Service Prototyping eXperience

Service Prototyping eXperience Abdul Rahman Abdel Razek, Christian van Husen, Martin Raban Service Innovation Furtwangen University [email protected]

Marc Pallot, Simon Richir Innovation & Presence Lab Arts et Metiers ParisTech, LAMPA Laval, France

Abstract— Companies around the world are aiming to improve their decision making, which is specially challenging in new service development. We aim to provide a crucial practice-oriented procedure with a good cost-benefit ratio; through service prototyping. Service prototyping offers an early service experience to enable stakeholders to explore a new service idea, communicate a new service concept, and evaluate a new service design, even before the service exists. In this paper, we outline a standard definition for service prototyping experience, extracting from user experience, customer experience and service experience. We represent our explorative research conceptual service prototyping framework, and our definition of service prototyping experience. Our aim in this paper is to increase and clarify the knowledge on service prototyping and standardizing the definition for a service prototyping experience.

resolute to find the most inclusive method of exploring, defining, and characterizing service prototyping and its constructs. To be able to explore service prototypes and service prototyping, an extensive research was and is being done in investigating each of these constructs. Defining and characterizing the service prototype experience is an essential stage in our research, as it represents a one step closer to a more comprehensive service experience replication, even before the service exists. We aim to define the service prototyping experiences and propose our service prototyping framework by using our research for the past two years, collected through research work, and use cases which includes researching service engineering, design and innovation as well as immersive technologies literature.

Keywords— Service Innovation; Service Prototyping; Service Experience; User eXperience, Customer Experience, Immersive Service Prototyping

II. PREVIOUS WORK

I. INTRODUCTION As global services economy grows; the need for innovation cultivate with the competition. Organizations all over the world are searching for a reliable, affordable and efficient service development procedures. Researchers are looking for innovative ways to innovate the service development process. Service Engineering is complex and takes longer time than todays’ market requirements. Service design offers a wide array of service development tools, but it is not that popular with manufacturing industries. Service prototyping offers an agile process that allows iterations, co-creative engaging service stakeholders at the early stage to improve the service experience. This innovative procedure ensures that the developed service has the highest probability of success, and the highest quality of service. As shown by recent studies; around 40% of newly introduced service fail within the first year [1]. Technology evolution has also increased the complexity of the service context by multiplying the ways customers can interact with other customers and with different service providers, leading to complex service networks [2]. This complexity will only increase in the future. Furthermore, from a service research perspective, service relationships are built from a series of encounters with a service organization [3]. Technology has radically changed the service context [4]. This represents a new context of service, characterized by an interconnected world, where people and devices are connected by continuous information stream, which is likely to disrupt various markets. [5]. In our research project, dimenSion, we

978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

ISO defines a service as a method that organizations use to deliver, intangible and tangible elements, resulting in customers value [6]. The focus of service innovation should therefore be on the customer and what generates value for, to, and with the customer. Service design is built upon understanding customer experience to design service offerings [7]. Value is not created until the customer integrates and applies the resources of the service provider with other resources in their own context. Involving customers and other actors in the service design and innovation process can therefore follow a more expert mind-set or a more participatory mind-set. Some researchers see customers as the true experts in domains of experience such as living, learning, or working and bring them to actively participate in the design decisions [8]. In the simplest of contexts, interactions between service actors can be grouped into four service groups: human-to-human, human to machine, machine to machine, and human to nature [4]. Experience can be considered as “Process or fact of personally observing, encountering, or undergoing something” as the “totality of the cognitions given by perception; all that is perceived, understood, and remembered” [9]. Experience can come in various forms, as perceptual, cognitive, reciprocal, social, emotional, cultural, emphatical, technological, economical, legal and ethical [10]. Several researchers characterized an experience with four phases, stimulation, replication, synchronization, and dissipation [11]. Service experience and user experience are alike in that both exceed the applied features and usability aspects to explore the emotional, partiality, and contextual service nature They also both focus on the functional and aesthetic elements while they experience through technology [11]. Where McCarthy and Wright defined

