Format for Submissions

CONCEPTUALISING TOUCHPOINT CONTAINERS TO ENHANCE MULTI-ACTOR EXPERIENCE Vanessa Rodrigues a and Stefan Holmlida a Linköping University, Sweden ABSTRACT When designing and managing services, customer journey mapping and service blueprints are often used to described and understand the specific service. However, in many services, when implemented, actual customer journeys are intersecting in specific spaces. This paper introduces the touchpoint container as a strong concept to understand resource integration in spaces where touchpoints from different customer journeys have been collected. We provide an empirical illustration on what a touchpoint container is and highlight the features of such a container.

KEYWORDS Touchpoint container, touchpoint, customer experience, service design INTRODUCTION Understanding the customer experience has been integral to both practitioners and service researchers alike. Customer experience is dynamic and unfolds across numerous stages in the customer journey. Further, it includes multiple touchpoints in the stages preceding and following the service-related interactions. Recent advances in technology have led to the transformation of services, resulting in the proliferation of possible touchpoints and reduction of organizational control over the experience as a whole, thus requiring firms to integrate various business functions (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). Subsequently, the creation, management and control of customer journeys and their experience has become increasingly complex (Edelman & Singer, 2015; Rawson, Duncan, & Jones, 2013). The Marketing Science Institute (2014, 2016) lists understanding customers and their experiences as one of their tier one research priorities reflecting the growing complexity of interactions and behavioral change caused by the introduction of technology and other forces. Service blueprints, customer journey maps and moments of truth have been used to study the customer experience across several touchpoints (Bitner, Ostrom, & Morgan, 2008; Normann, 2001; Shostack, 1984; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010). However, these are often a reflection of the dyadic firm-to-customer perspective (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2015). The evolution of services as networked offerings encompassing multiple actors requires a change from the conventional dyadic firm-to-customer to

a multi-actor systems conceptualization of customer experience. In response to the call for a more practice-based approach and in order to better understand the dynamic holistic nature of customer experience (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2015), we introduce the concept of touchpoint containers. The touchpoint container is a consequence of assuming a multi-actor co-creation perspective in contrast to single customer journeys. It also highlights the variations that can occur at specific touchpoints as a result of multiple customer journeys. The next section provides a brief overview of relevant literature. The section after introduces the touchpoint container and provides an empirical example of the concept. The discussion section sheds light on the implications of conceptualizing the touchpoint container and highlights areas that could benefit from it. The paper concludes with opportunities for future research. BACKGROUND Customer experience and touchpoints Customer experience has been described as an internal and subjective response to any direct or indirect contact a customer has with a firm (Meyer & Schwager, 2007). Lemon and Verhoef (2016, p. 74) conceptualize customer experience as “a customer’s “journey” with a firm over time during the purchase cycle across multiple touch points.” Meyer and Schwager (2007, p. 3) define ‘touch points’ as "instances of direct contact either with the product or service itself or with representations of it by the company or some third party.” They use the term "customer corridor" to represent the series of touchpoints experienced by a customer. Their definition of touchpoints can be formulated in a way that resonates with more contemporary views of service logic: as instances of value cocreation through direct or indirect contact in a service process by a cocreating actor of the service system, and the service system (represented by an institution, an actor, or a resource). According to Parker and Heapy (2006, p. 26) “touchpoints are the people and tangible things that shape the experience of services.” They posit that the concept of touchpoints gained relevance out of organizations’ interest in brand reinforcement that went above and beyond campaigns. Koivisto (2009, p. 145) describes touchpoints in the context of service moments, wherein “the service and its brand is experienced and perceived with all the senses.” These conceptualizations highlight the significance of touchpoints and their tight coupling with customer experience.

