Industrial Marketing Management 107 (2022) 287–299

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indmarman

AI-activated value co-creation. An exploratory study of

conversational agents
Mateusz Kot *, Grzegorz Leszczyński
Poznań University of Economics and Business, al. Niepodleglosci 10, 61-875 Poznań, Poland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper aims to provide in-depth insight into the value co-creation around conversational agents — a solution
Conversational agents based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) that replaces customer service employees. Using the concepts of value-in-use
Artificial intelligence from information technology and the ARA Model as a theoretical lens, we investigated which resources are
AI-activated value
combined to create an AI-based solution, how providers and clients cooperate, and what value is an outcome of
Value co-creation
ARA model
co-creation in the case of advanced technologies in the B2B context. Based on multiple case studies on leading
providers of conversational agents, this research demonstrates the complexities of the process. Our findings
reveal significant differences in informational, strategic, transactional, and transformational dimensions of value-
in-use of conversational agents (CA) from other technologies. It shows that AI-activated value is dynamic,
context-dependent, and fuzzy. This paper also highlights the role of resource interaction and non-technological
factors that enable conversational agents to reflect and replace human activities.

1. Introduction
Digitalization can profoundly impact vast areas of business, and
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is one of its driving forces in the business
world (Syam & Sharma, 2018). One of the exciting applications of AI
technology that can directly impact a company’s relationship with its
customers1 are conversational agents (CA). These agents can commu­
nicate with people using a text or voice interface. They differ from or­
dinary chatbots because they are interactive, have the potential to learn,
and are capable of taking practical actions (Kot & Leszczyński, 2020).
Whether it is a purchase, change of mobile phone plan, or a grant of
mortgage forbearance, the CA impact the outcome of a specific inter­
action. This is how they become representatives of a company, replacing
some capacity of human employees. COVID-19 led companies to change
direct communication channels. Many of them moved towards online
interactions, which sparked an increased interest and demand for CA.
This paper presents an exploratory study on value co-creation around
these solutions.
Value co-creation is a critically important research area in under­
standing digitalization (Hofacker, Golgeci, Pillai, & Gligor, 2020). It
contains processes between actors, integrates diverse resources, and
employs multiply activities (Payne, Storbacka, & Frow, 2008). Research
on B2B value co-creation addressed various aspects of digitalization:
CRM systems (Corsaro, 2018), automation (Järvinen & Taiminen,
2016), application of big data (Jayashankar, Johnston, Nilakanta, &
Burres, 2019), digital communication (Karjaluoto, Mustonen, & Ulku­
niemi, 2015), digital servitization (Paschou, Rapaccini, Adrodegari, &
Saccani, 2020) and digital ecosystems/platforms (Mele et al., 2018).
However, these studies, even if referred to advanced technologies, do
not employ AI abilities. The features of AI are discussed as revolutionary
for marketing (e.g., Mustak, Salminen, Plé, & Wirtz, 2021), but the
research on AI in business lacks conceptualization of value co-creation
and its empirical evidence (Leone, Schiavone, Appio, & Chiao, 2020).
This paper recognizes how resources are integrated when AI acti­
vates B2B value co-creation. To explore this phenomenon, we combine
the business network approach to resources and the concept of the value
of information technology into the research framework. Methodologi­
cally, we follow Jayashankar et al.’ (2019) suggestion to separate the
essence of value-in-use and the process of its creation in the case of
digital technologies. We investigate the complexities of value co-
creation where CA is the subject of exchange between providers (who
supply this solution), clients (who buy it to use in their customer