2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)

a technological experience with four components; sensual, emotional, compositional and spatiotemporal [12]. A customer experience could have complex concentric experiences, involving communities, technologies, people, and even nature. Moreover, the customer experience could be observed physically in a real, virtual or even a combination of both. In this regard, it is imperative to investigate the term experience in service innovation to improve the service prototyping process; by trying to find a way to have the most comprehensive service prototyping experience; as we didn’t find any definition for service prototyping experience in literature, which we aim to define through our research. The only mention of the term service prototyping experience in our literature review was in a thesis work in 2014, and was describing a buddy service prototyping experience for a design of a transportation buddy service [13] but this was used as to describe the experience of that moment, to reveal what kind of dimensions could help him in the design of the service, not to define or to characterize a service prototyping experience in that sense. A. Service Prototyping Service Prototyping is a process for service development that uses service representations or parts of it to explore an idea, communicate a concept and evaluate a design; whilst covering different intangible and tangible aspects, different activities, and diverse stakeholders. Service prototype types could be categorized into conventional service prototyping (CSP) and immersive service prototyping (ISP). CSP could be categorized into 4 types: (1) Verbal Service Prototyping (VSP), is a verbal service prototyping process that uses cognitive stimulus to engage service stakeholders; (2) Paper Service Prototyping (PSP) is a service prototyping paper based process, (3) Mock-up Service Prototyping (MSP) is a service prototyping process that uses physical or digital mock-ups, (4) Simulation Service Prototyping (SSP) is a service prototyping process that uses real or imaginary service simulations. ISP could be divided into three types; (1) Virtual Reality Service Prototyping (VRSP) is a service prototyping process that uses a real or imaginary service idea in a virtual scenario or simulation (2) Augmented Reality Service Prototyping (ARSP) is a prototyping process that uses a real or imaginary idea by using overlaid information and objects in a real environment, (3) Mixed Reality Service Prototyping (MRSP) is a service prototyping process that uses a real or imaginary idea by interacting with virtual information and objects in a real environment [14]. Service prototyping (SP) is a novel service development process; we aim to increase the knowledge base and explore new concepts and methods of service prototyping. To be able to quite understand the structural design of service prototyping, we added a service prototyping elements structure Fig. (1) graphically representing all the main SP elements as, dimensions, aspects, attributes, types and techniques, for a better understanding of SP intricate constructs. The first step to recognize how to create the most comprehensive service prototype, that can best represent the actual or future service experience, is to define what could characterize and define a Service Prototyping eXperience (SPX). To be able to grasp what is a SPX; we have trace back the definitions used for all the relevant different experiences, including the characterizations of

978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

“Experience”, “Customer Experience”, and “Service Experience”. This publication will be discussing these three main questions: (1) What are the main definitions of experience, service experience, and customer experience? (2) What constitutes a service prototyping experience? And how can we define it? (3) What is the service prototyping conceptual framework? And how will it be validated?

Fig. 1. Service Prototyping Constructs Representation

III. METHODS A literature review was done on all the relevant, and most referenced literature concerning, customer experience, and service experience within the service innovation domain. Through our research work, from ideating, designing, developing and testing several service prototypes for industry partners as part of research project. These use cases, with the individual and focus group interviews done to refine the idea, with the industrial service stakeholders. Further workshops were conducted to have the most comprehensive design to match the stakeholder’s requirements and needs. There were several service prototypes developed, using both conventional and immersive service prototyping techniques. These prototypes helped us to realize what the stakeholders wanted and through these service prototyping process we improved on our service prototype until it was ready to be tested by the company with the public. We also developed a conceptual framework that represents our service prototyping process and its constructs. This proposed framework will be validated through the experiments done in the second quarter of 2018. These tests will be done in an academic setting with individual and focus group


experiments. These will also include qualitative and quantitative methods, from bipolar questionnaires with justification questions to conducting informal service prototyping workshops; to create more understanding for service prototyping process in this exploratory stage. These experiments also aim to validate the Immersive Service Prototyping (ISP) framework, through using immersive service prototyping types against conventional service prototyping types.