Prior research in the customer behavior and decision making domain identify different stages of the purchase cycle that include the search prior to the purchase and after-sales stages (Neslin et al., 2006; Puccinelli et al., 2009). With respect to the customer journey, these can be understood as three distinct stages: prepurcase, purchase and postpurchase (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). Further, each of these stages consists of multiple touchpoints. Usually direct contact transpires in the purchase and postpurchase stages, and is typically initiated by the customer. In contrast, indirect contact implies unplanned encounters with firm offerings under the mantel of word-of-mouth, advertising, news reports, reviews, and so forth. Touchpoints can be broadly classified into four categories: brand-owned, partner-owned, customer-owned and social/external/independent touchpoints (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). In addition, they can also be divided as channels, objects, processes and people (Koivisto, 2009). Customer interaction with any of these touchpoint categories might occur in any given stage of the customer journey. Service Systems Within the marketing stream of literature, service has been understood as a perspective on value co-creation (Edvardsson, Gustafsson, & Roos, 2005). Actors co-create value for themselves through interactions (S. Vargo & Lusch, 2004) and it is dependent on their integration of the available resources in a service system (Edvardsson, Tronvoll, & Gruber, 2011). Vargo and Lusch (2011, p. 184) argue that: “Service provision implies the ongoing combination of resources, through integration, and their application, driven by operant resources — the activities of actors”. Service systems utilize three kinds of resources – people, technology and information – in different proportions (Spohrer, Maglio, Bailey, & Gruhl, 2007). The integration of resources in a system also leads to creation of new resources. In the case of customer experiences, resources in context also plays an important role. Every actor uniquely affects other actors in the context as well as the context in its entirety. The continuous integrating, exchanging and creation of new resources with other actors constantly changes the context (Chandler & Vargo, 2011). Thus, service systems evolve as a result of this dynamic resource integration. The “value” of the resources that are combined in distinct situations are affected by how their uses and limitations are understood in that interaction (Siltaloppi & Vargo, 2014).

TOUCHPOINT CONTAINER Customer journeys used in conjunction with other service design tools and techniques can provide a rich understanding both of the customer as well their experiences and expectations. It takes into account that while customers may roughly follow the process suggested by the firm, they also allow their needs and behavior to shape their choices in their journey (Koivisto, 2009). Thus, each service journey is unique depending on their actions and how they utilize the options and channels offered by firms. For example, train tickets can be booked via the Internet or a travel agency or a ticket vending machine, and the customer can choose to travel to the station in his own car or by bus. However, the focus of such tools is typically the idealized journey and they are often studied in isolation from other journeys. While journeys and experiences of different customers may be studied to understand the process, identify touchpoints and gain insights both from the customer and firm point of view, they may not necessarily provide a rounded view of what may be required by the firm at specific touchpoints for multiple customers. This has to do with the sequential or process conceptualization of the customer experience. From an organizational standpoint, touchpoints from several customer journeys may overlap and cross paths at several touchpoints. It may also occur that customers deviate from their “planned” journey and interact at another touchpoint that lies outside the purview of their actual journey. Thus, there is a vertical build-up of touchpoints that is not so discernable when drawing up individual journeys. We conceptualize the touchpoint container to reflect this layered nature of touchpoints. Touchpoint containers can be physical, digital or a combination of both. Although the container as a whole will have access to the same front-line staff and/or similar resources, the role each actor plays will vary based on the journey they are involved in and the experiences could differ according to the goals of each actor. An airline service desk at an airport can be understood as an example of a physical touchpoint container. The airline service agent may interact with passengers in order to handle baggage claims, check in passengers and provide boarding passes, provide lounge access, sell and collect tickets, assist with passengers with special needs answer passenger inquiries on the phone and in person or calm nervous passengers. In this case, service agents would need to adapt their interaction with various passengers depending on their individual goals. The varying goals require efficient utilization of resources and possibly the recalibration of roles to best serve the passengers. As a digital example consider the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system for a healthcare provision service. The callers may want to (re)schedule appointments, obtain information on treatment possibilities, seek medical advice or renew prescriptions. The IVR system menu has been pre-emptively designed for