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mtkot@icloud.com (M. Kot), grzegorz.leszczynski@ue.poznan.pl (G. Leszczyński).
1
To clarify this for readers, in this paper we make a distinction between ‘clients’ and ‘customers. Clients are seen as business actors that buy and use conversational
agents to serve their customers.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.10.013
Received 15 July 2021; Received in revised form 16 August 2022; Accepted 16 October 2022
Available online 26 October 2022
0019-8501/© 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc.
M. Kot and G. Leszczyński
service), and customers (who interact with CA) to conceptualize value.
Taking up this topic, we answer the call from Leone et al. (2020) for a
conceptualization of the role of AI in B2B creation of value by
researching resource integration and value co-creation in CA. We
contribute to B2B literature by identifying resources that interact in the
value co-creation of conversational agents, activities undertaken by
actors to combine those resources, and the organizational competencies
required for value co-creation. We discuss value co-creation outcomes
when AI activates the B2B offering from an axiological perspective
(Grönroos, 2011), identifying CA’s value elements. We also take an
ontological perspective (Massi, Rod, & Corsaro, 2020), showing that in
the case of AI value can have subjective character.
This paper is organized as follows. We start by discussing the liter­
ature on value and its co-creation in the context of AI as digital tech­
nology. Next, we present a particular focus on CA and its distinguishing
features. Then, we offer the methodology and findings of our qualitative
study. Afterward, we discuss the findings in the context of the current
literature, draw conclusions, and recommend directions for further
research.
2. Literature review
2.1. Value delivered by digital technologies
Business-to-Business marketing assumes that the value for the busi­
ness client derives from the use of the product and not from the value
determined during the exchange transaction. Thus, value-in-use refers to
the client’s outcome, purpose, or objective as served through product/
service usage (Macdonald, Kleinaltenkamp, & Wilson, 2016). The value,
therefore, results from the benefits directly related to the product or
service, indirect benefits associated with the service and relationship,
and sacrifices resulting from the price of obtaining these benefits as
opposed to alternatives, as well as the time, effort, and energy put into
maintaining relationships and resolving conflicts with the supplier
(Lapierre, 2000).
In information technology, value is derived from its utility to
generate informational, strategic, transactional, and transformational
benefits (Gregor, Martin, Fernandez, Stern, & Vitale, 2006). Informa­
tional benefits refer to information and the communication needed for
decision-making. Strategic benefits alter how the company competes
and creates its offering. Supporting operations and looking for savings is
reflected by transactional benefits and changes in a company’s structure
and business model because information technology reveals trans­
formational benefits. The value delivered by information technologies is
garnering more and more attention in B2B academic discussions (Mus­
tak et al., 2021; Paschen, Wilson, & Ferreira, 2020) especially con­
cerning technologies that currently have a sharp impact on business: big
data, cloud platforms, Internet of Things, augmented/virtual/mixed
reality and AI (Hoyer, Kroschke, Schmitt, Kraume, & Shankar, 2020;
Kumar, Rajan, Venkatesan, & Lecinski, 2019; Paiola & Gebauer, 2020).
These technologies are very complex because of the combination of
different devices, data storage, and network connection, as well as
having sensors, high computing power, and communication capabilities
(Carcary, Maccani, Doherty, & Conway, 2018). Companies can use these
systems complementarily to collect (Internet of Things), store (cloud),
digest (big data analytics), visualize (augmented/virtual/mixed reality)
data, interpret the results and learn from the data (AI). Each technology
can separately create value, or they can be combined to do so (Paschen,
Kietzmann, & Kietzmann, 2019). Conceptualizing value and its creation
in the case of digital technologies, Massi and colleagues (Massi et al.,
2020) argue that “value is no longer a property inherent to an object,
forever fixed in time”; they specify the contextuality and dynamism of
value and embeddedness of its creation in a network of involved actors.
288
Industrial Marketing Management 107 (2022) 287–299
2.2. Value of B2B AI-based solutions
Artificial Intelligence is a program that collects data about the
environment and takes action to achieve its goals (Russell & Norvig,
2016). It uses computational power to act intelligently when analyzing
data, monitoring processes in real-time, performing programmed tasks,
and also analyzing and mimicking emotions (Huang & Rust, 2021). In
recent years the use of artificial intelligence in marketing has become
the subject of lively discussion (Davenport, Guha, Grewal, & Bressgott,
2020; Kaartemo & Helkkula, 2018; Paschen et al., 2019; Syam &
Sharma, 2018).
AI functionalities are based on interconnected technologies that are
applied in two ways: direct and indirect. The first uses AI functions:
natural language-based interaction with people, image recognition,
biometrics, and machine learning (Kot & Leszczyński, 2020). Thanks to
these functions, AI can help create value by performing repetitive ac­
tivities that require no intellectual effort, are tedious, and can lead to
mistakes when humans perform them. These are the transactional
benefits of AI. Another area is the processing and interpretation of big
data to support decisions ultimately made by people. AI will eventually
create ideas or solutions and then analyze their consequences (Huang &
Rust, 2018). In this case, we are dealing with the strategic or trans­
formational benefits of AI.
Another role of AI is to support data operations by collecting, clas­
sifying, finding patterns, and facilitating the assessment and use of the
data that is harnessed in cooperation with the client. These are pre­
dominantly informational benefits of AI, although they can also trans­
late to transactional, strategic, and transformational benefits because AI
enables the supplier to understand customers better and forecast their
expectations (Paschen et al., 2019), sell effectively (Syam & Sharma,
2018) and improve supply chain management (Vendrell-Herrero, Bus­
tinza, Parry, & Georgantzis, 2017).
Recent studies point out that when machine learning is used to
provide data-related value, value-in-use is iteratively co-created,
customized, and tested. Therefore, it has an experiential character and
can rapidly change depending on the actual dataset. Its end state can be
unstable or even unknown (Ritter & Pedersen, 2020), what Hasselblatt,
Huikkola, Kohtamäki, and Nickell (2018) identify as real-time value.
2.3. Value co-creation of B2B AI-based solutions
Taking a business network perspective, studies from the Industrial
Marketing and Purchasing Group and the Service-Dominant Logic
approach emphasize that creating value can be explained by the in­
teractions and integration of tangible and intangible resources from
providers and clients that gain new characteristics through intercon­
nection with each other in an ecosystem (Bocconcelli et al., 2020; Lusch,
Vargo, & Gustafsson, 2016; Sklyar, Kowalkowski, Sörhammar, & Tron­
voll, 2019). Several authors discuss the dissimilarity of value co-creation
based on digital technologies. They can play a vital role in value co-
creation. However, studies presented so far lack conceptualization and
empirical evidence (Leone et al., 2020). The research indicates the
complexity of the work related to integrating resources and processes in
co-creating value when digital technologies are implemented (Lenka,
Parida, & Wincent, 2017; Prohl & Kleinaltenkamp, 2020).
Considering resources, Ehret and Wirtz (2018) present digital tech­
nologies as assets combined in value co-creation, but Sklyar et al. (2019)
identify the ambiguity of portraying digital technology this way. They
point out difficulties in categorization of digital technologies as operant
or operand resources and suggest that using such technology in value co-
creation increases resource constellation complexity, but also facilitates
the coordination of that complexity.
To produce valuable outputs, AI operates on digital resources—­
structured and unstructured data from IT systems, digital platforms,
cloud platforms, and mobile applications that reflect a range of events in
the company and environment (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Paschen,
M. Kot and G. Leszczyński
Paschen, Pala, & Kietzmann, 2020). To combine such data, AI uses al­
gorithms and machine learning to learn how to proceed. Even if AI has a
vast capacity to process a massive amount of data from interactions with
many actors, access to data is critical for data-enabled learning. Leone
et al. (2020) discusses this issue with the example of a B2B healthcare
system where AI links users, patients, and collaborators’ data in value
co-creation. They suggest that AI providers can support data collection
by deploying rigorous protocols, applying reliable models, and using a
customer-centric approach. Adding data about new customers enhances
the learning possibilities of AI as all data gathered in a database creates a
benefit from new observations due to network effects (Hagiu & Wright,
2020).
Reflecting on processes, Luz Martín-Peña, Díaz-Garrido, and
Sánchez-López (2018) write that companies need to learn how to pair AI
with resources that already exists to create new offerings. Burström,
Parida, Lahti, and Wincent (2021) discuss quality control,
manufacturing control, mass customization, among value creation pro­
cesses that could be developed by implementation of AI. Digital tech­
nologies are presented as helpful for value delivery process because
analyzing large volumes of data on products and service use can reveal
understanding of customers’ needs (Tao, Qi, Liu, & Kusiak, 2018) and
improve internal routines (Björkdahl, 2020). However, complexity of
value delivery systems in the B2B market limits the use of AI in favor of
human employees (Burström et al., 2021). The influence of digital
technologies on the process of value capture is still being discussed in
recent studies. Companies implement such technologies, including AI,
mainly for cost-efficiency. However, such implementation increases
costs of IT infrastructure and outsourced IT-services (Mero, Tarkiainen,
& Tobon, 2020). Some studies report improvement of revenue streams
due to AI and other digital technologies (Rachinger, Rauter, Müller,
Vorraber, & Schirgi, 2018). Burström et al. (2021) points out that better
understanding of customer operational needs, identification of new
segments, customized solutions, higher quality offerings, new business
services, new ways to reduce costs and improve flows, increase the
complexity of value co-creation processes, and improved knowledge
sharing, improved internal routines, higher transparency and account­
ability change the flow of those processes.
Researchers discuss the competencies needed to offer benefits based
on digital solutions. The provider must develop the skills to take re­
sponsibility for the processes on the client’s side, understand the client’s
expectations, which, due to the innovative nature of these solutions, can
only be defined very generally, and estimate the risk of failure of such
projects (Tronvoll, Sklyar, Sörhammar, & Kowalkowski, 2020). Cus­
tomers must overcome their fear of a loss of control over their data and
initially insufficient knowledge necessary to function in a data-based
relationship (Falkenreck & Wagner, 2017). This means they may be
resistant to introducing new data-driven solutions (Ritter & Pedersen,
2020). However, these works do not deal with AI-based value co-
creation, nor do they consider the role of human-to-non-human
resource and process interactions in this process.
Studies point out that in the case of digital technologies, value is co-
created in ecosystems, not in provider-customer dyads (Paiola & Geba­
uer, 2020). Value co-creation happens beyond the boundaries of indi­
vidual organizations and involves various stakeholders who have access
to different data and play different roles in processing but share some
rules for connecting data in more or less formalized way (Burström et al.,
2021). The literature offers some considerations on how value co-
creation is linked to machine learning of customer needs and prefer­
ences (Glushko & Nomorosa, 2013) and how the features of frontline
service technology can influence customer willingness to share re­
sources (Fan, Wu, & Mattila, 2016; van Doorn et al., 2017).
2.4. Value of conversational agents
One of the AI-based solutions are agents - computer-generated
graphically displayed entities that can embody the role of customer
289
Industrial Marketing Management 107 (2022) 287–299
assistant (Pizzi, Scarpi, & Pantano, 2021). They feature conversational
interfaces and the ability to simulate human conversation using natural
language. Such machines have been mainly studied as chatbots, virtual
agents, and chatterbots (Murtarelli, Gregory, & Romenti, 2021).
Initially, chatbots used naive keyword matching techniques to find
meaning in a user’s input. Then conversation and dialogue patterns were
developed, and today machine learning technologies allow for an
improvement in the understanding of natural language, formulation of
statements, and interacting with humans (Ciechanowski, Przegalinska,
Magnuski, & Gloor, 2018). Currently, chatbots have been surpassed by
conversational agents that can interact using text or voice interfaces in a
very similar manner to real human beings. Additionally, such agents
combine communication functions with the ability to perform actions on
behalf of the user, helping them to achieve their outcomes, purpose, or
objectives (e.g., processing transactions on a bank account). To do so,
conversational agents combine direct and indirect AI-activated value
applying algorithms, the services that can be provided thanks to them,
and services related to their implementation. Table 1 presents the key
features of CA.
Some aspects of the value of CA have been discussed from the
perspective of consumers in recent literature. The agent’s appearance
and functions have been studied together with users’ expectations,
evaluation, and acceptance of conversational agents (Pizzi et al., 2021).
Researchers mention users’ intentions to interact with non-human ac­
tors, which can be a key aspect of value co-creation in the case of
conversational agents (as interactions are required in the machine
learning process). Users might perceive such agents as human-like
because of their human appearance (Mende, Scott, van Doorn, Grewal,
& Shanks, 2019), having less commercial persuasive intents (Kim &
Duhachek, 2020) and help making relevant decisions (Kim, Jiang,
Hyejin, & Duhacheck, 2019). However, users generally have an aversion
to algorithms and very often are not willing to follow AI-based recom­
mendations (Wien & Peluso, 2021). They may also feel a lack of trust
and fear opportunistic behavior or manipulations (Grewal, Guha,
Satornino, & Schweiger, 2021). Few authors considered using CA from
the organizational perspective of sales activities and customer service
experiences (Huang & Rust, 2018; Murtarelli et al., 2021). Nevertheless,
the B2B perspective on what the value-in-use of conversational agents is
as a kind of information technology and how it is being developed has
been not studied so far.
2.5. ARA framework for analyzing value co-creation of conversational
agents
Håkansson and Snehota (1995) suggested implementing the ARA
Model (actors, resources and activities) to consider the structure of re­
sources together with activities and roles played by actors to observe
how resources are connected between organizations. The resource layer
includes the connections of resources within and between companies. A
resource is essentially valuable for its use potential, so the provision
aspect of resources describes the possibility of a resource being used.
This is connected to the actor’s know-how, as the same resource can
generate remarkably contrasting value when used by different actors.
The use aspect of resources refers to their need to be connected with
other resources in certain activities to generate value. This approach
Table 1
Main characteristics of conversational agents.
Fundamental functions of AI Distinguishing functions of
CA
- Learning ability - Conversing using natural
- Operations on data (collection, classification, language
patterns recognition, and assessment support) - Performing actions on
- Decision support behalf of the user
- Speech and image recognition
M. Kot and G. Leszczyński
reflects both the nature of resources and the interactions between them:
two-sided resources in actors’ activities exist in a networked context,
they are heterogeneous, open, and variable objects. As actors have
heterogeneous collections of resources, they are motivated to connect
them due to existing interfaces, which are contact points that allow
resource interactions. Thus, resource interfaces are vital for integrating
resources and actions that actors bring to combine, re-combine, and co-
develop their resources to form new resource constellations (Baraldi,
Gressetvold, & Harrison, 2012).
Acting and reacting depends on various possibilities for the recom­
bination of resources that have been already combined in some way and
the density of the existing ties between those resources. So, value co-
creation is a process that reflects how previous actions lead to out­
comes, which lead to expectations and the foundations of subsequent
resource combinations. The actors’ roles in this process are not limited
to using what the supplier offers; it involves designing the solution,
incorporating proprietary and network resources, and evaluating solu­
tions. Multiple actors in an ecosystem take goal-directed actions to
integrate resources (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). Value-in-use is
therefore continued, redefined, and improved through the value-
auditing practices of both the supplier and the client (Macdonald
et al., 2016). The ARA Model reflects this process, showing how re­
sources relate to actors and their activities. This model was developed
for tracking value co-creation within industries and has been already
associated with new technologies (Breidbach & Maglio, 2016), and
recently researchers have considered it in the context of AI (Paschen,
Paschen, et al., 2020).
Pagani and Pardo (2017) identified the immediate effects of the
digitalization of the business relationship through the ARA Model
framework. In the resource dimension, digitalization causes new con­
nections between assets, establishing a digital web. To promote such
connections, organizations need capabilities: organizational compe­
tencies and know-how, and technology that impacts the innovativeness
and efficiency of these organizations. Only then can new activities
emerge, as intelligently connected resources are providing new possi­
bilities. Although modern technologies transform activities, this is not a
fundamental change, which means organizations still perform the same
activities, they just do it more efficiently. However, digital technologies
increase the interconnectivity by creating the possibility to develop new
business relationships with actors playing different roles in the network.
Following the suggestion of Jayashankar et al. (2019) to separate the
layers of value co-creation in the case of advanced technologies, we
distinguish the fundamental nature of value-in-use and its creation. We
assume that AI-based value-in-use of CA refers to direct and indirect
informational, strategic, transactional, and transformational benefits. In
turn, the value co-creation of CA is a process by which users create value
with suppliers through joint actions and reactions that combine re­
sources. We intend to explore the link between the value of CA and the
integration of resources and activities to co-create this value. Using the
lens of ARA, we point to resource integration in the context of value co-
creation activated by AI. Therefore, we are looking for answers to the
following questions:
RQ1: What resources are combined when companies co-create CA?
RQ2: How are resources combined for CA?
RQ3: How is the combination of resources for CA related to actors
and activities?
RQ4: What value-in-use is an outcome of the co-creation of CA?
3. Method
Due to the explorative character of this research, we have chosen a
case study as the most suitable approach (Yin, 2003). This allowed for a
detailed examination of a new phenomenon that is yet to be described in
the literature. We have used the G2.com website database to identify the
possible companies that offer solutions based on conversational agents.
As the G2.com website is the world’s largest platform for gathering and
290
Industrial Marketing Management 107 (2022) 287–299
reviewing software, it provided a comprehensive list of 15 companies
offering conversational agents worldwide. We then used the following
criteria of choice for AI providers. First, technical: the conversational
agent must understand context, intentions and learn from every inter­
action. It also needs to be able to perform actions on behalf of the
customer, which distinguishes it from simple chatbots. Second, eco­
nomic: the company offers their solution on a B2B market. Third,
managerial: these companies have experience in implementing at least
three agents for business clients (as many companies were still in the
development stage). We used e-mails, LinkedIn, and website contact
forms to send an invitation to participate in the research. We offered a
managerial report with the findings as compensation for the re­
spondents’ time and effort. Regarding the criteria listed, in October
2020, we selected three companies that provided an opportunity to
speak with employees from different departments and shared docu­
mentation for the study (Table 2).
Since CA are an innovative solution on the market, we see these three
cases as sufficient for the study, which is also in line with the theory on
case selection (Eisenhardt, 1989). We conducted this research at a
highly intense time for the providers, since the COVID-19 pandemic
dramatically increased the demand for automated customer service so­
lutions. All respondents were commenting on how they feel time-
restricted due to their work obligations. In some cases, the interviews
were scheduled with a three-month delay. Still, we were able to reach
data saturation, which “relates to the degree to which new data repeat
what was expressed in previous data” (Saunders et al., 2018, p. 1897).
We have decided to focus on gathering information from technology
providers, since they have contact with various clients from different
industries, giving a broader picture, rather than focusing on a few spe­
cific business relationships.
The data collection focused on three sources: interviews with em­
ployees (both individual in-depth and focus groups), documentation and
materials created by the providers for their business clients and shared
by providers (e.g., guides, presentations, e-books), and their websites
(Table 3). The in-depth interviews and focus groups were conducted
from December 2020 to March 2021 using Zoom software. They lasted
around 70 min and were recorded for transcription. The interviews and
focus groups followed a semi-structured scenario (Yin, 2003) created a
priori, and they provided an opportunity for the participants to share
their perspectives on the issue in its entirety. The documentation pro­
vided by the companies analyzed covered successful implementation
and use stories from agents and guidance for the clients in understanding
the complexity of the solution. The quality was ensured by triangulating
different data sources and speaking with employees from different
departments.
To employ qualitative rigor when dealing with raw data we applied
methodological remarks of Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton (2013), which
has been used in similar studies on digital technology, e.g., by Mosch
et al. (2022). Data analysis involved multiple iterations of the analytical
process; it was a continual process of going back and forth among the
data, theory, and the emerging relationships between the two (Eisen­
hardt, 1989; Maxwell, 2008). During the initial reading, we developed
codes that guided us through the data and brought emergent themes to
the surface. With subsequent readings, we employed different theoret­
ical frameworks to investigate how the collision of data and theory al­
lows us to grasp the epistemic value-in-use of CA and the value co-
creation process of the final implemented solution. Eventually, we
used the information technology framework (Gregor et al., 2006) to
structure the data within four dimensions of value-in-use, and the ARA
(Håkansson & Snehota, 1995) to identify actors, resources, and activ­
ities. In the process we have used the MAXQDA software for coding and
analyzing data. All of this has allowed us also to determine main areas of
interplay between them in AI-activated value co-creation and under­
stand the features and elements of value-in-use. The data analysis
structure is presented in Fig. 1.
The three companies offer analogous solutions but have some
M. Kot and G. Leszczyński Industrial Marketing Management 107 (2022) 287–299