As a standard definition for UX; it further argues that the type of product or service, user profile and the context of use are factors influencing UX. In Table (1) we present the most used and accredited definitions for experience, as there is no standard definition for experience in service innovation. TABLE I.

SELECTED EXPERIENCE DEFINITION “Experience”

Definitions

Fig. 2. Refined Service Prototyping Matrix

And as you can see from Fig. (2), our refined service prototyping matrix, we have refined it visually from its first version in one of our previous publications [15]. We also had several meetings concerning the renaming of two of the key development aspects, to better represent the aspect, changing the first two key developmental aspects it into ideation, and requirements specification instead of idea and requirements. Another refinement is the graphical display of the service dimensions, which is under research and discussion in another ongoing publication. Our explorative research faces several challenges, as the non-existence of service prototyping experience characterization or definition in any literature, and the limited information on service prototyping cases studies or service prototypes use cases. We also limited our research to service experience literature; nonetheless we attempt to have representative definitions and characterizations from all the major service research streams. IV. FINDINGS We tried to collect all the most appropriate and relevant definitions and characterizations for the terms “experience”, “service experience” and “customer experience” in our literature review. As for the term “user experience” We will consider "User Experience (UX) is a person's perceptions and responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service; it includes all users' emotions, beliefs, preferences, perceptions, physical and psychological responses, behaviors and accomplishments that occur before, during and after the use of product, system or service”, (ISO Definition ISO 9241-210).

978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

“Practical contact with and observation of facts or events” “An event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone” “Process of getting knowledge or skill from doing, seeing, or feeling things” “Process or fact of personally observing, encountering, or undergoing something” “Totality of the cognitions given by perception; all that is perceived, understood, and remembered” “A steady flow of fantasies, feelings, and fun” “A primarily subjective state of consciousness with a variety of symbolic meanings, hedonic responses, and aesthetic criteria” “Take-away impression form by people’s encounters with products, services, and businesses – a perception produced when humans consolidate sensory information” “Experience is specific knowledge that has been acquired by and agent during past problem solving;” therefore “experiences are stored knowledge” “Experiences are events that engage individuals in a personal way and derive from the individual’s prior state of mind and being” “Experience is an emergent phenomenon. It is the outcome of participation in a set of activities within a social context” “Result of encountering, undergoing, or living through situations. They are triggered stimulations to the senses, the heart, and the mind” “Products, whether they are predominantly goods or services, are essentially experiences” “An experience is inherent; a positive experience is not. Customers consciously and unconsciously filter a baggage of clues, in the form of experiences, and organize them into sets of impressions – some rational and others more emotional. Anything perceived or sensed – or conspicuous in its absence – is an experience clue”

Ref.

[16] [17] [9]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25] [26]

As represented in Table (1) there is an abundance of definitions that almost have the same meaning. In our search to define an experience, we found that the best service oriented representation of the word “experience” is to be people’s impression, and perception form service encounters [20] attained as stored information [21] derived from and engaged with prior knowledge [22] stimulating [24] consciously and subconsciously anything that is perceived or sensed [26]. Brakus et al. [27] suggests that for every service exchange, in any shape or form, there is a customer experience. In this table we will represent the most cited and accredited definitions for customer experience, as there is no standard definition for customer experience in service prototyping. Table (2) will help us define an inclusive definition of Customer eXperience (CX);


leading to better understanding to the customer perceived service prototyping experience. TABLE II.