differing caller (patient) goals. The human computer interaction via mobile phone keypads then directs callers on how to proceed based on their input corresponding to the menu. Thus, in both examples, customer (i.e. passenger and caller) journeys converge into the touchpoint container and then begin to diverge as a result of their goals. Empirical example This example is taken from a research project in Sweden focused on patient-centered care. The project team utilized insights derived from interviews with patients and healthcare personnel to develop training videos. The purpose of the videos was to showcase the service variations that one encounters in the course of their work. Further, it was meant to sensitize staff to the plight of the patients as well as colleagues. One of the videos focuses on the interactions at the reception of the primary healthcare center. The reception is a touchpoint in several different service processes, and an access to several different service systems. Accordingly, the receptionist adapts depending on who is coming up to the desk. At every individual touchpoint, different resources are activated to make sure that the service will function. For example, the situations vary from requests to switch appointment times, renewal of prescriptions, complaints from patients in the waiting room, communication difficulties with foreigners among others. In each instance, the receptionist integrates and operates on different resources that are available. Further, the utilization of the resources is done in a specific context within, and at a certain process stage in each service. Figure 1: Illustration of touchpoint container at a healthcare center

DISCUSSION The increasing complexity of service interactions has prompted the conceptualization of touchpoint containers. Understanding the activities and functions undertaken in the container has implications for several aspects of the service including service design, resource integration, roles and variations. Patrício, Fisk, Falcão e Cunha, and Constantine (2011) present the Multilevel Service Design (MSD) method that enables the integration of experiences right from the design of the service concept through the design of the service system and service encounter. They utilize the Service Experience Blueprint (SEB) to map out the service experience of different participants across channels and interfaces (Patrício, Fisk, & Falcão e Cunha, 2008). The SEB figure depicts lines of interaction, lines of visibility, fail points, waiting points, and service interface links. This overview enables the orchestration of a seamless customer experience across channels for a particular journey. However, this depiction still lacks the vertical representation of touchpoints. This is where the touchpoint container comes in. Take for example customers visiting a bank. It is possible that they may be at the bank for different errands like depositing money, processing a loan application or opening a company bank account. Each of these errands represents a different journey, however, upon entering the bank premises the customers must take a queue token corresponding to their errand. Here, the token dispensing machine acts as a touchpoint container that reroutes customers based on their choice at that specific touchpoint. In the case of the healthcare reception, the data used to create the videos unintentionally revealed the varying tasks that reception personnel undertake, some of them outside the purview of their daily activities. In another healthcare-related case, Blomkvist (2011) highlights the difficulties that patients and visitors faced in the registration process due to the abundance of information and confusing spatial layout when arriving at the emergency ward (see Figure 2). For instance, since the difference between where to register and where to pay was not apparent to visitors, they frequently walked up to the registration window instead of the payment window. This could be understood as a deviation from the intended journey (payment) to an extrinsic touchpoint. Further, there was a risk that people in need of immediate attention would wait for a queuing ticket instead of going to the window directly. Thus, careful observation and analysis of the touchpoint container could uncover new customer needs or problematic touchpoints. Drawing up the touchpoint container activities makes it possible to detect if the touchpoints align well within the container or if some other touchpoints need to be added or taken away to enhance the customer experience. Pre-identification and subsequent

training can vastly improve the touchpoint experience in the containers by sensitizing staff to variations that might occur. One might also improve adaptability by empowering staff to take decisions, thereby leading to quicker responses when faced with variation from service processes. Another area concerning adaptability is how one might prevent the disruption of other services should something go wrong in the touchpoint container. Figure 2: Overview of waiting room (Adapted from Blomkvist (2011))

A service system consists of technologies and people that adaptively compute and adjust to a system’s changing value of knowledge (Spohrer et al., 2007). The design of the touchpoint container assumes the concept of the service system as a configuration of people, technologies, and other resources that interact with other service systems to create mutual value (Maglio, Vargo, Caswell, & Spohrer, 2009). Although a customers’ journey spans different types of touchpoints, an organization can influence the experience in firm-owned and possibly partner-owned touchpoints. Identifying and mapping the layered activities in the touchpoint container materializes the aforementioned aspects of the service system, makes them comprehensible and available for critical review and redesign from the firm’s perspective. The implications of conceptualizing the touchpoint container can be understood as follows: • It focuses on the functions and activities occurring at a specific touchpoint that appears in multiple journeys. • It is where actions taken by the customer result in corresponding trajectories of service. • It is where deviations from intended journeys can be redirected.

•

It reveals the variations in roles of participants in the container.

CONCLUSION This paper introduces the concept of the touchpoint container and highlights the features of a container. Studying the touchpoint container from both the provider and customer perspective could shed light on the various activities that occur in the touchpoint container and thereby highlight the avenues for enhancing the customer experience. Further, an analysis of the shared activities could contribute to a better understanding of resources incorporated and roles assumed by the involved actors. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska – Curie grant agreement No 642116. The information and views set out in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

REFERENCES Bitner, M., Ostrom, A., & Morgan, F. (2008), ”"Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation”, California Management Review, 50 (3), 66–94. Blomkvist, J. (2011). Conceptualising prototypes in service design. Linköping University. Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011), “Contextualization and value-incontext: How context frames exchange”, Marketing Theory, 11 (1), 35-49. Edelman, D. C., & Singer, M. (2015), ”Competing on customer journeys”, Harvard Business Review, 93 (11), 88-100. Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A., & Roos, I. (2005), “Service portraits in service research: a critical review”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16 (1), 107–121. Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011), “Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (2), 327–339. Koivisto, M. (2009), “Frameworks for structuring services and customer experiences”, in S. Miettinen & M. Koivisto (Eds.), Designing services with innovative methods (pp. 136-149): Helsinki University of Art and Design. Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016), “Understanding Customer Experience Throughout the Customer Journey”, Journal of Marketing, 80 (6), 69-96. Maglio, P., Vargo, S., Caswell, N., & Spohrer, J. (2009), “The service system is the basic abstraction of service science”, Information Systems and e-Business Management, 7 (4), 395–406. McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Gustafsson, A., Jaakkola, E., Klaus, P., Radnor, Z. J., Perks, H., & Friman, M. (2015), “Fresh perspectives on customer experience”, Journal of Services Marketing, 29 (6/7), 430-435. Meyer, C., & Schwager, A. (2007), “Understanding Customer Experience”, Harvard Business Review, 1-11. MSI. (2014), Marketing Science Institute Research priorities 2014-2016. Retrieved from Cambridge, MA: http://www.msi.org/uploads/files/MSI_RP14-16.pdf MSI. (2016), Marketing Science Institute Research priorities 2016-2018. Retrieved from Cambridge, MA: http://www.msi.org/uploads/articles/MSI_RP16-18.pdf Neslin, S. A., Grewal, D., Leghorn, R., Shankar, V., Teerling, M. L., Thomas, J. S., & Verhoef, P. C. (2006), “Challenges and Opportunities in Multichannel Customer Management”, Journal of Service Research, 9 (2), 95-112.

Normann, R. (2001), Reframing business: when the map changes the landscape: John Wiley & Sons. Parker, S., & Heapy, J. (2006), The journey to the interface. London: Demos. Patrício, L., Fisk, R., & Falcão e Cunha, J. (2008), “Designing multiinterface service experiences: the service experience blueprint”, Journal of Service Research, 10 (4), 318–334. Patrício, L., Fisk, R., Falcão e Cunha, J., & Constantine, L. (2011), “Multilevel service design: from customer value constellation to service experience blueprinting”, Journal of Service Research, 14 (2), 180–200. Puccinelli, N. M., Goodstein, R. C., Grewal, D., Price, R., Raghubir, P., & Stewart, D. (2009), “Customer Experience Management in Retailing: Understanding the Buying Process”, Journal of Retailing, 85 (1), 15-30. Rawson, A., Duncan, E., & Jones, C. (2013), “The truth about customer experience”, Harvard Business Review, 91 (9), 90-98. Shostack, G. L. (1984), “Designing services that deliver”, Harvard Business Review, 62 (1), 133–139. Siltaloppi, J., & Vargo, S. L. (2014), “Reconciling Resource Integration and Value Propositions--The Dynamics of Value Co-creation”, In System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference, 1278-1284. Spohrer, J., Maglio, P., Bailey, J., & Gruhl, D. (2007), “Steps toward a science of service systems”, Computer, 40 (1), 71-77. Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 1–17. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011), “It's all B2B…and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market”, Industrial Marketing Management, 40 (2), 181-187. Zomerdijk, L., & Voss, C. (2010), “Service design for experience-centric services”, Journal of Service Research, 13 (1), 67–82.