Search results

The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in frontline service encounters is a growing phenomenon in service marketing, which can lead to positive and negative results. In this context, this paper aims to review the literature on value cocreation and codestruction in AI-enabled service interactions.

A systematic literature review was carried out using the PRISMA protocol. Data were retrieved from the Web of Science and Scopus databases, from which 48 articles were selected for review. Data analysis, presentation of results and the research agenda followed the theory, context, characteristics and methodology (TCCM) framework.

The review especially revealed that: publications on AI-enabled value cocreation and codestruction are in the early stages of development; few articles have addressed value codestruction, and the main research emphasis is on value cocreation; interactions between human actors and AI-enabled autonomous nonhuman actors are resulting in value cocreation or value codestruction, or both, and these phenomena are also likely to occur when AI replaces more than one human actor in the service encounter; and AI is considered an increasingly independent nonhuman actor that integrates resources and interacts with other actors, yet prudence is necessary for its adoption.

This review fills a gap by jointly exploring the value cocreation and codestruction in the context of AI, presents an overview of the issues discussed and provides a research agenda with directions for future studies.

La adopción de la inteligencia artificial (IA) en los encuentros de servicio en primera línea es un fenómeno creciente en el marketing de servicios, que puede llevar a resultados positivos y negativos. En este contexto, el objetivo de este artículo es revisar la literatura sobre la cocreación y codestrucción de valor en las interacciones de servicio habilitadas por IA.

Se realizó una revisión sistemática de la literatura utilizando el protocolo PRISMA. Los datos se obtuvieron de las bases de datos Web of Science y Scopus, de las cuales se seleccionaron 48 artículos para su revisión. El análisis de los datos, la presentación de resultados y la agenda de investigación siguieron el marco de teoría, contexto, características y metodología (TCCM).

La revisión reveló especialmente que: (1) las publicaciones sobre la cocreación y codestrucción de valor habilitadas por IA están en las primeras etapas de desarrollo; (2) pocos artículos han abordado la codestrucción de valor, y el principal énfasis de la investigación está en la cocreación de valor; (3) las interacciones entre actores humanos y actores no humanos autónomos habilitados por IA están resultando en cocreación o codestrucción de valor, o ambas, y es probable que estos fenómenos también ocurran cuando la IA reemplaza a más de un actor humano en el encuentro de servicio; (4) la IA es considerada un actor no humano cada vez más independiente que integra recursos e interactúa con otros actores, pero se requiere prudencia en su adopción.

Esta revisión llena un vacío al explorar conjuntamente la cocreación y codestrucción de valor en el contexto de la IA, presenta una visión general de los temas discutidos y proporciona una agenda de investigación con direcciones para estudios futuros.

人工智能（AI）在前线服务接触中的应用已成为服务营销中的一个日益增长的现象, 这可能带来正面和负面的结果。在这一背景下, 本文旨在回顾关于人工智能驱动的服务互动中价值共创与共损的文献。

采用PRISMA协议进行了系统文献综述。数据从Web of Science和Scopus数据库中提取, 共选择48篇文章进行审阅。数据分析、结果呈现及研究议程遵循理论、背景、特征与方法论（TCCM）框架。

综述特别揭示了以下几点：(1) 关于AI驱动的价值共创与共毁的出版物尚处于发展初期; (2) 针对价值共损的文章较少, 主要研究重点集中在价值共创上; (3) 人类参与者与AI驱动的自主非人类参与者之间的互动, 可能导致价值共创或价值共损, 甚至同时发生, 特别是在AI替代多个服务接触中的人类参与者时; (4) AI被视为越来越独立的非人类参与者, 它整合资源并与其他参与者互动, 但在采用过程中需谨慎。

本综述填补了在AI背景下共同探讨价值共创与共损的空白, 概述了相关问题, 并提供了未来研究方向的议程。

The purpose of this study is examined whether coproduction appears spontaneously in the literature on public sector innovation and governance, the citizens’ role in coproduction and the implication of citizens’ participation in the governance of innovation networks.

The review complied with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The search was performed in the Ebsco, Scopus and WOS databases. The authors analyzed 47 papers published from 2017 to 2022. Thematic and content analysis were adopted, supported by MAXQDA.

The papers recognize the importance of the citizens in public innovation. However, only 20% discuss coproduction, evidencing the predominance of governance concepts related to interorganizational collaborations – but not necessarily to citizen engagement. The authors also verified the existence of polysemy regarding the concept of governance associated with public innovation, predominating the term “collaborative governance.”

The small emphasis on “co-production” may result from the search strategy, which deliberately did not include it as a descriptor, considering the research purpose. One can consider this choice a limitation.

Considering collaborative governance as a governing arrangement where public agencies directly engage nonstate stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented and deliberative (Ansell and Gash, 2007), the forum where the citizen is supposed to be engaged should be initiated by public agencies or institutions and formally organized, as suggested by Österberg and Qvist (2020) and Campomori and Casula (2022). These notions can be useful for public managers concerning their role and how the forums structure should be to promote collaboration and the presence of innovation assets needed to make the process fruitful (Crosby et al., 2017).

Despite the collaborative nature of public innovation, the need for adequate governance characteristics, and the importance of citizens in the innovative process, most studies generically address collaborative relationships, focusing on interorganizational collaboration, with little focus on specific actors such as citizens in the governance of public innovation. Thus, it is assumed that the literature that discusses public innovation and governance includes the discussion of coproduction. The originality and contribution of this study is to verify this assumption.