SELECTED CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE DEFINITIONS “Customer Experience” Definitions

“spend time enjoying a series of memorable events”” to engage him in an inherently personal way” Proposes that the customer experiences can described with the price experience, promotion experience. “By ‘total experience’ we mean the feelings customers take away from their interaction with a firm’s goods, services, and ‘atmospheric’ stimuli” “A Personalized experience is unique to each individual consumer. Co-creation experience takes place in individual-centric experience networks. Linked to learning process and change” “Customer service experience is a holistic, perceived phenomenon that is always subjective, case specific and personal” “The internal and subjective response customers have to any direct or indirect contact with a company” even the” unplanned encounters with representatives of a company’s products, services, or brands” as well as “word-of-mouth recommendations or criticism, advertising, news reports, reviews, and so forth.” “Multidimensional construct and specifically state that the customer experience construct is holistic in nature and involves the customer’s cognitive, affective, emotional, social, and physical responses to the retailer” “An experience is also built up through a collection of these touch points in multiple phases of a customer’s decision process or purchase journey “ “The total customer experience is a multidimensional construct that involves cognitive, emotional, behavioral, sensorial, and social components “the customer’s subjective response to the holistic direct and indirect encounter with the firm” “Cognitive, emotional, physical, sensorial, spiritual, and social elements that mark the customer’s direct or indirect interaction with other market actors” “Customer experience is a multidimensional construct focusing on a customer’s cognitive, emotional, behavioral, sensorial, and social responses to a firm’s offerings during the customer’s entire purchase journey” “An experience can be thought of as the result of a process or a customer journey that builds on multiple encounters at different touchpoints. The experience is formed by what happens during the journey and different stages of the process may have a stronger impact on the overall evaluation”

Ref.

[22]

Service experience can be described as an architectural element process during the service delivery [38] and as there is no standard definition or description for service experience, we attempt to have a representative and comprehensive definitions of service experience, as shown in Table (3), where we represent the most citrated and accredited definitions from service experience, from our literature review.

[28] TABLE III. [29]

SELECTED SERVICE EXPERIENCE DEFINITIONS “Service Experience” Definitions

[30]

[25]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35] [36]

[37]

[5]

We consider a Customer eXperience (CX) as the multidimensional holistic experience, that includes product user experience and service experience, throughout the service cycle [32]. CX is a holistic subjective perceived [25] personalized feeling that each individual customer [30] take away directly or indirectly form the service or the service provider [31] including cognitive, behavioral, emotional, social, and physical responses

978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

[34] which could have a stronger impact on the overall service evaluation [5].

Ref.

“A hedonic, extraordinary. Newness of perception and process and high levels of emotional intensity” “The outcomes of interactions between organizations, related systems/processes, service employees and customers” “Experience of service in its totality, a sensation, or knowledge acquisition that emerges from being engaged with many actors at different times and places” “A service process that creates the customer’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses, resulting in a mental mark, a memory”

[39]

Emphasizes that a service experience is a unique subjective perceived experience that is, situationand setting specific, in co-creative socialexperience networks, where service stakeholders can experience it. “It includes many ‘contributory events and a number of transactions or interactions’’ “Academic service learning is a method of student learning through active participation in organized experiences that meet community need” “Consumer perceptions of their experiences of social power during service consumption. Experience is related to consumer cognition, expectations, emotions and expressions” ‘‘when the service comes alive’’; engaging and interacting service actors Defined as the fundament of service design and offering “Hedonic impression” “Practical contact” “Individual experiences” “A service experience spans all potential service encounters with different potential partners” “is a process that happens over multiple channels within one focal organization. However, research has broadened the view from the service experience to the value constellation customer experience, encompassing the interactions between the customer and all organizations in the value network needed to perform a given customer activity” “service experience as many-to-many engagement. It is the ongoing and dynamic alignment of the connections and dispositions of many actors” “Service experience is an actor’s subjective response to or interpretation of the elements of the service, emerging during the process of purchase and/or use, or through imagination or memory.”

[25]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43] [44]

[45]

[46] [47] [48] [49]

[50]

[51]

We consider a service experience as an ongoing dynamic engagement of actors [50] subjective, and individual depending on their expressions and interpretations [51] as a sensation or for


information attainment [41] creating a perceptive, emotive, and interactive responses, resulting in a memory [42] spanning all possible encounters with diverse actors in different situations [49]. SX can be regulated through the varying the pleasure constructs [52], the service quality [53], service validity, service reliability [54], service value, and customer relationship quality [55].