Table 2
Providers under study of conversational agents.
Alpha Beta Gamma

Company’s characteristics - Norway - Argentina - United States

Marketing strategy
Product’s characteristics
- 51–200 employees - 51–200 employees - 1001–5001 employees
- Offices in 2 countries (Europe, North America) - Offices in 22 countries (Americas, Europe) - Offices in 15 countries (Americas, Europe, Asia)
Focus on CA functionalities and features Focus on the customer-centered CA solution Focus on anthropomorphizing CA
Off-the-shelf solution Off-the-shelf solution Off-the-shelf solution
- CA speak in 31 languages - CA speak in 3 languages - CA speak in 10 languages
- Independent solution - Independent solution - Element of AI workforce automation platform

cooperation between the provider and the client.

Table 3
The primary value offer of conversational agents is using them to
Data sources in the case study.
serve customers instead of human employees, at the same leveraging
Agent Data sources Informants them as a representative of a company. This can lead to many benefits
1 Alpha 3 in-depth interviews, - Community Manager connected to costs, standardization, and elevated access to the service by
webinars, 5 client studies, 7 - UX Research Lead customers. One of the main benefits for the client is the scalability of the
guides/e-books, website - AI Trainer
agent—it is much easier to update one bot with a change of policy than
2 Beta 1 in-depth interview, 2 focus - CEO
groups, 5 client studies, 7 - Focus Group 1: Head of the entire team of customer service assistants. Also, the bot can be
guides/e-books, website Communications and Marketing, available to an unlimited number of customers 24/7 without any wait­
Community Operations ing time. As such, CA can open a company to working with customers in
Manager, Head of Partners, different time zones, speaking new languages, or with customers who
Partner Manager
have social anxiety. Respondents emphasized the role of AI in coping
- Focus Group 2: Account
Manager, Client Success with customer service best practices to scale customer service deploy­
Manager, Support and On- ment. This allows for continuous improvement, as the AI can analyze
Boarding Specialist every interaction, select the most effective reactions to reach its pre­
3 Gamma 2 in-depth interviews, 5 client - Marketing Director
programmed goals, and adjust its actions to organizational goals.
studies, 7 guides/e-books, - Conversation Design Lead
slides used during client
Nevertheless, providers of the solution do not see the agent as a
presentations, website replacement for humans. Respondents agreed that these agents will al­
ways be perceived as artificial entities by the customers, and there is a
significant trend to differentiate them from human employees. At this
differences. These are a result of the different origins, marketing stra­ time, the lack of capacity to simulate empathy and contextual thinking
tegies, and comprehensiveness of their offers. Still, there are many more limits this technology. Therefore, talking to an agent might seem an
similarities than differences. Our analytical framework indicates that all inferior option for some customers. However, respondents point to three
three providers present a similar understanding of the significance of main criteria which clients rate the interaction with their representative
cooperation with clients, creating interfaces between client resources, with: response time, problem-solving, and pleasantries. Considering its
and implementing AI solutions and the activities needed to link re­ limitations, a well-implemented agent can reach the same or higher level
sources. In all three providers, we identified a similar configuration of of customer service satisfaction as a human employee. One respondent
ARA dimensions. Therefore, we present the findings without showing indicated that in some cases, people might even prefer to interact with
each case separately. This has allowed us to focus more on the value and an artificial agent instead of a human being - when they feel shy about
co-creation phenomena itself, rather than on the sparse differences be­ the issue they want to resolve, or if they generally tend to avoid social
tween cases. contacts (e.g., mental health issues, debt management, social anxiety).
The value-in-use for clients goes beyond the customer service pro­
4. Findings cess. By implementing CA, the organization develops a better under­
standing of its processes and best practices, has access to more customer
4.1. The value-in-use of conversational agents behavior data, develops strategic strengths (e.g., integration of systems,
reduced costs, and faster service delivery). Companies can also benefit
Conversational Agents are offered as AI-based solutions that can from the transformational value of CA, as they reorient organizations to
interact with a client’s customers to offer services about their inquiry, the digital world. The value for the client is summarized by using In­
making a purchase, or performing an everyday task connected to the formation Technology Framework in Table 4.
offer they are using. They are also used for stakeholders inside the
company; for example, to provide frontline employees with the most
4.2. Co-creation of value-in-use of conversational agents
recent information about company policy, replacing the back-office
positions. Each of the three companies in our study is the provider of
The solution itself is designed to adapt to the client’s organization.
such solutions for their B2B clients.
This means the agent is not an off-the-shelf product. To reach its po­
The solution that centers around CA is complex and multifaceted. It
tential value, “it needs to be transformed into a digital employee”, as one
can be placed between the intuitive and emotional level of intelligence
respondent from Alpha has said. During this process, providers guide
as distinguished by Huang and Rust (2018) because it tends to under­
their clients in deciding which processes to automate and what resource
stand customers’ needs and serve them with a solution to their problem
interfaces are needed. This requires intense efforts in the business
but it has limited ability to express emotional cues. Importantly, pro­
relationship between provider and client to shape the agent into the final
viders don’t just sell the agent as a standalone solution, they also provide
solution.
access to the platform on which their client can configure its agent. As
When implementing a conversational agent, the process of value co-
with every new employee, there is also a need to configure the agent
creation is time-intensive, especially on the client’s side, and may
within the company’s processes, connect it to the available resources
require adaptation. It can take from 6 to 12 months, because agents need
and teach it to meet standards in reaching the goals set for its role.
to be maintained and improved for some ongoing activities. Re­
Therefore, it becomes a customized solution that is created through
spondents clearly stated that the successful implementation of the agent

