient = 0.19) proactive disposition groups (∆2 = 0.18, ∆df = 1, p > 0.5). Thus H5a is not supported. However, the link between sense of
proactive disposition: the high (coefficient = 0.50) proactive disposition group significantly differ from the low (coefficient = 0.17) group (∆2 = 3.95, ∆df = 1, p < 0.05). Similarly, the
path from enjoyment to customer participation significantly differ for the two varying groups (∆2 = 4.92, ∆df = 1, p < 0.05), with coefficient = 0.10 for the low group versus coefficient =
0.46 for the high group. Thus H5b and H5c are both supported. Finally, as the link between site quality and customer participation is not significantly related, the moderating effect of proactive disposition on that link is also not significant (∆2 = 0.05, ∆df = 1, p > 0.5); so H5d
is not supported.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study answers Nambisan’s (2013, p. 220) call for additional topics in the service development area that engage mainstream innovation researchers and practitioners—“for
example, value co-creation and governance in innovation ecosystems, managing service innovation, etc.” In practice, this study offers new insights into the customer participation
process and thereby provides a basis for managers to offer appropriate goods and services to support consumers’ value creation. In academia, this research contributes to the literature in two important ways.
First, this study contributes to the literature on customer participation in services by examining how different levels of antecedents may affect customer participation behaviors in online service settings. Prior research has shown that customer participation in a brand community is a function of perceived relationships with the brand (Algesheimer et al., 2005; McAlexander et al., 2002); this study extends community behavior research (e.g., Nambisan and Baron, 2010; Nambisan and Nambisan, 2008) by testing a model in which pragmatic value (site informativeness), social value (sense of partnership with companies), hedonic value (enjoyment), and usability value (site quality) influence customer participation in the online service process.
The results show that site informativeness, sense of partnership with companies, and enjoyment significantly influence the respondents’ customer participation behavior. Firstly, enjoyment is playing more important roles than the other antecedents in triggering customer participation. Previous studies (e.g. Chan and Li, 2010; Füller et al., 2007) has considered hedonic factors as an important “push factor” that motivate individuals to increase their relationship investments in online settings. This study extends prior studies by demonstrating that customers’ pleasurable experiences also significantly influence their interactive
participation with online service providers. Secondly, sense of partnership with customers also significantly influences customer participation decisions. In the qualitative interviews, respondents indicate that such sense of partnership includes company’s fairness, kept promises, and appropriate responses to their requests. Thus, companies are suggested to
foster a supportive climate of participation, because when customers receive favorable treatment from companies, they may not only sense a partnership but also an obligation to reciprocate by participating and expressing concern for the company (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Thirdly, site informativeness reflects the perceived favorability of that company’s central, distinctive, and enduring characteristics and leads to higher levels of customer participation behavior.
In addition, this study examines the moderating effect of a proactive disposition on the relationship between consumer participation value and customer participation behavior. Results show that proactive disposition enhances the links between all the antecedents, expect for site quality, and customer participation behavior. It is consistent with online behavior research which imply that individual attributes have moderating, rather than direct, effects (e.g., Wiertz and de Ruyter, 2007). This perspective is consistent with social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986) and research on consumer–company identification (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). This moderating analysis has theoretical importance because it may specify a boundary condition for the prediction of customer participation based on its antecedents. Overall, this research provides avenues to further probe the critical antecedents and moderator in shaping customer participation behavior in the online service co-creation process.
Finally, it is emphasized that this study is an ongoing research project toward
understanding the complicated customer participation process in online service setting. An important avenue for further research would be to conduct more detailed analyses of the mediating or moderating effect on customer participation behavior. For example, positive affect may be a key mediator between customers’ cognition of the considered online service environment and their participation behavior, because it can facilitate customers’ decision-making and cognitive flexibility (Fredrickson, 2001) and yields motivational potential for behaviors (Bindl et al., 2012). In addition, the current findings could be the base for further longitudinal study to examine if the tendency for correlations over longer time periods to increase (or decline) in magnitude, and future research is suggested to collect the objective data (customers’ actual purchase behavior) as the outcome of customer participation. Overall, this research provides avenues to further probe the critical antecedents of customer
participation behavior in shaping the outcomes of the customer participation process in virtual service settings.