Fig. 4. A Graphical Representation of Service Prototyping Experiences and a Service Experience

(SX = Service Experience; CSPX = Conventional Service Prototyping eXperience; ISPX = Immersive Service Prototyping eXperience) Fig. 3. Service Prototyping Experience Graphical Representation

(SX = Service Experience; CSPX = Conventional Service Prototyping eXperience; ISPX = Immersive Service Prototyping eXperience) In Fig. (3) which represents a complete comprehensive SX and inside that experience sphere there are several conventional service prototyping experiences (CSPX) and immersive service prototyping experiences (ISPX), where each single SP could cover and represent a small part of the complete SX. Each SP type differs, from the way to represents service aspects, each SP type also differs from experience, and what experience elements permitted. It can be expected that a combination of CSPXs can cover a good portion of the SX; but also, that an immersive service prototyping experience (ISPX) might have a more comprehensive representation of SX, according to the degree and type of immersion used. ISPX is likely to a more holistic and comprehensive representation of the SX, in cases where there is focus on representation, visualization, and simulation. Immersive Learning and Engagement is proven superior than the conventional Methods [56].

978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

As seen in Fig. (4), where we present our graph of a real SX, where on the horizontal axis we have the resolution, and on the vertical axis we have the fidelity. The real SX will have a 100% fidelity and 100% resolution, and inside this area of the real SX there can be several SPXs that can cover a part of the SX, where CSPX could represent a part of the SX, but it is much likely that ISPX covers a more comprehensive part of the SX, where ISPX could reach a higher level of interactivity, engagement, and visualization due to the immersivity effects. It also allows replicable and automated processes and interaction with automated interfaces. A combination of CSPXs and ISPX might be the most optimal solution, depending on the complexity of the proposed service, for the most comprehensive representation of the SX. We can consider that the summation of the service prototype experiences done, whether conventional or immersive, will result in the most comprehensive representation of a service experience: ∞

∞

𝑆𝑃𝑋1 + 𝑆𝑃𝑋2 + ⋯ + 𝑆𝑃𝑋𝑛 = 𝑆𝑃𝑋, 𝑛=1

𝑂𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦

𝑆𝑃𝑋 ≅ 𝑆𝑋 𝑛=1


aspects, then the SP task, then which design dimensions are involved. The SP type selected depending on the design dimensions and the attributes specification to create a SP specification; after that comes the selection of the SP techniques that result into a SP description. SP specification and description combined will realize a SP representation which will produce a service prototyping eXperience (SPX), this allows stakeholders to experience and react to, which will produce reactions and feedback, which will be used to refine the SPX and the SP as a whole with each SP iteration. After our extensive literature research, and our research work within the project, we can outline an inclusive multidimensional Service Prototyping eXperience (SPX) definition and description. A SPX is an activity that is individual, unique that changes with perspective, role, time, and SP type, with a specific purpose and set of specification and description that result into representations, that are altered each service prototyping iteration according to the activity. Fig. 5. Our perspective of the Customer Experience in a Product-ServiceSystem [57] [10] (Based on Garrett 2010; Pallot and Pawar 2012)

In Fig. (5) we present our perspective of what a Customer eXperience (CX) constitutes as a holistic experience, which encompasses the service experience and product user experience. Both the UX and SX are connected through instantiation, as the SX deriving its representation from the UX, while in the absence of a product it will be replacing it. This representation helps us understand the importance of the CX as a major factor in the service development processes, especially service prototyping process, as they tend to be co-creative processes. Co-creative processes assist in overcoming the possibility that might arise on having a SPX that is representative of the SX, which might be challenging sometimes. That is why understanding the CX is important in this co-creative service development process. There might be some limitation in linking is the CX, UX, and SX in an instantiation interdependent relationship, but this will be more verified in the experiments and tests in our future work.