291
 M. Kot and G. Leszczyński
First-order concepts Second-order concepts Aggregated dimensions

- "You settle down on your business process and then you enable it
with AI" Definition of the agent through strategic
- "It's about rethinking a relationship with end users. So it's not, it's roles
really not about replacing customer representatives"

- "So part of that one of the big challenges is that people don't
necessarily know what they need to think about"
Collected knowledge
- "It need requires deep, vertical expertise, because a lot of these
business processes are very industry specific"
AI-activated value co-creation
- "Your best practices are determined by your users, not vice versa"
- "In order to successfully implement the product, you'd really need a Customized agent
really good understanding of who your users actually are"

- "The main problem, usually that the company has, when they try to
acquire a technology, is they don't have any strategy" Implementation of the agent
- "You have to predict what what your users might be asking of you"

- "The cost savings increase, the more it'll ride along with adoption"
- "It comes back to this idea of increasing adoption (...) the potential Theoretical lens: Dynamic
for cost savings lies in long term" The ARA Model,
292

Information
- "You want business analysts, you want strong project management, Technology
people who can understand the business problem" Framework Contextual Features of value-in-use
- "It requires a lot of back and forth with the client a lot of discussing
language issues involved"

- "We find that users come in excited, then they understand this
gonna require some work. It's not quite as easy - out of the box"
Fuzzy
- "One of the big misconceptions about artificial intelligence, that it is
omniscience, that it can do anything, knows everything"

- "[The agent] is as powerful as the data systems that she's able to

Industrial Marketing Management 107 (2022) 287–299

integrate with"
Data structures
- "By getting insights they can start to put together more and better
sets of data to train [the agent]"
- "Itself doesn't really need to know about the processes. It only
needs to understand how people are asking about these processes"
Recognized patterns Elements of value-in-use
- "Based on these 10-15 examples, it can understand several
thousands ways of asking for"

- "We create an algorithm to predict (...) we've read the 100% of all
the chats, and we show this is the main problem in the company"
Learned predictions
- "700,000 a day calls coming in [the agent] answers all of those
questions, it learns. It scales so much, you scale so fast"

Fig. 1. Data analysis structure.

M. Kot and G. Leszczyński
Table 4
Value for client developed by co-creation of CA.
Client organization
Informational - The agent provides up-to-date information on services and
interactions to the customer and company.
- Using the history of the agent’s interaction, the company can
analyze and understand interaction patterns.
Transactional - The agent provides customer service in a straightforward 24/
7.
- The agent can perform comprehensive customer service,
performing actions on behalf of the customer.
- Standardization and optimization of client service process.
- Clients can quickly scale the sales process to large numbers of
customers and market segments.
Strategic - High standardization of the agent provides fast, easy,
accessible customer service with stable quality (simple tasks).
- Ability to reach customers speaking different languages, and
those with social anxiety.
- Integrating the agent with IT systems provides an opportunity
for the client to broaden the value offer.
- Lower customer service costs thanks to the decrease in
intensive human labor.
Transformational - Reorientation to more digitized organizations.
- Restructuring and optimizing customer service process from
repetitive tasks to creating and maintaining the agent and
improving user experience.
- The development of organizational AI-competences.
is the client’s responsibility. Providers of a solution cannot guarantee
success, but they can facilitate the process of value-co-creation. The
skills and predispositions of organizations determine the value gained.
The whole process requires substantial commitment on the client’s side,
without which there is a considerable risk of failure to reach value-in-
use. Respondents claim that a minimal level of engagement is
required, without which the agent will not be able to deliver value, as
customers may find it annoying, inadequate, or simply useless.
4.2.1. Actors involved in value co-creation
There are three main actors involved in the value co-creation
ecosystem: (1) the provider of the technology, (2) the client who in­
troduces the agent into its structures, and (3) the customer, who is the
end user and will interact with the agent. The design and maintenance
are done in a business relationship between the provider and the client.
Respondents emphasized that to introduce an agent successfully, the
client needs to make the right strategic decisions and design choices.
This increases the necessity for intangible resources such as managerial
and customer service competencies, industry know-how, and UX design
skills. Since this technology has the characteristics of a black box phe­
nomenon, which means that AI is intangible and difficult to compre­
hend, it can be problematic for actors to develop a shared
understanding, not just of the solution itself, but also the process of value
co-creation. Setting goals for the agent and making the right design
choices are the most influential factors in the agent’s potential to make
the customers satisfied. Providers consult their clients on the strategy
and share industry-specific best practices. By deciding to use AI-based
solutions, clients start what respondents called “an AI journey”, mean­
ing that they start to develop an understanding of the technology and
skills to use it.
Providers advise their clients to hire or reposition a team of people
who will work full-time on training and maintaining the agent. There are
three main employee roles involved in the process: AI Trainers, UX
Designers, and Business Analysts. AI Trainers work on programming the
agent with questions, answers, and actions. They also connect it to the
available resources, such as IT systems. UX Designers plan the style of
the conversations, the agent’s identity, and identify what the potential
ways of a customer asking about a certain issue might be. Business
Analysts plan customer journeys, trying to optimize the way to get in
touch with the agent and how it will solve problems for specific cus­
tomers or clusters of customers. Previous customer service employees
293
Industrial Marketing Management 107 (2022) 287–299
provide knowledge about the customers, also taking over difficult cases
after the introduction of the agent as a service.
Customers play a special role in this ecosystem, as they influence the
design of the agent and make it possible for it to learn from every
interaction. Depending on the client’s business, hundreds or even tens of
thousands of customers can interact with CA. They interact with the
agent to achieve their own goals (e.g., making a purchase), but at the
same time they participate in the agents’ learning processes, where they
play an integral role in the value co-creation.
4.2.2. Activities in value co-creation
The respondents indicated two different types of activities – the ones
that are needed in the implementation process and the ones that are
performed to create value. Activities that are needed to connect re­
sources and establish processes deal mainly with knowledge transfer,
organizational and agent training, managing human resources
(retraining, hiring). Activities that deliver value work with automated
customer service processes and with a set of actions that maintain and
develop the solution as well. As a result, the client’s organization takes
on new activities, such as analytics, conversation design, and the
cooperation with the agent itself by human employees.
The decisions made during the implementation have a substantive
impact on the agent’s subsequent performance. Respondents empha­
sized that during the entire effort of implementing and using the agent,
the client must audit its organization, as there is a severe risk of repli­
cating a flawed process, that will later be amplified by technology. One
respondent from Gamma stated, “Frankly, I would recommend that any
company looking to put AI in front of a business process make sure the
business process is appropriate, correct, and this is your time to do some
spring cleaning. It needs deep, vertical expertise because a lot of these business
processes are very industry-specific”. The success factors seem complex
and interconnected between the provider’s technology and know-how
with the client’s expectations, skills, and willingness to bear the initial
costs of developing the agent for the customized solution.
4.2.3. Resource interactions in value co-creation
Both tangible and intangible resources are being used in the process
of implementing conversational agents. The provider delivers the agent
and a platform that makes it possible to program the agent without
coding. AI-based solutions are knowledge-intensive, so there is a need to
supply the agent with the information relevant to the task it will be set to
perform. On the client’s side, agents are engaged in part of customer
service processes, so they must have well-structured documentation on
the company’s policies, products, or services, and access to the trans­
action history of customers. To enable the agent to perform actions for
the customers, it needs to be connected to the client’s IT systems. This is
the main differentiator between conversational agents and chatbots –
performing tasks in the customers’ names. Many respondents pointed to
customer insight as one of the most important resources within the
company’s possession “to successfully implement the product, you’d need a
perfect understanding of who your users are” said a respondent from Alpha.
Challenges arise, not only with having or acquiring necessary re­
sources but with creating suitable resource interfaces to connect them.
What was done in an old-fashioned way before, when people or simple
algorithms served the customers, is being taken over by AI algorithms
during implementation of CA. This means that in many cases use sce­
narios and resource interfaces should be developed before the imple­
mentation of CA. For example, knowledge about the customer may be
internalized by the customer service employees and shared using a
spoken language. In that case, the client may use documentation as a
resource interface to translate the existing knowledge within the orga­
nization to the agent. Other resource interfaces are created, for example
the employees using the platform to program the agent with information
about the company often act as translators, converting that data to a
format that is understood by the agent. It is also important for the agent
to have a direct link to a set of resources that deal with data processing.
M. Kot and G. Leszczyński Industrial Marketing Management 107 (2022) 287–299