References
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., and Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69 (3), 19-34. Anderson, J. C., and Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411-423. Auh, S., Bell, S. J., McLeod, C. S., and Shih, E. (2007). Co-production and customer loyalty
in financial services. Journal of Retailing, 83 (3), 359-370.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., and Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (4), 644-656.
Bagozzi, R. P., and Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Open source software user communities: A study of participation in Linux user groups. Management Science, 52 (7), 1099-1115.
Bagozzi, R. P., and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of
Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1), 74-94.
Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182.
Bateman, T. S., and Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14 (2), 103-118.
Bendapudi, N., and Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer participation in co-production. Journal of Marketing, 67 (1), 14-28.
Bettencourt, L. A. (1997). Customer voluntary performance: Customers as partners in service delivery. Journal of Retailing, 73 (3), 383-406.
Bhattacharya, C. B., and Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67 (2), 76-88.
Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., Totterdell, P., and Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the self-starter: How mood relates to proactive goal regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97 (1), 134-150.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis and J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 389-444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Chakraborty, G., Lala, V., and Warren, D. (2002). An empirical investigation of antecedents of B2B websites’ effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16 (4), 51-72. Chan, K. W., and Li, S. Y. (2010). Understanding consumer-to-consumer interactions in
virtual communities: The salience of reciprocity. Journal of Business Research, 63 (9-10), 1033-1040.
Chan, K. W., Yim, C. K. B., and Lam, S. S. K. (2010). Is customer participation in value creation a double-edged sword? Evidence from professional financial services across cultures. Journal of Marketing, 74 (2), 48-64.
Chen, Q., and Wells, W. D. (1999). Attitude toward the site. Journal of Adverting Research, 39 (5), 27-37.
community: Model development and empirical test. Journal of Information Science, 35 (3), 279-298.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26 (3), 435-462.
Dabholkar, P. (1990). How to improve perceived service quality by improving customer participation. In B. J. Dunlap (Ed.), Developments in marketing science (pp. 483–487). Cullowhee, NC: Academy of Marketing Science.
Dabholkar, P. A., and Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (3), 184-201.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (14), 1111-1132.
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., and Pearo, L. K. (2004). A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (3), 241-263.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., and Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (3), 500-507.
Ennew, C. T., and Binks, M. R. (1999). Impact of participative service relationships on quality, satisfaction and retention: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 46 (2), 121-132.
Etgar, M. (2008). A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 97-108.
Fang, E., Palmatier, R. W., and Evans, K. R. (2008). Influence of customer participation on creating and sharing of new product value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 36 (3), 322-336.
Firat, A. F., Dholakia, F., and Venkatesh, A. (1995). Marketing in a postmodern world.
European Journal of Marketing, 29 (1), 40-56.
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39-50.
Franke, N., Schreier, M., and Kaiser, U. (2010). The “I Designed It Myself” effect in mass customization. Management Science, 56 (1), 125-140.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56 (3), 218-226. Füller, J., Jawecki, G., and Muhlbacher, H. (2007). Innovation creation by online basketball
communities. Journal of Business Research, 60 (1), 60-71.
participation in services: An empirical test in a health care context. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (3), 338-356.
Goodwin, C. (1988). ‘I Can Do It Myself’: Training the service consumer to contribute to service productivity. Journal of Services Marketing, 2 (4), 71-78.
Grant, A. M., and Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34.
Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., and Lee, S. (1988). Personal control as a mediator between perceptions of supervisory behaviors and employee reactions. Academy of Management
Journal, 31 (2), 405-417.
Jaworski, B. J., and Kohli, A. K. (2006). Co-creating the voice of the customer. In R. F. Lusch and S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions (pp. 109–117). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Jöreskog, K., and Sörbom, D. (1999). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kelley, S. W., Donnelly, J. H., and Skinner, S. J. (1990). Customer participation in service production and delivery. Journal of Retailing, 66 (3), 315-335.