Fig. 7. Simplified Service Prototyping Representational Process

As shown in the simplified service prototyping representational process in Fig (7), the activity done by the developer to create a service prototype that represents the idea to stakeholders, which will result in stakeholder’s experience that will create reactions and feedback that will be used for the process refinement in the following iterations. For each service prototyping purpose there will be a different reaction; for exploration the reaction will result in inspiration for a new idea, for communication it will result in learning and discussing new concepts, and for evaluation it will result in feedback and design decision making.

Fig. 6. Our Service Prototyping Conceptual Framework

In Fig. (6) we present our explorative SP conceptual framework, where we graphically display the relationships between the SP constructs. Starting from the SP purpose that depends on the customer needs and wants, then moving to the SP activity, which is changed every iteration, then moves to the next three constructs, the selection of the key development

978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE


and will be investigated to demonstrate the strengths, discover potential drawbacks, and plan future research. ISP can enhance service stakeholders experience through high degree of immersion and interactivity. CSP can be combined with ISP; for different key development aspects and service prototyping activates; to achieve a comprehensive representation of the service experience [14] as seen in Fig. (3) and (4). VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Fig. 8. Service Prototyping Acceptance Model

In Fig (8) we propose our service prototyping acceptance model that was adapted from the Technology User Acceptance model by Davis and refined by Vankatesh [58] [59]. The model is built upon three usefulness variables, monetary, nonmonetary, and technical. The monetary will affect the intention of use, and the non-monetary and technical will affect the attitude towards usage. All these variables will decide if the service prototype type is accepted by the user or not, shown in the actual use. Our propositions, which we concluded from our literature review, our research work, and our case studies, can be summarized into 6 propositions: (1) SP type selection should be based on the purpose, activity; and resources. (2) The selection of appropriate SP techniques that cover the key development aspects throughout the service prototyping process. (3) SPX varies with the different roles in the service prototyping process, for each roll, (i.e. technician, customer, specialist, operator) their own unique individual SPX. (4) The most comprehensive service experience is built upon the summation of multiple service prototyping experiences involving diverse SP techniques and types. (5) Service Prototyping can play a major factor in service Co-creation process. (6) Immersive experiences tend to have a greater impact than conventional experiences [56], ISPX is much likely to epitomize a better service experience representation, by having an easier 3D immersive visualization that allows for better understanding, having a more fluid interaction that is easy to simulate, replicate, and animate, and having the ability to program, simulate and automate service process gives it greater advantage over CSP [14]. V. CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE WORK Immersive Service Prototyping (ISP) is a method for service design which applies immersive prototyping techniques and settings to enrich the service prototyping experience. ISP aims at enhancing the service prototyping process by supporting the development of high fidelity and resolution service prototypes that could achieve improved service experience simulations with high engagement and interactivity. The selection of the immersive service prototyping type and techniques for the validation experiments is based on previous and current research [15]. The focus of this publication is to cover the service prototyping experience, and present our conceptual framework, for further validation. ISP should enable service prototyping stakeholders to give better feedback by using immersive technology. ISP will be evaluated with an experiment and will be compared against a conventional service prototype (CSP),

978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

This paper has been carried out partly in the context of the research project dimenSion, which is funded by BMBF (FKZ: 02K14A160), Authors wish to acknowledge their gratitude and appreciation to all the project partners, individuals who contributed to this study. VII. REFERENCES [1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5] [6] [7]

[8] [9] [10] [11]

[12] [13] [14] [15]

[16] [17]