The respondent from Gamma stated “[the agent] is as powerful as the data Table 5
systems that she [the company strongly anthropomorphized the agent as fe­ Actors, resources, and activities in value co-creation of conversational agents.
male; authors’ comment] is able to integrate with.” The link between the Areas of activities and resources intersection
existing IT system and the agent is made through a specific resource
Definition of the agent through strategic goals
interface called an Application Programming Interface (API). Depending Resources: Activities:
on the clients’ existing systems, it may be necessary to update those
systems to implement the interface.
How resources will be connected is predetermined by the design of - (P) Strategic and managerial - (P & C) Expectation of management to
competencies to understand and adapt the client’s beliefs with reality
the agent, meaning that the client’s organization will need to adapt and advise clients on their strategy - (P & C) Strategic consultancy with a
either create the proper resource interfaces, translate knowledge or - (C) Organizational awareness allows client to allow to make more
make space for radically new resources. On the one hand, the agent placing the agent within a specific comprehensive adaptations
enables connections, but at the same time it is constraining how re­ process - (P) Understanding the client’s business,
- (C) Experience with AI-based solu­ customers, and processes
sources can be connected, because it can be quite inflexible in the ways it
tions that lead to correct expectations - (P & C) Setting strategy for the agent
can take in data. Only specific formats can be processed by the algo­ and attitude towards the introduction (aims, coverage, processes)
rithm, so the organization needs either to adapt to this or forsake the
investment altogether.
Collected knowledge
Resources: Activities:
4.3. Interdependency between resource interactions and actors’ activities

- (P) Industry know-how – awareness of - (P) Sharing provider know-how about

Respondents strongly emphasized that the process of implementa­
characteristics of different industries conversational agents and adding
tion and use of CA is based on properly connected resources and activ­ - (C) Data on agent’s interactions with acknowledgment of industry-specific
ities. The intersection of resources and activities happens within four customers factors
areas that are taken together to create certain points of value: (1) defi­ - (C) History of previous customer - (C) Analyzing the data gathered by the
nition of the agent through strategic goals, (2) collection and structure of service conversations that can serve as agent
a basis for agent learning - (C) Translating existing knowledge
knowledge, (3) customization of the agent, (4) its implementation. In - (C) Client service competencies – the within the organization to a format
the first area, the client transforms the strategic goals into operational agent can duplicate the best practices understandable for the agent
decisions regarding the agent with the help of the provider’s consultant. within the company - (C) Extracting implicit knowledge
They define which processes will be automated, where it will be placed - (C) Customer insight – knowing the about the organization itself and its
customer makes it possible to correct customers
within the organizational structures and processes, and which stake­
design choices and predict the
holders will be impacted and how the system will influence them. In the questions that will be asked
second area, the actors are transforming existing knowledge into a
digital form that is required by the agent. This means gathering the Customized agent
existing knowledge and transforming it into a new format. The third Resources: Activities:
area deals with designing agents’ responses to customer inquiries and
connecting them to the required IT systems. This is also where the al­
- (P) A conversational agent consists of - (P & C) Designing intent recognition
gorithm, as well as the organization itself, are learning. The algorithm
AI algorithms that allow it to be and agents’ types of answers
learns from every interaction with the end user and organization, doc­ modeled to serve specific clients’ - (P & C) Making UX design choices and
uments the statistics, and tries to adjust the design to better suit the needs designing the agent
goals. In the fourth area, the organization adapts to these new auto­ - (P) A platform that allows - (C) The agent learns from each
mated processes. This means that employees must learn to interact with programming the agent without the interaction with the customer
need for coding - (C) Modification of the agent as new
the agent. New departments in the company, responsible for the agent,
- (P) UX competencies allow advising information arise to optimize its
are created, and the end users become accustomed to being served by an clients on design choices performance
artificial entity instead of a human being. What is worth noting is that - (C) Human resources – a dedicated
these four areas in which activities and resources intersect are not linear team of people that will design the
agent
and can occur simultaneously. In Table 5. we show which resources and
activities are combined to create value.
Respondents indicate that the implementation of the agent is a more Implementation of the agent
Resources: Activities:
unscripted and project-specific task than a “one-size-fits-all” process
with a clear step-by-step guide. What happens within and between these
four intersections of resources and activities leads to value co-creation. - (P) Servers that deliver computational - (P & C) Integration with client’s IT
This means that implementing the same conversational agent algorithm power and storage for the agent systems through API (and adjustment
- (C) IT systems on which an agent can of the system through the creation of
will yield different results depending on the organization, its resources,
perform actions on behalf of a client API)
and its activities. The respondent from Gamma stated, “if we got ten - (C) Website and/or contact center as a - (C) Rearranging customer service
conversations designers in a room from different companies, there would be a platform where customers can find process within a company to integrate
lot of diversity of thought on what the principles are, and how we apply and interact with the agent artificial agents with human employees
them.” Additionally, depending on the existing documentation of - (C) Managerial competencies as an - (C) Measuring and controlling the
introduction of the agent require response of customers to interactions
customer service processes, employee competencies, and how up to date
organization’s adaptation with the agent
the client’s IT system is, there may be a requirement for organizational - (C) Managing employees (training,
adaptation. Knowledge acquires superior status within the importance rearranging, hiring)
of resources for value co-creation. To serve the customers effectively and
P – provider, C – client.
satisfactorily, CA must learn what the customers want and deliver that
within a short time frame. This puts people who work in the existing
competencies. Even though it may seem that clients deal with the
customer service departments in focus, since they have customer insight
technological endeavor, these are non-technical skills that play an
and can share it. Some respondents even stated that it is better to retrain
essential role in the process. The company that decides to introduce CA
a customer service employee to design the agent than to use an existing
is usually beginning its AI journey, meaning that it learns the technology
IT team because customer service competencies are more critical than IT