Kellogg, D. L., Youngdahl, W. E., and Bowen, D. E. (1997). On the relationship between customer participation and satisfaction: Two frameworks. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 8 (3), 206-219.
Kirmani, A. (1990). The effect of perceived advertising costs on brand perceptions. Journal
of Consumer Research, 17 (2), 160-171.
Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information Systems Research, 13 (2), 205-223.
Lamb, R., and Kling, R. (2003). Reconceptualizing users as social actors in Information Systems research. MIS Quarterly, 27 (2), 197-236.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A. (1996). Customer contributions to quality: A different view of the customer-oriented firm. Academy of Management Journal, 21 (3), 791-824. Lovelock, C. H., and Young, R. F. (1979). Look to consumers to increase productivity.
Harvard Business Review, 57 (3), 168-178.
Lusch, R., and Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: A Service-Dominant (S-D) logic perspective. MIS Quarterly, 39 (1), 155-175.
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N., and Rigdon, E. (2001). Experiential value: conceptualization, measurement, and application in the catalog and Internet shopping environment. Journal
of Retailing, 77 (1), 39-56.
McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., and Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community.
Journal of Marketing, 66 (1), 38-54.
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., and Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13
(3), 334-359.
McKnight, D. H., Kacmar, C. J., and Choudhury, V. (2004). Shifting factors and the
ineffectiveness of third party assurance seals: A two-stage model of initial trust in a web business. Electronic Markets, 14 (3), 252-266.
Mills, P. K., and Morris, J. H. (1986). Clients as “partial” employees of service organizations: Role development in client participation. Academy of Management Review, 11 (4), 726-735.
Moeller, S., Ciuchita, R., Mahr, D., Odekerken-Schröder, G., and Fassnacht, M. (2013). Uncovering collaborative value creation patterns and establishing corresponding customer roles. Journal of Service Research, 16 (4), 471-487.
Nambisan, P., and Watt, J. H. (2011). Managing customer experiences in online product communities. Journal of Business Research, 64 (8), 889-895.
Nambisan, S. (2013). Information technology and product/service innovation: A brief assessment and some suggestions for future research. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 14 (4), 215-226.
Nambisan, S., and Baron, R. (2010). Different roles, different strokes: Organizing virtual customer environments to promote two types of customer contributions. Organization
Science, 21 (2), 554-572.
Nambisan, S., and Nambisan, P. (2008). How to profit from a better ‘Virtual Customer Environment.’ MIT Sloan Management Review, 49 (3), 53-61.
Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., and Yung, Y. F. (2000). Measuring the customer experience in online environments: A structural modeling approach. Marketing Science, 19 (1), 22-42. Olsen, S. O., and Mai, H. T. X. (2013). Consumer participation: The case of home meal
preparation. Psychology and Marketing, 30 (1), 1-11.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., and Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36 (4), 827-856.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., and Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (3), 636-652.
Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H. G., and Xue, Y. J. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31 (1), 105-136.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., and Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 83-96.
Prahalad, C. K., and Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (3), 5–14.
Preece J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
technology-mediated social participation. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer
Interaction, 1 (1), 13-32.
Rishika, R., Kumar, A., Janakiraman R., and Bezawada, R. (2013). The effect of customers’ social media participation on customer visit frequency and profitability: An empirical investigation. Information Systems Research, 24 (1), 108-127.
Ritter, T., and Walter, A. (2003). Relationship-specific antecedents of customer involvement in new product development. International Journal of Technology Management, 26 (5/6), 482-501.
Rothaermel, F. T., and Sugiyama, S. (2001). Virtual internet communities and commercial success: Individual and community-level theory grounded in the atypical case of TimeZone.com. Journal of Management, 27 (3), 297-312.
Schlosser, A. E., White, T. B., and Lloyd, S. M. (2006). Converting web site visitors into buyers: How web site investment increases consumer trusting beliefs and online purchase intentions. Journal of Marketing, 70 (2), 133-148.
Shneiderman, B., and Plaisant, C. (2004). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human–computer interaction. 4th ed. Boston: Addison Wesley Professional. Stabell, C. B., and Fjeldstad, Ø . D. (1998). Configuring value for competitive advantage: on
chains, shops, and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19 (5), 413–437.
Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Troye, S. V., and Supphellen, M. (2012). Consumer participation in coproduction: “I Made It Myself” effects on consumers’ sensory perceptions and evaluations of outcome and input product. Journal of Marketing, 76 (2), 33-46.
van der Heijden, H. (2003). Factors influencing the usage of websites: The case of a generic portal in the Netherlands. Information and Management, 40 (6), 541-549.
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, P., Pirner, P., and Verhoef, P. C. (2011). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13 (3), 253-266.
Vargo, S. L., and Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 1-17.
Vargo, S. L., and Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 1-10.
Wasko, M. M., and Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does”: Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9 (2-3), 155-173.
Wellman, B., and Gulia, M. (1999). Net-surfers don’t ride alone: Virtual communities as communities. In B. Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the global village (pp. 331-366).
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Westbrook, R. A., and Oliver, R. L. (1991). The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (1), 84-91. Wiertz, C., and de Ruyter, K. (2007). Beyond the call of duty: Why customers contribute to
firm-hosted commercial online communities. Organization Studies, 28 (3), 347-376. Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., and Troye, S. V. (2008). Trying to prosume: Toward a theory of
consumers as co-creators of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 109-122.
Yi, Y., and Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 66 (9), 1279-1284.
Yim, C. K., Chan, K. W., and Lam, S. S. K. (2012). Do customers and employees enjoy service participation? Synergistic effects of self- and other-efficacy. Journal of
Marketing, 76 (6), 121-140.
Yoo, J. J., Arnold, T. J., and Frankwick, G. L. (2012). Effects of positive customer-to-customer service interaction. Journal of Business Research, 65 (9), 1313-1320. Yun, Z. S., and Good, L. K. (2007). Developing customer loyalty from e-tail store image
科技部補助計畫衍生研發成果推廣資料表
日期:2015/10/30科技部補助計畫
計畫名稱: 線上服務的顧客參與過程：服務主導邏輯觀點 計畫主持人: 白佩玉 計畫編號: 103-2410-H-004-115- 學門領域: 資訊管理無研發成果推廣資料
103年度專題研究計畫研究成果彙整表
計畫主持人：白佩玉 計畫編號： 103-2410-H-004-115-計畫名稱：線上服務的顧客參與過程：服務主導邏輯觀點 成果項目 量化 單位 備註（質化說明 ：如數個計畫共 同成果、成果列 為該期刊之封面 故事...等） 實際已達成 數（被接受 或已發表） 預期總達成 數（含實際 已達成數） 本計畫實 際貢獻百 分比 國內 論文著作 期刊論文 0 1 100% 篇 研究報告/技術報告 0 0 100% 研討會論文 0 0 100% 專書 0 0 100% 章/本 專利 申請中件數 0 0 100% 件 已獲得件數 0 0 100% 技術移轉 件數 0 0 100% 件 權利金 0 0 100% 千元 參與計畫人力 （本國籍） 碩士生 2 2 100% 人次 博士生 0 0 100% 博士後研究員 0 0 100% 專任助理 0 0 100% 國外 論文著作 期刊論文 0 1 100% 篇 研究報告/技術報告 0 0 100% 研討會論文 0 1 100% 專書 0 0 100% 章/本 專利 申請中件數 0 0 100% 件 已獲得件數 0 0 100% 技術移轉 件數 0 0 100% 件 權利金 0 0 100% 千元 參與計畫人力 （外國籍） 碩士生 0 0 100% 人次 博士生 0 0 100% 博士後研究員 0 0 100% 專任助理 0 0 100% 其他成果 （無法以量化表達之 成果如辦理學術活動 、獲得獎項、重要國 際合作、研究成果國 際影響力及其他協助 產業技術發展之具體 效益事項等，請以文 無成果項目 量化 名稱或內容性質簡述 科 教 處 計 畫 加 填 項 目 測驗工具(含質性與量性) 0 課程/模組 0 電腦及網路系統或工具 0 教材 0 舉辦之活動/競賽 0 研討會/工作坊 0 電子報、網站 0 計畫成果推廣之參與（閱聽）人數 0