Castellion, G., Markham, S. K. (2013), Perspective: new product failure rates: influence of argumentum ad populum and self‐ interest. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), 976-979. Ostrom, Amy L., A. Parasuraman, David E. Bowen, Lia Patrı´cio, Christopher A. Voss (2015), “Service Research Priorities in a Rapidly Changing Context,” Journal of Service Research, 18 (2), 127-159. Voorhees, Clay M., Paul W. Fombelle, Yany Gregoire, Sterling Bone, ers Gustafsson, Rui Sousa, Travis Walkowiak (2017), “Service Encounters, Experiences and the Customer Journey: Defining the Field and a Call to Expand Our Lens,” Journal of Business Research, 79 (C), 269-280. Larivie`re, Bart, David Bowen, Tor W. Andreassen, Werner Kunz, Nancy J. Siriannie, Chris Voss, Nancy V. Wu¨nderlich, Arne De Keyserh (2017), “Service Encounter 2.0”: An Investigation into the Roles of Technology, Employees and Customers,” Journal of Business Research, 79 (October), 238-246. Patrício, L., Gustafsson, A., Fisk, R. (2018). “Upframing Service Design and Innovation for Research Impact.” ISO/IEC 20000-1 Information Technology – Service Management – Part 1: Specification, International Teixeira, Jorge, et al. "Customer experience modeling: from customer experience to service design." Journal of Service Management 23.3 (2012): 362-376. Sanders, Liz (2008), “An Evolving Map of Design Practice and Design Research,” Interactions, 15 (6), 13-17 Online Dictionary (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/experience, retrieved on 13.02.18, 23:58) Emirbayer, Mustafa and Ann Mische (1998), ‘‘What is Agency?’’ American Journal of Sociology, 103 (4), 962-1023. Pallot, M., Pawar, K. (2012, June). A holistic model of user experience for living lab experiential design. In Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE), 2012 18th International ICE Conference on (pp. 1-15). IEEE. Fleming, Jennifer and Richard Koman (1998), Web Navigation: Designing the User Experience. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly. McCarthy, John and Peter Wright (2004), Technology as Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Leber, B. (2014). Practice-oriented Design for Lifestyle Change: Trialling as a Means of Enabling Transition. Abdel Razek, A R, Pallot, M, van Husen Christian, Richir, S (2018) - A Comparative Study on Conventional versus Immersive Service Prototyping (VR, AR, MR) VRIC '18, April 4-6, Laval, France Abdel Razek, A. R., Van Husen, C., Pallot, M., Richir, S. (2017), Innovation by Service prototyping In the 23rd ICE/IEEE proceedings. Online Oxford English Dictionary (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/experience, retrieved on 13.02.18, 23:52)


[18] Online Cambridge English Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/feel, retrieved on 13.02.18, 23:56) [19] Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies, feelings, fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-42. [20] Carbone, L.P. and Haeckel, S.H. (1994), “Engineering customer experiences”, Marketing Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 8-19. [21] Bergmann, R. (1999), Experience Management, Springer, New York, NY (Bergmann, 1999, p. 28) [22] Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1999), “The experience economy”, paper presented at the Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. [23] Gupta, S. and Vajic, M. (2000), “The contextual and dialectical nature of experiences”, in Fitzsimmons, J.A. and Fitzsimmons, M.J. (Eds), New Service Development: Creating Memorable Experiences, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 33-51. [24] Schmitt, B. H. (2003), Customer Experience Management: A Revloutionary Approach to Connecting with Our Customers, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester [25] Schembri, S. (2006), “Rationalizing service logic, or understanding services as experience?”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 381-92. [26] Berry, L.L., Carbone, L.P. (2007), “Build loyalty through experience management”, Quality Progress, Vol. 40 No. 9, pp. 26-32. [27] Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?. Journal of marketing, 73(3), 52-68. [28] Grewal, Dhruv, Julie Baker, Michael Levy and Glenn B. Voss (2003), “The Effects of Wait Expectations and Store Atmosphere Evaluations on Patronage Intentions in Service-Intensive Retail Stores,” Journal of Retailing, 79 (4), 259–68. [29] Haeckel, S.H., Carbone, L.P. and Berry, L.L. (2003), “How to lead the customer experience”, Marketing Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 18-23. [30] Prahalad, C. K., Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: Cocreating unique value with customers. Harvard Business Press. [31] Meyer, C. and Schwager, A. (2007), “Understanding customer experience”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 116-26. [32] Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., Schlesinger, L. A. (2009). Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics and management strategies. Journal of retailing, 85(1), 31-41. [33] 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. [34] Schmitt, B. H. (2010). Customer experience management: A revolutionary approach to connecting with your customers. John Wiley and Sons. [35] Lemke, F., M. Clark, H. Wilson, (2011), “Customer Experience Quality: An Exploration in Business and Consumer Contexts Using Repertory Grid Technique,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(6), 846-869. [36] De Keyser, Arne, Katherine N. Lemon, Timothy Keiningham, Philipp Klaus (2015), “A Framework for Understanding and Managing the Customer Experience,” MSI Working Paper No. 15-121. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute. [37] Lemon, Katherine N., Peter C. Verhoef. (2016) "Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey." Journal of Marketing 80.6 (2016): 69-96. [38] Toivonen, M., Tuominen, T. and Brax, S. (2007), “Innovation process interlinked with the process of service delivery – a management challenge in KIBS”, Economies et Socie´te´s, Vol. 3, pp. 355-84.