294
M. Kot and G. Leszczyński
along with how to align resources and activities around it.
5. Discussion
This study was among the first to offer a holistic perspective by
applying an interaction-based ARA framework to study the co-creation
of AI-activated value, with a focus on CA. This is a technology that be­
comes especially important from a customer service perspective, due to
its ability to converse using natural language and perform actions on
behalf of the customer. Previous studies regarding value co-creation
addressed the issue of technologies as resources (e.g., Sklyar et al.,
2019); however, they provided little insight into how they are involved
in providers’ and clients’ joint efforts to create value. This study shows
the specific characteristics of CA that influence the process of value co-
creation and especially the way resources are connected. It also shows
the distinguishing features of AI-activated value.
5.1. Resource integration in value co-creation
This study follows the view that resources deliver value depending
on how they are connected to each other (Baraldi & Strömsten, 2006).
The agent needs connections with resources on two levels. The first is the
interaction with other tangible resources – this is made through in­
terfaces such as API (with IT systems) and structured data sheets (e.g.,
with call center scripts). The second is more abstract, as it connects the
agent with the organization itself, with a particular focus on the orga­
nization’s knowledge. Through resource interaction, the agent can use
the tangible and intangible resources of three main actors involved -
provider, client, and customer - to automate activities.
Intelligently connected resources are providing new possibilities, as
Pagani and Pardo (2017) have already documented. However, what
seems to be distinctive in the case of AI-based solutions, is that con­
nected resources provide the ability to use resources in a new and elastic
way. On the other hand, the resource constellation is strictly determined
by the agent and is difficult to modify. So, the resources are aligned
towards an agent, not with the agent. This plays a specific role within the
resource constellation. In a way, the constraints of implementing the
agent dominate by determining the way resources are connected and the
potential value that can be derived from them. The client’s organization
faces the challenge to meet the requirements of the agent, adapt itself,
and create suitable resource interfaces to allow resource integration.
This brings us to two points of discussion in the following paragraphs.
The first point is, that the reconfiguration of one’s resource
constellation to reach the value promised by the use of CA is far-reaching
and difficult to change back. Each change in resource connections in­
fluences operant and operand resources (Kowalkowski, Persson Ridell,
Röndell, & Sörhammar, 2012). In the case of the introduction of CA,
these changes are substantial and determined by the way the provider
designed the agent. The agent seems central in every process that it is
designed to automate. Its limitations and opportunities will determine
what value is possible to obtain. Therefore, it is the creator of the agent,
the provider, who is directly influencing which way resources need to be
connected and what resource interfaces are possible to use. However,
they are constrained by the technology itself. The outcome of changes
within the resource constellation is strict and difficult to change. Thanks
to the use of the agent, the set of actions and processes in customer
service are much easier to monitor, analyze and change. What seems at
first to tighten up resources, at the same time gives more possibilities to
manage the activities.
The findings show that by deciding to take a step towards automa­
tion, the client organization loses the existing resource configuration.
The client either discharges employees who previously conducted
customer service activities or trains them to perform new tasks. The
effort to transfer knowledge to the agent is inevitably connected with the
risk of losing the knowledge that resided within the human employees,
which could be characterized as tacit. The process changes the role of
295
Industrial Marketing Management 107 (2022) 287–299
human employees within customer service and deeply affects the
possible future of the organization, which agrees with the argument
from Lusch and Nambisan (2015), that decisions about the use of
technology will impact positively or negatively (or limit and expand at
the same time) the service innovation opportunities. These changes can
be so substantial that the return to the previous state of the organization
can be difficult and seem more like starting from scratch. Therefore,
there is a substantial element of value destruction to gain the benefits
enabled by AI.
Our second point is connected to the view that it is not the tech­
nology itself that delivers value in case of CA. The set of activities and
specific resource constellations allow for interactions between the agent
and the end customer, which leads to value. When an agent plays such a
protruding role, a question is asked about the agent’s identity (Guercini
& Medlin, 2020; Kot & Leszczyński, 2020; Storbacka, Brodie, Böhmann,
Maglio, & Nenonen, 2016). The agent uses resources to produce effects
in the interaction with the client’s customer, rather than being some­
thing where an act is performed, which is also in line with Sklyar et al.
(2019) and those findings of technology’s role as an active type of
resource. The results have shown that one of the main distinctive
characteristics of CA is the ability to perform actions on behalf of the
customer. It is a facilitator that performs actions on other resources
through interfaces to accomplish specific tasks that were set for it. The
way actors will perceive this – more closely to the agency of an actor or
its nature and calling it a resource – can have a broad consequence on
the perception of the agent by the main actors involved in the process
(Kot & Leszczyński, 2020). As shared understanding of the value of the
solution between provider and client enables value co-creation (Carrillo,
Edvardsson, Reynoso, & Maravillo, 2019), the misinterpretation of the
role and possibilities of CA can challenge the implementation and impair
the process.
5.2. AI-activated outcome of value co-creation
The findings show how utilitarian value-in-use becomes an outcome
of CA value co-creation. Traditionally, interactions with customers were
considered as co-creating transient narratives representing their dis­
cussions and arrangements made during service exchanges (Hartmann,
Wieland, & Vargo, 2018). In the case of CA, these narratives are recor­
ded and built in the linguistic database. CA store all the interaction data
and translate it to a larger dataset of words and collocations, which leads
to a better understanding of contextual statements, industrial jargon, or
slang. This provides deeper, more up-to-date information on customer
interactions and builds the history of interactions with each exchange
with the customer. Because CA collects rich data from every interaction,
this reduces the costs of accessing marginal data and the number of
customers needed for that process (Hagiu & Wright, 2020). These
informational benefits enable the supplier to understand customers in a
more data-driven way. It can be used to support or replace human work
in transactions and provide customer service in a standardized, repeti­
tive, continuous manner for more effective selling (Syam & Sharma,
2018) or can have a positive impact on an improved forecasting of
customer expectations (Paschen et al., 2019).
Researchers point out that AI solutions differ from other digital
technologies, due to their machine learning capabilities (Murtarelli
et al., 2021). Due to this fact, the solution is changing over time, since
the algorithm is designed to improve itself with every new piece of in­
formation it gathers (Paschen, Wilson, & Ferreira, 2020). Our research
shows that learning activated by AI takes place not only on the technical
level. It also occurs on an organizational level; organizations deal with
rediscovering their process of customer service to program it into the
CA. This leads to enhanced understanding of one’s practices and activity
patterns. This multidimensional learning illustrates the transformational
AI-activated value.
M. Kot and G. Leszczyński
5.3. Ontological aspects of AI-activated value
The three cases studied here uncover the properties of the value
activated by AI. First, AI-activated value can evolve rapidly. Several
researchers described the dynamic character of value by referring to
repeated supplier-customer interactions and suggested that this process
never ends (Massi et al., 2020) or to the dynamism of value-in-use when
digital technology is applied (Hasselblatt et al., 2018; Ritter & Pedersen,
2020). Our research extends this aspect of value by paying attention to
the machine learning function of AI, which enables CA to develop lan­
guage facility with every interaction with a customer. Even after the
implementation to the client organization, the CA are still evolving by
learning from customers’ interactions. This finding supports the
conceptualization of AI-activated value-in-use as a process, not an
outcome (Massi et al., 2020).
Secondly, the value-in-use of CA is contextual when it comes to
organizational and socio-cultural issues. CA copy operational patterns
from the client’s company, so the value depends on client resources and
their capability to recognize which patterns should be followed by AI.
That aspect of contextuality is colloquially expressed as “garbage in the
AI, garbage out the AI” (Vidgen & Derczynski, 2020). The social and
cultural context in the case of CA is built in by including language
context as used by customers in the form of data sets. This makes the
value of CA distinct from Edvardsson, Tronvoll, and Gruber’ (2011)
suggestion, that social and cultural issues are the background of value
and do not determine the value. In the case of CA, those issues are
included in value-in-use.
Thirdly, AI-activated value is fuzzy. Some clients might expect that
AI will miraculously reorganize their customer service processes. They
can overvalue the power of AI and underestimate the efforts that need to
be invested by the client during implementation. AI creates nothing
from scratch, it can only recognize a structure and copy patterns. Hence,
if the client’s organization is not able to provide resources that can be
defended with logic or justification, then the validity of machine
learning will be low. It phenomenologically shows that value co-creation
leads to outcomes through legitimacy (Massi et al., 2020). The value of
CA is also fuzzy because this value can hardly be predicted at the
beginning of co-creation and is scarcely understandable during co-
creation because of the AI black box problem. Even if CA develop so­
phisticated patterns, the effectiveness of the system might be limited if
decisions and actions made by AI cannot be explained to human users
(Rai, 2020).
6. Conclusions
6.1. Theoretical implications
This study contributes to business-to-business literature by providing
in-depth insight into AI-activated value co-creation. By distinguishing
the essence of value-in-use and the nature of its creation, this study
shows which resources are combined to create an AI-based solution, how
actors and activities are involved in resource integration, and what value
is an outcome of co-creation in the case of AI in the B2B context. To the
best of our knowledge, this is the first exploration of these issues
regarding conversational agents and one of few about AI.
This study identifies two dimensions of AI-activated value. The
axiological dimension (Grönroos, 2011) is the value-in-use of conver­
sational agents that consists of interlinked data structure, recognized
patterns, and learned predictions. This allows communication functions
to be applied to the client’s customer service that translate data to
generate informational, strategic, transactional, and transformational
benefits. That would be in line with the rational meaning of AI, defining
it as an “information system that acts rationally based on the informa­
tion available to them to solve problems” (Paschen, Paschen, et al.,
2020). However, regarding the ontological dimension of AI-activated
value (Massi et al., 2020), value is paradoxically subjective because of
296
Industrial Marketing Management 107 (2022) 287–299
dynamism, contextuality, and fuzziness. Consequently, Massi et al.’
(2020) suggestion to take a relativistic approach to value and value co-
creation can be beneficial for a better understanding of value-in-use in
the case of AI. Such an approach to the value of CA provides a different
perspective than previous studies that have emphasized the role of
design, the issue of anthropomorphism, technological suitability, and
customer acceptance of AI (Fernandes & Oliveira, 2021; Murtarelli et al.,
2021; Pizzi et al., 2021).
Our research framework delivers insight into the value co-creation of
conversational agents and exhibits the complex nature of this process.
Using the ARA Model to analyze value co-creation, we found a complex
combination of intangible resources being introduced into the client’s
organization to create an AI-based solution. Our findings reveal three
