MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020652759 · doi:10.1287/isre.2013.0503

<b>Research Note</b>—The Influences of Online Service Technologies and Task Complexity on Efficiency and Personalization

2014· article· en· W2020652759 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Systems Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService (business)VendorComputer sciencePersonalizationService providerService designService delivery frameworkEmerging technologiesTask (project management)Service level objectiveBusinessKnowledge managementProcess managementMarketingWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online retailers are increasingly providing service technologies, such as technology-based and human-based services, to assist customers with their shopping. Despite the prevalence of these service technologies and the scholarly recognition of their importance, surprisingly little empirical research has examined the fundamental differences among them. Consequently, little is known about the factors that may favor the use of one type of service technology over another. In this paper, we propose the Model of Online Service Technologies (MOST) to theorize that the capacity of a service provider to accommodate the variability of customer inputs into the service process is the key difference among various types of service technologies. We posit two types of input variability: Service Provider-Elicited Variability (SPEV), where variability is determined in advance by the service provider; and User-Initiated Variability (UIV), where customers determine variability in the service process. We also theorize about the role of task complexity in changing the effectiveness of service technologies. We then empirically investigate the impact of service technologies that possess different capacities to accommodate input variability on efficiency and personalization, the two competing goals of service adoption. Our empirical approach attempts to capture both the perspective of the vendor who may deploy such technologies, as well as the perspective of customers who might choose among service technology alternatives. Our findings reveal that SPEV technologies (i.e., technologies that can accommodate SPEV) are more efficient, but less personalized, than SPEUIV technologies (i.e., technologies that can accommodate both SPEV and UIV). However, when task complexity is high (vs. low), the superior efficiency of SPEV technologies is less prominent, while both SPEV and SPEUIV technologies have higher personalization. We also find that when given a choice, a majority of customers tend to choose to use both types of technologies. The results of this study further our understanding of the differences in efficiency and personalization experienced by customers when using various types of online service technologies. The results also inform practitioners when and how to implement these technologies in the online shopping environment to improve efficiency and personalization for customers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.323
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it