978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

[39] Arnould, E.J. and Price, L.L. (1993), “River magic: extraordinary experience and the extended service encounter”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 24-45. [40] Bitner, J. M., Faranda, W. T., Hubbert, A. R., Zeithaml, V. A. (1997). Customer contributions and roles in service delivery. International journal of service industry management, 8(3), 193-205. [41] Tseng, M. M., Qinhai, M., Su, C. J. (1999). Mapping customers’ service experience for operations improvement. Business Process Management Journal, 5(1), 50-64. [42] Edvardsson, B., Enquist, B. and Johnston, R. (2005), “Cocreating customer value through hyperreality in the prepurchase service experience”, Journal of Service Research: JSR, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 149-61. [43] Hume, M., Mort, G. S., Liesch, P. W., Winzar, H. (2006). Understanding service experience in non-profit performing arts: implications for operations and service management. Journal of Operations Management, 24(4), 304-324. [44] Hunter, D. (2007), “The virtual student/client experience”, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 88-92. [45] Menon, K. and Bansal, H.S. (2007), “Exploring consumer experience of social power during service consumption”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 89-104. [46] Sandström, S., Edvardsson, B., Kristensson, P., Magnusson, P. (2008). Value in use through service experience. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 18(2), 112-126. [47] Zomerdijk, Leonieke G., Christopher A. Voss. (2010) "Service design for experience-centric services." Journal of Service Research 13.1: 67-82. [48] Helkkula, A. (2011) "Characterising the concept of service experience." Journal of Service Management 22.3: 367-389. [49] Patrício, L., Fisk R. P., Constantine L. (2011), “Multilevel Service Design: From Customer Value Constellation to Service Experience Blueprinting,” Journal of Service Research, 14 (2), 180–200 [50] Chandler, J. D., Lusch, R. F. (2015), Service systems: a broadened framework and research agenda on value propositions, engagement, service experience. Journal of Service Research, 18(1), 6-22. [51] Jaakkola, E., Helkkula A., Aarikka-Stenroos L. (2015) "Service experience co-creation: conceptualization, implications, future research directions." Journal of Service Management 26.2: 182-205. [52] Bel, J.L.L. (2005), “Beyond the friendly skies: an integrative framework for managing the air travel experience”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 437-51. [53] Flanagan, P., Johnston, R. and Talbot, D. (2005), “Customer confidence: the development of a “pre-experience” concept”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 16 Nos 3/4, pp. 373-84. [54] Galetzka, M., Verhoeven, J.W.M. and Pruyn, A.T.H. (2006), “Service validity and service reliability of search, experience and credence services”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 271-83. [55] Aurier, P., Siadou-Martin, B. (2007). Perceived justice and consumption experience evaluations: A qualitative and experimental investigation. International Journal of Service Industry Management , 18 (5), 450-471. [56] Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. science, 323 (5910), 66-69. [57] Garrett, Jesse James (2010), The Elements of User Experience: Usercentered Design for the Web and Beyond. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education [58] Davis, F. D.; Bagozzi, R. P.; Warshaw, P. R. (1989), "User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models", Management Science, 35: 982–1003, doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 [59] Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M. G.; Davis, G. B.; Davis, F. D. (2003), "User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view" (PDF), MIS Quarterly, 27 (3): 425–478