significant differences between the mainstream research on value co-
creation in the B2B context and the value co-creation of CA. First, the
value co-creation process does not only occur between the provider and
the client, it continues in an ecosystem even after the agent has been
fully implemented, as value is co-created with every interaction of CA
with customers. Second, in the case of CA value, co-creation mainly
involves interaction between intangible resources such as data, knowl­
edge, and processes. The development of interfaces that makes associ­
ating these resources possible requires joint actions from both provider
and client. Tangible resources play a secondary, facilitating role, as
those needs (like infrastructure for AI) can be rented in the cloud. Third,
resources and activities are inextricably interconnected because the
interaction of resources creates descriptions of patterns of automated
processes, and simultaneously, the execution of these processes gener­
ates resources, mainly in the form of data. Pagani and Pardo (2017)
present similar conclusions showing the link between digital resources
and activities and actors. However, this research shows how resources
enable conversational agents to reflect and replace some human activ­
ities. This transformation creates new, AI-based activities. We also
identify the appearance of actors necessary for the training of conver­
sational agents, who help to transform intangible resources into schemes
that AI can follow. Customers play an important role by interacting with
the agent and providing an opportunity for it to improve.
The introduction of an agent creates new resources and rearranges
existing ones. It enables changes within the resources directly involved
in the customer service processes, but also facilitates wider changes in
the organization by impacting managerial competencies. The value that
actors can derive from the solution is the effect of changes within the
resource layer, in which the CA play a central role. Our study shows that
the design of the agent, its requirements, and its capabilities, impacts all
three of the ARA layers. These changes are activated and driven by AI,
due to the nature of CA as the main component of the new resource
constellation. CA act as a facilitator that enables the creation of a new
resource constellation, but at the same time, it serves as a restrictor since
no other arrangement of resources than the one strictly adherent to its
design is possible. Therefore, the client is introducing a resource that
dominates within the three actors’ ecosystem – its design dictates what
changes must be made and what value can be derived from it. It is also
worth noting that in the attempt to reach the value offer that comes with
automated customer service processes, the client is facing the risk
associated with the loss of know-how of its human resources. Tradi­
tionally, businesspeople knew how the value was built and what will be
lost if an element is taken away. In the case of AI-activated value, the
understanding of resource ties and interplay with actors and activities
can be indistinct rather than obvious.
6.2. Managerial implications
Burström et al. (2021) suggest that companies gradually learn how to
implement AI to create value for their customers and reach the balance
between AI exploitation and AI exploration in different areas. Manage­
rial implications from this study are different for clients and providers.
Clients can expect informational, transactional, strategic, and
M. Kot and G. Leszczyński
transformational value as the outcome of working on CA. However, due
to the nature of value and its dynamic character clients need to brace for
a journey, where at the beginning the ability to foresee the exact benefits
of the process is limited. Apart from this, managers employing conver­
sational agents need to take on a wider perspective that will account not
only the agent itself, but also resources and activities connected in the
process. Focusing just on the agent as a sole source of value can inhibit
the organization from reaching the desired outcomes. Therefore, man­
agers should seek a wider strategy of implementing the agent into their
resource structures and processes.
Since the process can be difficult to grasp, providers should work
within their business relationships with clients to help them understand
not only the process of implementation, but also the significance of all
elements involved. The value delivered by CA is their capability to learn
and replicate the best customer service practices, including under­
standing customers, ways of working, the description of processes, and
classification of staff competencies; these are crucial for digitalizing a
client’s customer interactions. This leads to a key implication for pro­
viders - at least at this moment in time, apart from delivering solutions,
they should become consultants and help adjusting the client’s organi­
zation to the AI-based customer service solution. Otherwise, they risk
implementation failures that are not a result of their product, but
inadequate implementation strategies. Providers need to make sure that
clients understand the specificity of AI systems and dangers of repli­
cating bad processes.
Managers of both providers and customers, should also learn from
this research that managing value co-creation in case of digital tech­
nologies needs involvement of stakeholders in an ecosystem. Imple­
mentation of conversational agents includes various actors who share
their experience, data and play different role in that process.
6.3. Questions for further research on AI-based value co-creation and
limitations
This paper leads to some questions for further research that can help
develop the understanding of the value of AI-based solutions and co-
creation of them (Table 6). Thus far, value co-creation has been
analyzed assuming that AI simply repeats human activities. That is the
situation that providers and clients usually face. However, soon agents
might act as actors in an ecosystem in their own right, so they will
provide data for machine learning as well. We should ask questions
about value co-creation in such a complex situation.
Identifying the benefits and sacrifices in the usage of CA in customer
service would help to understand the balance between them and move
the research beyond superficial admiration of digital technology. The
identification of the way to measure both sides of that equation in B2B
context is needed. As digitalization may contribute to value co-creation
not only positively, value co-destruction caused by replacement of
human by AI in customer service could be also studied.
Finally, the human perspective on AI-activated value defines an
opportunity for further research. AI can be defined by the users’
approach to it in a given context, as e.g., a digital tool or an actor that
collaborates in value co-creation. The meaning ascribed to AI will
probably influence the shared understanding of the value co-created
between provider and client. In turn, the co-creation of AI-based value
might affect the formation of an actors’ understanding of AI and their
expectations about the outcome of AI. This leads to a question about
ethical considerations that should be taken from the fact that customers
are developing the agent without fully knowing or understanding it.
We acknowledge that this is a study of a relatively new solution that
is rapidly spreading across some industries, especially in the time of the
COVID-19 pandemic. This high dynamism will affect providers and their
client’s approach, introduction, and use of conversational agents. Right
now, there are only a few providers of these solutions, but more will
enter the market soon. That limits the ability to generalize some of our
findings.
297
Industrial Marketing Management 107 (2022) 287–299
Table 6
Avenues for further research.
Research area Research questions
AI in value co-creation - How will resources be integrated when AI
participates in value co-creation?
- How will AI develop as an efficient facilitator of
resource integration?
- What roles are assigned to AI in value co-
creation?
- What goals and means of control should be
assigned to AI in value co-creation?
AI-based value balance - How does the AI-activated value co-creation gain
legitimacy?
- How can benefits and sacrifices of
implementation of CA be measured and
compared?
- How can organizations deal with the value
destruction caused by replacing human customer
service with conversational agents?
The human perspective of AI - Will people perceive AI as an actor or tool in value
in value co-creation co-creation?
- How can AI be integrated into value co-creation
with a human?
- How can people learn from AI in value co-creation
and how should AI be organized to share re­
sources with people?
- Which ethical considerations should arise from
the fact that customers are developing the agent
without knowing it?
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by National Science Centre, Poland
under the grant 2019/33/N/HS4/02904.
References
Baraldi, E., Gressetvold, E., & Harrison, D. (2012). Resource interaction in inter-
organizational networks: Foundations, comparison, and a research agenda. Journal
of Business Research, 65(2), 266–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.05.030
Baraldi, E., & Strömsten, T. (2006). Embedding and utilizing low weight: Value creation
and resource configurations in the networks around IKEA’s Lack table and Holmen’s
newsprint. IMP Journal, 1(11), 39–70.
Björkdahl, J. (2020). Strategies for digitalization in manufacturing firms. California
Management Review, 62(4), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125620920349
Bocconcelli, R., Carlborg, P., Harrison, D., Hasche, N., Hedvall, K., & Huang, L. (2020).
Resource interaction and resource integration: Similarities, differences, reflections.
Industrial Marketing Management, 91(September), 385–396. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.09.016
Breidbach, F., & Maglio, P. P. (2016). Technology-enabled value co-creation: An
empirical analysis of actors, resources, and practices. Industrial Marketing
Management, 56, 73–85.
Burström, T., Parida, V., Lahti, T., & Wincent, J. (2021). AI-enabled business-model
innovation and transformation in industrial ecosystems: A framework, model and
outline for further research. Journal of Business Research, 127(June 2020), 85–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.016
Carcary, M., Maccani, G., Doherty, E., & Conway, G. (2018). Exploring the determinants
of IoT adoption: Findings from a systematic literature review. Lecture Notes in
Business Information Processing, 330, 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
99951-7_8
Carrillo, F. J., Edvardsson, B., Reynoso, J., & Maravillo, E. (2019). Alignment of
resources, actors and contexts for value creation: Bringing knowledge management
into service-dominant logic. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 11
(3), 424–438. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-08-2018-0077
Ciechanowski, L., Przegalinska, A., Magnuski, M., & Gloor, P. (2018). In the shades of the
uncanny valley: An experimental study of human–chatbot interaction. Future
Generation Computer Systems, 92(March), 539–548.
Corsaro, D. (2018). Crossing the boundary between physical and digital: The role of
boundary objects. IMP Journal, 12(3), 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMP-06-
2017-0036
Davenport, T., Guha, A., Grewal, D., & Bressgott, T. (2020). How artificial intelligence
will change the future of marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48
(1), 24–42.
M. Kot and G. Leszczyński
van Doorn, J., Mende, M., Noble, S. M., Hulland, J., Ostrom, A. L., Grewal, D., &
Petersen, J. A. (2017). Domo arigato Mr. Roboto: Emergence of automated social
presence in organizational frontlines and customers’ service experiences. Journal of
Service Research, 20(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670516679272
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service
exchange and value cocreation: A social construction approach. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327–339.
Ehret, M., & Wirtz, J. (2018). Ownership of co-creation assets: Driving B2B value
propositions in the service economy. Journal of Creating Value, 4(1), 42–60.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Falkenreck, C., & Wagner, R. (2017). The Internet of Things–Chance and challenge in
industrial business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 66, 181–195.
Fan, A., Wu, L., & Mattila, A. S. (2016). Does anthropomorphism influence customers’
switching intentions in the self-service technology failure context? Journal of Services
Marketing, 30(7), 713–723. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-07–2015–0225
Fernandes, T., & Oliveira, E. (2021). Understanding consumers’ acceptance of automated
technologies in service encounters: Drivers of digital voice assistants adoption.
Journal of Business Research, 122(January 2020), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jbusres.2020.08.058
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in
inductive research: Notes on the gioia methodology. Organizational Research
Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
Glushko, R. J., & Nomorosa, K. (2013). Substituting information for interaction: A
