Purpose—The main purpose of this study was to develop a service-system framework in which people interact with cognitive assistants (CAs) for co-creation of value, such as enhanced communication and better task management.
Methodology—Qualitative research was undertaken to deeply investigate and explore the value co-created through people’s interactions with CAs. A total of 32 interviews were conducted in three phases. The interview data were analysed using MAXQDA 12.
Results—The results of this study indicate that most of the users use Apple’s Siri, Amazon Eco or Google Home as their CAs and that people’s interactions with CAs are influenced by their trust in and relative advantages of using CAs. The results also indicate that a diversity of value, such as enhanced communication, better task management, enhanced information retrieval, enhanced learning and better data-driven decisions, is co-created through interactions between people and CAs.
Implications—We developed a service-system framework in which CAs are considered as actors and introduced the concept of ‘autonomous agency’ for controlling and coordinating people’s interactions with CAs.
Originality—This is the first study on the value co-creation from people’s interactions with CAs (artificial-intelligence-based systems) by proposing a service-system framework in which CAs are considered as actors.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
5.
DemirkanH.BessC.SpohrerJ.RayesA.AllenD.MoghaddamY. (2015). Innovation with smart service systems: Analytics, big data, cognitive assistance and the internet of everything. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(1), 733–752.
6.
DunnJ. (2017). Jeff Bezoes says the Eco ‘isn’t about’ getting people to shop on Amazon, and he may be right. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/what-people-do-with-amazon-echo-chart-2017-2
7.
GiddensA. (1984). The construction of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
8.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.
9.
KellyK. (2016). The inevitable: Understanding the 12 technological forecasts that will shape our future. New York, NY: Viking.
10.
KiselevaJ.WilliamsK.JiangJ.AwadallahA. H.CrookA. C.ZitouniI.AnastasakosT. (2016). Understanding user satisfaction with intelligent assistants. In KellyD.CapraR. (Eds.), The proceedings of CHIIR’ 16, March 13–17, 2016 (pp. 121–130). NY, USA: ACM.
11.
LanktonN.McKnightD. H.ThatcherJ. B. (2014). Incorporating trust-in-technology into expectation disconfirmation theory. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23(2), 128–145.
12.
LeeS. Y.ChoiJ. (2017). Enhancing user experience with conversational agent for movie recommendation: Effects of self-disclosure and reciprocity. International Journal of Human—Computer Studies, 103, 95–105.
13.
LuschR. F.VargoS. L. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
MaglioP. P. (2017). Editorial column–new directions in service science: value cocreation in the age of autonomous service systems. Service Science, 9(1), 1–2.
15.
MaglioP. P.SpohrerJ. (2013). A service science perspective on business model innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(5), 665–670.
16.
MuirB. M.MorayN. (1996). Trust in automation: Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39(3), 429–460.
17.
NorthD. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
OrlikowskiW. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking of the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.
19.
ParasuramanA. (2000). Technology readiness index (TRI): A multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320.
20.
RaoA. S.VerweijG. (2017). Sizing the prize, what’s the real value of AI for your business and how can you capitalize? PwC Publication. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/analytics/assets/pwc-ai-analysis-sizing-the-prize-report.pdf
21.
RogersE. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
22.
RouseW. B.SpohrerJ. C. (2018). Automating versus augmenting intelligence. Journal of Enterprise Transformation, 1–21. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19488289.2018.1424059
23.
SiddikeM. A. K.HidakaK. (2017). Towards a value metrics—A service dominant-logic view. In AhramT.KarwowskiW. (Eds.), Advances in the human side of service engineering. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (vol. 494). Cham: Springer.
24.
SiddikeM. A. K.KohdaY. (2018). Towards a framework of trust determinants in people and cognitive assistants interactions. Proceedings of the 51th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS 51). HI: University of Hawaii. Retrieved from https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/50561
25.
SiddikeM. A. K.IwanoK.HidakaK.KohdaY.SpohrerJ. (2017). Wisdom service systems: Harmonious interactions with people and machines. In FreundL. E.CellaryW. (Eds.), Advances in the human side of service engineering, advances in intelligent systems and computing 601. Cham: Springer. Retrieved from https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/50092
26.
SiddikeM. A. K.SpohrerJ.DemirkanH.KohdaY. (2018). People’s interactions with cognitive assistants for enhanced performances. In Proceedings of the 51th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS 51). Hawaii: University of Hawaii.
27.
SpohrerJ. (2016). Innovation for jobs with cognitive assistants: A service science perspective. In NordforsD.CerfV.SengesM. (Eds.), Disrupting unemployment (pp. 132–146). Missouri: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
28.
SpohrerJ.BanavarG. (2015). Cognition as a service: An industry perspective. AI Magazine, 36(4), 71–86.
29.
SpohrerJ.MaglioP. P. (2008). Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(1), 18–20.
30.
SpohrerJ.MaglioP. P. (2009). Service science: Toward a smarter planet. In KarwowskiW.SalvendyG. (Eds.), Service engineering. New York, NY: Wiley (pp. 1–30).
31.
SpohrerJ.KwanS. K.FiskR. P. (2014). Marketing: A service science and arts perspective. In RustR. T.HuangM. (Eds.), Handbook of service marketing research (pp. 489–526), Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers.
32.
SpohrerJ.BassanoC.PiciocchiP.SiddikeM. A. K. (2017). What makes a system smart? Wise? In AhramT.KarwowskiW. (Eds.) , Advances in the human side of service engineering. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (vol. 494). Cham: Springer.
33.
SpohrerJ.SiddikeM. A. K.KohdaM. A. K. (2017). Rebuilding evolution: A service science perspective. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 1663–1672). University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI, USA. Retrieved from https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/41354
34.
SpohrerJ.VargoS. L.CasewellN.MaglioP. P. (2008). The service system is the basic abstraction of service science. In The proceedings of 41st Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: IEEE Press.
35.
SpohrerJ.MaglioP. P. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67.
36.
VargoS. L.AkakaM. A. (2012). Value cocreation and service systems (re)formantion: A service ecosystems view. Service Science, 4(3), 207–217.
37.
VargoS. L.LuschR. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23.
38.
YinR. K. (2014). Case study research: Design methods (5th ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
39.
YukselB. F.CollisonR.CzerwinskiM. (2017). Brains or beauty: How to engender trust in user-agent interactions. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 17(2), 1–20.