framework for personalization in service encounters and service systems. Journal of
Service Research, 16(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1109/SRII.2011.93
Gregor, S., Martin, M., Fernandez, W., Stern, S., & Vitale, M. (2006). The
transformational dimension in the realization of business value from information
technology. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 15(3), 249–270. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jsis.2006.04.001
Grewal, D., Guha, A., Satornino, C. B., & Schweiger, E. B. (2021). Artificial intelligence:
The light and the darkness. Journal of Business Research, 136(April), 229–236.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.07.043
Grönroos, C. (2011). A service perspective on business relationships: The value creation,
interaction and marketing interface. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2),
240–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.06.036
Guercini, S., & Medlin, C. J. (2020). The actor inside industrial networks: Where, when,
and how do artificial intelligence algorithms sit? IMP Conference, 1–9.
Hagiu, A., & Wright, J. (2020). When data creates competitive advantage. Harvard
Business Review, 98(January–February 2020), 94–101.
Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing relationships in business networks. In
London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.12.007
Hartmann, N. N., Wieland, H., & Vargo, S. L. (2018). Converging on a new theoretical
foundation for selling. Journal of Marketing, 82(2), 1–18.
Hasselblatt, M., Huikkola, T., Kohtamäki, M., & Nickell, D. (2018). Modeling
manufacturer’s capabilities for the internet of things. The Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, 33(6), 822–836. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-11-2015-0225
Hofacker, C., Golgeci, I., Pillai, K. G., & Gligor, D. M. (2020). Digital marketing and
business- to-business relationships : A close look at the interface and a roadmap for
the future. European Journal of Marketing, 54(6), 1161–1179. https://doi.org/
10.1108/EJM-04-2020-0247
Hoyer, W. D., Kroschke, M., Schmitt, B., Kraume, K., & Shankar, V. (2020). Transforming
the customer experience through new technologies. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
51, 57–71.
Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service
Research, 21(2), 155–172.
Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2021). A framework for collaborative artificial intelligence
in marketing. Journal of Retailing, 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2021.03.001
Järvinen, J., & Taiminen, H. (2016). Harnessing marketing automation for B2B content
marketing. Industrial Marketing Management, 54, 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.indmarman.2015.07.002
Jayashankar, P., Johnston, W. J., Nilakanta, S., & Burres, R. (2019). Co-creation of value-
in-use through big data technology- a B2B agricultural perspective. The Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, 35(3), 508–523. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-12-
2018-0411
Kaartemo, V., & Helkkula, A. (2018). A systematic review of artificial intelligence and
robots in value co-creation: Current status and future research avenues. Journal of
Creating Value, 4(2), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/2394964318805625
Karjaluoto, H., Mustonen, N., & Ulkuniemi, P. (2015). The role of digital channels in
industrial marketing communications. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 30
(6), 703–710.
Kim, T., & Duhachek, A. (2020). Artificial intelligence and persuasion: A construal- level
account. Psychological Science, 31(4), 363–380.
Kim, T., Jiang, L., Hyejin, L., & Duhacheck, A. (2019). Telling your secrets to an Ai:
Consumers prefer disclosing private personal information to an Ai (vs. a human). In
R. Bagchi, L. Block, & L. Lee (Eds.), Vol. 47. Advances in consumer research (pp.
40–44). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Kot, M. T., & Leszczyński, G. (2020). The concept of intelligent agent in business
interactions: Is virtual assistant an actor or a boundary object? The Journal of Business
and Industrial Marketing, 35(7), 1155–1164. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2018-
0291
Kowalkowski, C., Persson Ridell, O., Röndell, J. G., & Sörhammar, D. (2012). The co-
creative practice of forming a value proposition. Journal of Marketing Management,
28(13–14), 1553–1570. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.736875
298
Industrial Marketing Management 107 (2022) 287–299
Kumar, V., Rajan, B., Venkatesan, R., & Lecinski, J. (2019). Understanding the role of
artificial intelligence in personalized engagement marketing. California Management
Review, 61(4), 135–155.
Lapierre, J. (2000). Customer-perceived value in industrial contexts. Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, 15(2), 122–145. https://doi.org/10.1108/
08858620010316831
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In The Sage
handbook of organization studies. Sage.
Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout
the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jm.15.0420
Lenka, S., Parida, V., & Wincent, J. (2017). Digitalization capabilities as enablers of value
co-creation in servitizing firms. Psychology & Marketing, 34(1), 92–100.
Leone, D., Schiavone, F., Appio, F. P., & Chiao, B. (2020). How does artificial intelligence
enable and enhance value co-creation in industrial markets? An exploratory case
study in the healthcare ecosystem. Journal of Business Research, September.. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.008
Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 155–176.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & Gustafsson, A. (2016). Fostering a trans-disciplinary
perspectives of service ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2957–2963.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.028
Luz Martín-Peña, M., Díaz-Garrido, E., & Sánchez-López, J. M. (2018). The digitalization
and servitization of manufacturing: A review on digital business models. Strategic
Change, 27(2), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2184
Macdonald, E. K., Kleinaltenkamp, M., & Wilson, H. N. (2016). How business customers
judge solutions: Solution quality and value in use. Journal of Marketing, 80(3),
96–120. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0109
Massi, M., Rod, M., & Corsaro, D. (2020). Is co-created value the only legitimate value?
An institutional-theory perspective on business interaction in B2B-marketing
systems. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, May.. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JBIM-01-2020-0029
Maxwell, J. A. (2008). Categorizing and connecting strategies in qualitative data
analysis. In P. Leavy, & S. Hesse-Biber (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp.
461–477). Guilford Press.
Mele, C., Nenonen, S., Pels, J., Storbacka, K., Nariswari, A., & Kaartemo, V. (2018).
Shaping service ecosystems: Exploring the dark side of agency. Journal of Service
Management, 29(4), 521–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61967-5_10
Mende, M., Scott, M. L., van Doorn, J., Grewal, D., & Shanks, I. (2019). Service robots
rising: How humanoid robots influence service experiences and elicit compensatory
consumer responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(4), 535–556.
Mero, J., Tarkiainen, A., & Tobon, J. (2020). Effectual and causal reasoning in the
adoption of marketing automation. Industrial Marketing Management, 86(December),
212–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.12.008
Mosch, P., Winkler, C., Eggert, C. G., Schumann, J. H., Obermaier, R., & Ulaga, W.
(2022). Driving or driven by others? A dynamic perspective on how data-driven
start-ups strategize across different network roles in digitalized business networks.
Industrial Marketing Management, 102, 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2022.01.023
Murtarelli, G., Gregory, A., & Romenti, S. (2021). A conversation-based perspective for
shaping ethical human–machine interactions: The particular challenge of chatbots.
Journal of Business Research, 129(March 2019), 927–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.09.018
Mustak, M., Salminen, J., Plé, L., & Wirtz, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence in marketing:
Topic modeling, scientometric analysis, and research agenda. Journal of Business
Research, 124(November 2020), 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.10.044
Pagani, M., & Pardo, C. (2017). The impact of digital technology on relationships in a
business network. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 185–192.
Paiola, M., & Gebauer, H. (2020). Internet of things technologies, digital servitization
and business model innovation in BtoB manufacturing firms. Industrial Marketing
Management, 89(March), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2020.03.009
Paschen, J., Kietzmann, J., & Kietzmann, T. C. (2019). Artificial intelligence (AI) and its
implications for market knowledge in B2B marketing. The Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, 34(7), 1410–1419. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2018-
0295
Paschen, J., Paschen, U., Pala, E., & Kietzmann, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence (AI) and
value co-creation in B2B sales: Activities, actors and resources. Australasian
Marketing Journal, xxxx. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.06.004
Paschen, J., Wilson, M., & Ferreira, J. J. (2020). Collaborative intelligence: How human
and artificial intelligence create value along the B2B sales funnel. Business Horizons,
63(3), 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.01.003
Paschou, T., Rapaccini, M., Adrodegari, F., & Saccani, N. (2020). Digital servitization in
manufacturing: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Industrial
Marketing Management, 89(January 2019), 278–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2020.02.012
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-
007-0070-0
Pizzi, G., Scarpi, D., & Pantano, E. (2021). Artificial intelligence and the new forms of
interaction: Who has the control when interacting with a chatbot? Journal of Business
Research, 129(November 2020), 878–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.11.006
Prohl, K., & Kleinaltenkamp, M. (2020). Managing value in use in business markets.
Industrial Marketing Management, 91(March), 563–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2020.03.017
M. Kot and G. Leszczyński
Rachinger, M., Rauter, R., Müller, C., Vorraber, W., & Schirgi, E. (2018). Digitalization
and its influence on business model innovation. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 30(8), 1143–1160.
Rai, A. (2020). Rai, A. explainable AI: From black box to glass box. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 48, 137–141.
Ritter, T., & Pedersen, C. L. (2020). Digitization capability and the digitalization of
business models in business-to-business firms: Past, present, and future. Industrial
Marketing Management, 86(August 2019), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2019.11.019
Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2016). Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. Malaysia.
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., … Jinks, C.
(2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and
operationalization. Quality and Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
Sklyar, A., Kowalkowski, C., Sörhammar, D., & Tronvoll, B. (2019). Resource integration
through digitalisation: A service ecosystem perspective. Journal of Marketing
Management, 35(11− 12), 974–991. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0267257X.2019.1600572
299
Industrial Marketing Management 107 (2022) 287–299
Storbacka, K., Brodie, R. J., Böhmann, T., Maglio, P. P., & Nenonen, S. (2016). Actor
engagement as a microfoundation for value co-creation. Journal of Business Research,
69(8), 3008–3017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.034
Syam, N., & Sharma, A. (2018). Waiting for a sales renaissance in the fourth industrial
revolution: Machine learning and artificial intelligence in sales research and
practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 69(December 2017), 135–146. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.12.019
Tao, F., Qi, Q., Liu, A., & Kusiak, A. (2018). Data-driven smart manufacturing. Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, 48, 157–169.
Tronvoll, B., Sklyar, A., Sörhammar, D., & Kowalkowski, C. (2020). Transformational
shifts through digital servitization. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 293–305.
Vendrell-Herrero, F., Bustinza, O. F., Parry, G., & Georgantzis, N. (2017). Servitization,
digitization and supply chain interdependency. Industrial Marketing Management, 60,
69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.06.013
Vidgen, B., & Derczynski, L. (2020). Directions in abusive language training data, a
systematic review: Garbage in, garbage out. PLoS One, 15(12).
Wien, A. H., & Peluso, A. M. (2021). Influence of human versus AI recommenders: The
roles of product type and cognitive processes. Journal of Business Research, 137
(September 2020), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.016
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage.