http://jsr.sagepub.

com/
Journal of Service Research
http://jsr.sagepub.com/content/16/3/415
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1094670513475870
2013 16: 415 originally published online 13 February 2013 Journal of Service Research
Stefanie Paluch and Markus Blut
Paradox
Service Separation and Customer Satisfaction: Assessing the Service Separation/Customer Integration

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:

Center for Excellence in Service, University of Maryland

can be found at: Journal of Service Research Additional services and information for

http://jsr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jsr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

What is This?

- Feb 13, 2013 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Aug 1, 2013 Version of Record >>

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 11, 2014 jsr.sagepub.com Downloaded from at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 11, 2014 jsr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Article
Service Separation and Customer
Satisfaction: Assessing the Service
Separation/Customer Integration Paradox
Stefanie Paluch
1
and Markus Blut
2
Abstract
Remote services are often provided without customer-provider contact for remote diagnostics, repair, and maintenance
purposes in business-to-business industries such as information technology, medical health care, and mechanical engineering. Two
empirical studies (Studies 1 and 2) suggest that numerous characteristics of remote services are critical to customer satisfaction:
(1) security, (2) reliability, (3) level of process integration, (4) economic benefit, (5) post-provision documentation, (6) exchange
options, (7) individualization, and (8) support services. Study 3 revealed a paradox that complicates service provisiona situation
in which customers experience ambivalent feelings toward service separation as associated with remote services. They express
(i) a strong desire to be part of the remote service provision in order to maintain control over the process, while at the same time,
(ii) for personal and contractual reasons they do not want to be integrated into the process. Satisfaction levels were found to vary
depending on how customers assess physical and mental service separation. We identified service initiation as a situational factor
influencing the shift from a positive to a negative assessment of service separation. To prevent customer dissatisfaction, service
providers should integrate customers into service provision for provider-initiated services, whereas for customer-initiated
services they should not bring the customer in.
Keywords
technology-intensive services, service separation, remote services, paradoxes of technology, B2B-customer satisfaction, mixed-
method study
During the last decade, service industries were subject to consid-
erable changes with respect to the way services are conceived,
provided, and delivered (Curran and Meuter 2005; Dabholkar
1994). The increasing employment of information technologies
alters not only the nature of services and their delivery process
(Bitner, Brown, and Meuter 2000) but also the interaction at the
interface between customers and service providers (Zeithaml,
Bitner, and Gremler 2006). Innovative technologies enable ser-
vice transactions over the internet, and services are generated
without establishing personal contact. In the business-to-
business context, remote services constitute this emerging type
of technology-mediated service. Contrasting self-services where
the customer produces the service, independent of the involve-
ment of a service provider employee (Meuter et al. 2000),
remote services are defined as technology-mediated services that
exclusively allowthe service provider to access and modify con-
nected service objects over long distances (Schumann, Wunder-
lich, and von Wangenheim 2012).
Particularly in high-technology industries such as informa-
tion technology (IT), medical health care, and mechanical
engineering, remote services are established instruments that
are often used for maintenance, diagnostics, and repair (Biehl,
Prater, and McIntyre 2004). For example, medical equipment
vendors complement their offerings for customers by providing
remote services for the maintenance of high-tech equipment
(e.g., computerized tomography [CT] scanners). Through use
of IT infrastructure, customers machines and systems are
remotely connected to the service provider. These connections
allow permanent, real-time remote monitoring of the intercon-
nected objects. When remote monitoring detects technical
problems or system irregularities, the service provider is
alerted. Immediately, a service provider engineer (often located
overseas) remotely accesses the customers systemin this
example, a CT scanner in a U.S. hospitalto diagnose and
remotely repair system failures, without needing to involve the
customers technician or send local field-service engineer to
the site. In numerous situations, problems can be solved remo-
tely before they cause more serious damage, as in the example
1
Department of Service and Technology Management, TU Dortmund Uni-
versity, Dortmund, Germany
2
Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Corresponding Author:
Stefanie Paluch, Department of Service and Technology Management, TU
Dortmund University, Martin-Schmeier Weg 12, 44221 Dortmund, Germany.
Email: stefanie.paluch@tu-dortmund.de
Journal of Service Research
16(3) 415-427
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1094670513475870
jsr.sagepub.com
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 11, 2014 jsr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
of intensifying the cooling of a machine before a technical
device overheats.
Although remote services are currently an emerging type of
technology-mediated service, they are predicted to become the
fastest growing technology-driven IT service within the next
few years (DuBay 2009), and investments are forecasted to
increase to US$350 billion in 2014 (Harbor Research 2010).
Surprisingly, however, limited empirical research has been
conducted to examine customer perceptions of the remote ser-
vice technologies that are delivered from the provider, and how
they are used by the customer to maintain production equip-
ment in business-to-business settings. Remote services have
the potential to be beneficial for both service providers and cus-
tomers, particularly on the basis of the increased flexibility
regarding delivery of service, the time saved in problem sol-
ving, and the reduction in costs related to unanticipated system
failures and travel expenses for specialized technicians (Schu-
mann, Wunderlich, and von Wangenheim 2012). Despite these
potential advantages, the acceptance among customers remains
fairly low (Wunderlich, von Wangenheim, and Bitner 2012),
which underscores the importance of further investigation into
these services.
Recently, Keh and Pang (2010) studied customers reactions
to service separationthe customers absence from service
productionwhich is often the case for remote services.
Though increasing reliance on technology would suggest a
need to better understand the conditions consequent to service
separation, the literature provides little information. Except for
the study from Keh and Pang (2010), previous research has nei-
ther elaborated on nor empirically examined the implications
of service separation for customers. As a first study providing
evidence for the impact of separation on the service experience,
Keh and Pang explicitly recommend examining the effects of
service separation on the five dimensions of service quality
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988). Motivated by this
apparent gap in the literature, we focus our research on (a) the
exploration of factors determining a satisfying service experi-
ence in business-to-business encounters and (b) empirically
testing the role of different levels of service separation in
service evaluation.
Against this background, the contribution of this article is
two-fold First, we contribute to the literature by exploring the
drivers of remote service satisfaction, including security in
remote service encounters, reliability of remote services, eco-
nomic benefits, exchange options between service provider and
customer, post-provision documentation, individualization of
delivered remote services, and supported service. Although
extensive research has been conducted on e-services, and par-
ticularly on e-service quality, and though improved e-quality
scales continue to be developed (e.g., Kaynama and Black
2000; Loiacono, Watson, and Goddhue 2002; Parasuraman,
Zeithaml, and Malhotra 2005; Yoo and Donthu 2001), most
of the studies focus on B2C websites such as e-retailing and
online banking, which have little in common with remote ser-
vices. Due to the specific characteristics of remote services that
are offered primarily in B2B settings, we identified two new
drivers of remote service satisfaction (as well as several new
attributes and subdimensions) that have not been examined in
the previous research on e-service quality or in the related
streams of literature (Keh and Pang 2010; Wunderlich, von
Wangenheim, and Bitner 2012). We develop measures that will
enable managers to assess the satisfaction level of their custom-
ers, and to increase the adoption of remote services.
Second, our research reveals that different levels of service
separation (or, conversely, levels of customer integration) com-
plicate the creation of a satisfying customer experience. We
identify the existence of a paradox that we refer to as the ser-
vice separation/customer integration paradox. A key selling
point of these remote services is that they are installed in order
to reduce the contact between the customer and the provider.
We found that customers experience ambivalent feelings
towards these services. On one hand, they express a strong wish
to be part of the remote service provision in order to retain con-
trol over the process. On the other hand, for personal and con-
tractual reasons, they express a simultaneousand
paradoxicaldesire to not be integrated into the process. Liter-
ature suggests that situational and contextual factors may influ-
ence the occurrence of these positive or negative feelings
associated with technology (Mick and Fournier 1998). We
identified service initiation as a factor influencing the shift
from positive to negative evaluations of service separation.
Consequently, satisfaction levels were found to vary depending
on whether customers viewed their integration level as positive
or negative. More specifically, we found that for provider-
initiated services, providers must involve customers in the ser-
vice provision in order to prevent customer dissatisfaction,
whereas for customer-initiated services, providers should keep
the customer out of the process. Handy (1994) argues that the
ability to manage paradoxes is key to corporate success in
todays high-tech world. Our study provides managers with a
useful understanding of when to separate services and when
to integrate the customer into the delivery process, enabling
them to better market the remote services.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. We
first review prior research on the satisfaction drivers and
e-service quality, and summarize prior research regarding the
paradoxes of technology. Study 1 then details the methodology
of our qualitative study, which enables us to identify the satis-
faction drivers. In Study 2, we detail the quantitative research
which we conducted to empirically test the impact of the
remote satisfaction drivers. In Study 3, we present survey data
collected from 118 remote services customers, allowing us to
assess the service separation/customer integration paradox.
Literature Review
E-Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction
Although the antecedents to customer satisfaction are well docu-
mented in classical contexts (Szymanski and Henard 2001), for
self-services (Meuter et al. 2000), and for e- or online services
(Holloway and Beatty 2008; Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and
416 Journal of Service Research 16(3)
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 11, 2014 jsr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Malhotra 2002), customer satisfaction in a remote services con-
text has not been subjected to conceptual or empirical scrutiny.
Although most research has been done on e-services, and on
e-service quality and its dimensions (Rust and Kannan 2003), the
identified drivers of customer satisfaction
1
are assumed to be dif-
ferent due to the distinct characteristics of remote services.
Numerous scales and quality dimensions have been derived
from traditional service quality research (Parasuraman,
Zeithaml, and Berry 1985, 1988). The SERVQUAL scale serves
as an assessment basis and has been extended to the measure-
ment of e-service quality (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Malhotra
2005; Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Malhotra 2002). Previously
identified dimensions include site features and website design
(Dabholkar 1996), security and privacy concerns (Yoo and
Donthu 2001), reliability of the website (Madu and Madu
2002), responsiveness (Kaynama and Black 2000), communica-
tion (Cox and Dale 2001), information provided on the website
(Yang and Fang 2004), accessibility of the website (Zeithaml,
Richards, and Richards 2002), delivery of the service (Loiacono,
Watson, and Goodhue 2000), personalization (Yoo and Donthu
2001), ease of use (Dabholkar 1996), and customer support (Hol-
loway and Beatty 2008). Most related studies conceptualize
e-service quality for B2C websites, e-retailers, or online banks,
which are different from remote services.
In addition to these studies on scales and dimensions, we
investigated recent studies that examine the perception of smart
interactive services (Wunderlich, von Wangenheim, and Bitner
2012). Smart interactive services are defined as services that
are delivered to or through intelligent products (Allmendinger
and Lombreglia 2005), but require a high level of interaction
between customer and provider during the service delivery.
Wunderlich, von Wangenheim, and Bitner (2012) show
empirically that social presence, control, trustworthiness, and
collaboration influence a users attitudinal and behavioral
response to smart interactive services. Keh and Pang (2010)
found, as well, that risk perception (psychological and perfor-
mance risk), access convenience (contact options with provi-
ders), and benefit convenience (customers time and effort)
are relevant to the assessment of separated services.
The Paradoxes of Technology and Customer Satisfaction
A primary characteristic of the paradox is a simultaneous exis-
tence of opposite assumptions or statements (Handy 1994).
Research in this field suggests that individuals simultaneously
experience conflicting positive and negative feelings regarding
different components of an object or person (Cowles and
Crosby 1990; Ruth, Brunel, and Otnes 2002), creating a condi-
tion of behavioral paradox. In an application of paradox theory
to the modern state of technology, the literature on interaction
between people and technology suggests that customers simul-
taneously experience favorable and unfavorable views about
technology-based products and services (Mick and Fournier
1998). On one hand, the technology infusion can lead to bene-
ficial service-encounter outcomes for customers, but on the
other hand, it can also be associated with several negative
outcomes (Bitner 2001; Bitner, Brown, and Meuter 2000).
Mick and Fournier (1998) make specific connections to the
concept of paradox in the context of humans and technology.
They identified eight paradoxes of technology that can trig-
ger both positive and negative feelings at the same time and
that create complications for consumers. Their study shows that
technology can lead to (1) control and chaos, (2) freedom and
enslavement, (3) new and obsolete, (4) competence and incom-
petence, (5) efficiency and inefficiency, (6) fulfillment of needs
and creation of needs, (7) assimilation and isolation, and
(8) simultaneous engagement and disengagement. Johnson,
Bardhi, and Dunn (2008) argue that in these conditions, the
negative feelings have the potential to substantially undermine
customer satisfaction, and their research provides evidence that
some paradoxes can be linked with the satisfaction of self-
service customers. Although positive and negative feelings
about technology coexist, Mick and Fournier (1998) indicate
that, as well, situational and contextual factors such as technol-
ogy context, personal context, organizational context, and
cultural context may influence the occurrence of these positive
or negative feelings.
While extensive research has been conducted on the percep-
tion of technology in general, and the potential barriers to its
successful implementation, little empirical research is available
on the existence of the paradoxes of technology. Even less is
known about situational factors influencing the shift from
positive to negative service evaluations when a customer
experiences ambivalent feelings towards a service technology.
Study 1
Data Collection
We have chosen a qualitative exploratory research approach
within the health care industry to develop a better understand-
ing of the drivers of satisfaction with remote service technol-
ogy. The examined global medical equipment provider
produces high-tech equipment such as X-rays, CT scanners,
and MRIs, and at the same time the provider offers remote
services for the maintenance of this equipment. Using two
online focus groups with participants from nine different hospi-
tals, we gathered initial responses in order to gain insight into
possible satisfaction drivers. Then, we conducted 25 in-depth
interviews with 20 remote service customers
2
and with 10
employees of remote service providers at eleven different
hospitals.
The interviews lasted from 60 to 120 minutes, and
interviewers followed an informal interview guide. We used
a critical incident technique style (Bitner et al. 1997; Flanagan
1954) to ask questions about general satisfaction and perceived
service performance. For the coding process, we followed an
inductive approach for category development, allowing cate-
gories and patterns to emerge from the data without applying
prior assumptions (Patton 2009) by using the software program
GABEK (Holistic Processing of Linguistic Complexity). The
quality of the coded judgments was verified by the proportional
Paluch and Blut 417
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 11, 2014 jsr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
reduction in loss (PRL) reliability measure (Rust and Cooil
1994). In our study, the PRL is .93, which can be considered
to be good because it is higher than the suggested minimum
of .8. Then, we tested the identified categories in several steps
and with different groups of participants following an iterative
classification approach.
3
Drivers of Remote Services Satisfaction
The following eight categories emerged from the in-depth
interviews:
Security in remote service encounters refers to risk exposure
associated with remote service technology. It includes
customers security and privacy concerns about the
technology-mediation of the service, their concerns about
the providers free access to customer systems where
confidential data is stored, and concerns about the limited
customer control over provider activities.
Reliability of remote services refers to the accuracy and the
continuous delivery of the maintaining service. This cate-
gory includes reliability of the service technology and the
fulfillment of agreed-upon actions.
Exchange options between service provider and customer
subsumes channels of personal communication being
offered to the customer. Onsite customer service refers
to personal interaction, to the field service engineer for
technical repair on site, and to the providers service
center that handles inquiries by telephone or e-mail.
Economic benefit refers to the customers economic advan-
tages from remote services, which are manifested in a
number of forms: increased utilization capacity of the
machines, greater availability and extended uptime of the
systems, time benefits due to faster provider reactions,
support and problem solving, cost benefits, and pricing
of remote services.
Post-provision documentation refers to the documentation of
provider activities after the service delivery, which is
done to better evaluate the services that were provided.
This includes the transparency of providers activities,
as well as the recording of service actions to make the
evidence understandable for the customer, as well as the
notification about the service provision and the documen-
tation of a service history.
Individualization of delivered remote service addresses the
remote service providers efforts to give individual treat-
ment to customers in the technology-based remote service
encounters. Preferred support, particularly in emergency
situations, as well as the use of specific knowledge during
the service provision, are all aspects of the individualiza-
tion of delivered remote service.
Level of process integration refers to the way remote service
processes are integrated into the working procedures.
This category includes the preparation phase, the mainte-
nance phase, and the follow-up phase, which is carried
out from the providers site, as well as the integration
of service technology into the customers workflow.
Support services refer to providers assistance regarding cus-
tomer education and instruction in high-tech environments.
The provider offers a range of services to support customer
development, including user training, mutual learning, and
regular workshops to improve systems and services offered
by the provider.
Table 1 summarizes the identified satisfaction drivers; it
also includes coding frequency, and sample quotes illustrating
the developed categories.
Equivalence of Dimensions and Perceptual Attributes
Comparing the dimensions of e-service quality developed from
prior studies with the dimensions that participants discussed in
the in-depth interviews provides several useful observations.
Participants in the in-depth interviews frequently discussed the
themes of security, reliability, economic benefit, and individua-
lization, elements that are also key dimensions or subdimen-
sions of e-service quality. While several perceptual attributes
of remote service satisfaction remain the same as in e-service
quality (e.g., economic benefit or reliability), some of the per-
ceptual attributes of the economic benefit of remote services
dealt with remote service-specific issues such as capacity utili-
zation and uptime of machines, attributes not found in e-service
quality scales. Similarly, we find differing attributes for indivi-
dualization (e.g., prioritizing of customers in emergency situa-
tions or the use of customer-specific knowledge for
individualized maintenance) and security (e.g., open access
to confidential customer and patient data). Moreover, two new
dimensions or subdimensions were discovered: the level of
process integration and the support services.
The level of process integration can be regarded as a distinct
result from our study that is particularly relevant for B2B ser-
vices. The service delivery must be fully integrated into the
providers processes, and also into the customers workflow,
so that both sides can benefit from the technology-mediated
service delivery. Machine maintenance can be scheduled at
night, so that the machine is guaranteed to be available during
working hours. A smooth remote maintenance also means that
customers processes are not disturbed by the service delivery.
Process integration failures lead to customer dissatisfaction
regarding service technologies and might influence the future
use of the technology (Meuter et al. 2000).
Support services are offered because of the customers
expressed wish for specific training to properly understand the
remote service processes. Based on the customers greatly
enhanced experience level over time, the possibility for mutual
learning with the goal of improving future service offerings is
increased. Providers should offer regular round-table discus-
sions and workshops to exchange ideas, as a way to advance
systems and services that will benefit the customers and that
have the possibility to be mutually beneficial to customers and
service providers alike.
418 Journal of Service Research 16(3)
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 11, 2014 jsr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
T
a
b
l
e
1
.
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
F
r
o
m
t
h
e
I
n
-
d
e
p
t
h
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
.
M
a
i
n
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
S
u
b
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
S
a
m
p
l
e
Q
u
o
t
e
s
D
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
i
n
R
e
m
o
t
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
E
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
s
(
3
3
4
)

S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
a
n
d
P
r
i
v
a
c
y
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
(
2
4
)

O
p
e
n
A
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
S
y
s
t
e
m
(
6
6
)

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
o
f
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
(
1
5
6
)

O
n
e
d
i
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
c
o
u
r
s
e
i
s
t
h
a
t
y
o
u
h
a
v
e
t
o
o
p
e
n
u
p
y
o
u
r
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
i
n
s
o
m
e
w
a
y
.
[
d
i
s
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
I
C
:
Q
0
7
]

I
d
o
n

t
k
n
o
w
w
h
o
i
s
a
c
t
u
a
l
l
y
o
n
m
y
s
y
s
t
e
m
.
[
d
i
s
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
I
C
:
N
3
0
]
T
h
e
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
r
e
f
e
r
s
t
o
r
i
s
k
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
r
e
m
o
t
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
.
I
t
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
a
n
d
p
r
i
v
a
c
y
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
d
u
e
t
o
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
-
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
,
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
a
b
o
u
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s

o
p
e
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
w
h
e
r
e
c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
a
t
a
i
s
s
t
o
r
e
d
a
n
d
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
c
u
s
-
t
o
m
e
r
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
o
f
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
R
e
m
o
t
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
9
3
)

R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
9
3
)

I
h
a
v
e
t
o
m
a
k
e
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
w
e
c
a
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
t
o
o
u
r
p
a
t
i
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
m
a
c
h
i
n
e
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
r
e
l
i
a
b
l
e
[
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
,
I
C
:
B
1
3
]

T
h
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
h
o
u
l
d
k
e
e
p
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
g
o
o
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
[
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
,
I
C
:
K
3
9
]
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
r
e
f
e
r
s
t
o
t
h
e
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
T
h
i
s
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
t
h
e
f
u
l
f
i
l
l
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
g
r
e
e
d
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
9
1
)

P
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
h
a
s
e
(
3
7
)

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
h
a
s
e
(
9
0
)

F
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p
P
h
a
s
e
(
2
7
)

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
W
o
r
k
f
l
o
w
(
3
7
)

.
.
.
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
u
g
h
e
s
t
t
h
i
n
g
s
i
s
r
e
s
o
l
v
i
n
g
a
n
i
s
s
u
e
,
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
o
t
h
e
e
n
d
,
a
r
i
s
e
a
n
i
s
s
u
e
,
i
t
g
e
t
s
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
,
i
t
g
e
t
s
w
o
r
k
e
d
o
n
.
B
u
t
s
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
w
h
a
t
h
a
p
p
e
n
s
i
s
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
j
u
s
t
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
f
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p
t
o
s
e
e
w
h
y
i
t

s
n
o
t
r
e
s
o
l
v
e
d
.
[
d
i
s
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
I
C
:
A
0
9
]
T
h
i
s
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
r
e
f
e
r
s
t
o
t
h
e
w
a
y
r
e
m
o
t
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
a
r
e
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
.
I
t
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s
t
h
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
p
h
a
s
e
,
t
h
e
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
p
h
a
s
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p
p
h
a
s
e
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
i
n
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
w
o
r
k
f
l
o
w
.
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
o
f
R
S
(
7
3
6
)

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
/
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
U
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
4
7
)

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
/
U
p
t
i
m
e
o
f
M
a
c
h
i
n
e
s
(
1
3
8

1
7
8
)

T
i
m
e
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
(
1
3
2
)

C
o
s
t
a
n
d
P
r
i
c
e
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
(
1
4
1
)

L
e
s
s
d
o
w
n
t
i
m
e
.
T
h
a
t

s
w
h
a
t
t
h
i
s
i
s
a
l
l
a
b
o
u
t
.
D
o
w
n
t
i
m
e
o
r
u
p
t
i
m
e
,
m
o
r
e
u
p
t
i
m
e
l
e
s
s
d
o
w
n
t
i
m
e
.
B
u
t
t
h
e
y
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
b
e
t
t
e
r
u
p
t
i
m
e
b
y
t
h
e
f
a
c
t
t
h
a
t
w
e
h
a
v
e
r
e
m
o
t
e
d
i
a
g
n
o
s
t
i
c
s
.
[
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
I
C
:
E
0
9
]

W
e
l
l
,
i
f
I
s
p
e
n
d
1
0
,
0
0
0
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
a
m
o
n
t
h
,
d
o
e
s
i
t
s
a
v
e
m
e
1
0
,
0
0
0
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
?
I
d
o
n

t
w
a
n
t
t
o
s
p
e
n
d
1
0
,
0
0
0
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
f
o
r
a
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
b
l
a
n
k
e
t
,
t
o
f
e
e
l
l
i
k
e
s
o
m
e
b
o
d
y

s
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
o
v
e
r
m
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
.
T
h
a
t
1
0
,
0
0
0
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
,
y
o
u
w
o
u
l
d
h
a
v
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
e
t
o
m
e
h
o
w
i
t
s
a
v
e
s
m
e
1
0
,
0
0
0
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
.
[
d
i
s
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
I
C
:
A
6
2
]
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
r
e
m
o
t
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
,
w
h
i
c
h
m
a
n
i
f
e
s
t
s
i
t
s
e
l
f
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
o
f
a
n
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
t
h
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
u
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
m
a
c
h
i
n
e
s
,
h
i
g
h
e
r
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
u
p
t
i
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
t
i
m
e
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
d
u
e
t
o
f
a
s
t
e
r
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
,
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
o
l
v
i
n
g
,
c
o
s
t
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
,
a
n
d
p
r
i
c
i
n
g
o
f
r
e
m
o
t
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
P
o
s
t
-
P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
-
t
i
o
n
(
5
6
6
)

T
r
a
n
s
p
a
r
e
n
c
y
o
f
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
(
1
4
8
)

R
e
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
/
E
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
1
4
1
)

N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
b
o
u
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
(
7
6
)

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
F
a
i
l
u
r
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
(
2
0
1
)

T
h
e
b
e
s
t
t
h
i
n
g
I
c
a
n
t
e
l
l
y
o
u
i
s
,
w
h
e
n
i
t

s
t
r
a
n
s
p
a
r
e
n
t
y
o
u

r
e
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
.

[
d
i
s
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
I
C
:
M
2
4
]

I
t
h
i
n
k
i
t

s
r
e
a
l
l
y
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
h
o
w
s
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
o
f
h
o
w
t
h
i
s
a
c
t
u
a
l
l
y
w
o
r
k
s
b
y
a
c
t
u
a
l
e
v
e
n
t
s
[
d
i
s
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
I
C
:
B
5
6
]
T
h
i
s
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
r
e
f
e
r
s
t
o
t
h
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
t
o
b
e
t
t
e
r
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
d
w
h
i
c
h
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
w
e
r
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
.
I
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
h
e
t
r
a
n
s
p
a
r
e
n
c
y
o
f
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
m
a
k
e
t
h
e
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
.
I
t
a
l
s
o
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s
t
h
e
n
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
E
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
O
p
t
i
o
n
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
a
n
d
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
(
7
8
2
)

O
n
s
i
t
e
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
4
2
6
)

F
i
e
l
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
(
2
3
6
)

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
(
1
2
0
)

m
n
o
t
r
e
a
l
l
y
s
c
a
r
e
d
o
f
i
t
,
I

m
l
e
e
r
y
o
f
i
t
,
I
h
a
t
e
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
y
o
u
k
n
o
w
,
p
u
n
c
h
2
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
,
p
u
n
c
h
3
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
.
Y
o
u
k
n
o
w
,
s
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
I
l
i
k
e
t
a
l
k
i
n
g
t
o
a
l
i
v
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
.
A
n
d
I
t
h
i
n
k
a
l
o
t
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
d
o
,
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
a
t

s
j
u
s
t
h
u
m
a
n
n
a
t
u
r
e
.
[
d
i
s
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
I
C
:
K
5
8
]
T
h
e
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
s
u
b
s
u
m
e
s
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
s
o
f
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
i
n
g
o
f
f
e
r
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
.
T
h
e
o
n
s
i
t
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
r
e
f
e
r
s
t
o
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
f
i
e
l
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
f
o
r
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
r
e
p
a
i
r
o
n
s
i
t
e
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
f
o
r
i
n
q
u
i
r
i
e
s
b
y
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
o
r
e
-
m
a
i
l
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
e
d
R
S
(
3
2
6
)

I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
(
7
7
)

P
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
i
n
g
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
(
3
4
)

U
s
e
o
f
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
1
5
)

O
u
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
p
a
y
i
n
g
a
l
o
t
o
f
m
o
n
e
y
f
o
r
r
e
m
o
t
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
s
o
I
e
x
p
e
c
t
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
h
e
l
p
.
[
d
i
s
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
I
C
G
1
1
]

I
f
t
h
a
t
p
e
r
s
o
n
c
o
m
e
s
h
e
r
e
a
n
d
s
e
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
w
a
i
t
i
n
g
r
o
o
m
i
s
f
u
l
l
a
n
d
I
a
m
i
n
a
p
a
n
i
c
,
a
s
o
p
p
o
s
e
d
t
o
s
o
m
e
b
o
d
y
3
0
0
m
i
l
e
s
a
w
a
y
,
t
h
a
t
i
s
t
o
t
a
l
l
y
d
i
s
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
,
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
u
r
g
e
n
c
y
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
.
[
d
i
s
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
I
C
:
A
2
0
]
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
e
d
r
e
m
o
t
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s

e
f
f
o
r
t
f
o
r
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
-
b
a
s
e
d
r
e
m
o
t
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
e
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
s
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
i
n
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
;
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
,
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y
i
n
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
1
0
9
)

U
s
e
r
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
(
2
5
)

M
u
t
u
a
l
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
(
2
9
)

W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
a
n
d
R
S
(
5
5
)

I
h
a
v
e
g
o
n
e
t
o
t
h
e
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
I
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
w
h
a
t
t
h
o
s
e
l
o
g
s
m
e
a
n
a
n
d
h
o
w
t
o
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
h
e
r
e
m
o
t
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
I
w
i
s
h
I
c
o
u
l
d
g
e
t
m
o
r
e
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
e
a
s
i
e
r
.
[
d
i
s
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
I
C
:
K
0
3
]
T
h
i
s
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
r
e
f
e
r
s
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s

a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
h
i
g
h
-
t
e
c
h
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
s
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
o
f
f
e
r
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
u
s
e
r
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
o
f
f
e
r
e
d
,
m
u
t
u
a
l
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
w
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
a
n
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
419 at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 11, 2014 jsr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Because we are interested in comparing the relative impact
of the eight drivers of overall satisfaction with remote services,
we propose:
Hypothesis 1ah: Satisfaction with remote services increases
as perceptions of remote service (a) security, (b) reliabil-
ity, (c) level of process integration, (d) economic benefit,
(e) post-provision documentation, (f) exchange options,
(g) individualization, and (h) support services become
more positive, all else being equal.
Study 2
To validate the findings from the in-depth interviews, we
decided to conduct an additional quantitative study to give fur-
ther evidence for the proposed determinants of remote service
satisfaction. We collected 47 questionnaires in a second indus-
try, the IT industry, in which a software provider has estab-
lished remote services to remotely maintain, diagnose, and
repair failures for its B2B customers.
Overall satisfaction with remote services is measured by
adapting three commonly employed measures of satisfaction:
general satisfaction, confirmation of expectations, and the dis-
tance from the customers hypothetical ideal product (Fornell
1992). Measurement reliability of the reflective construct
overall satisfaction was examined through a confirmatory
factor analysis. It can be noted that the composite reliability
(CR) for this construct exceeds .6, the generally recommended
threshold (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). The items for capturing the
provider performance are grounded in our qualitative data.
Most items were measured using 5-point Likert-type scales
with anchors of 1 poor job and 5 excellent job (except
overall satisfaction: 1 strongly disagree and 5 strongly
agree). Although most prior studies conceptualize the dimen-
sions using reflective measures, especially in the field of ser-
vice quality (Loiacono, Watson, and Goodhue 2000), recent
indicators have shown that the dimensions of many service
quality scales are falsely assumed to be reflective rather than
formative (Rossiter 2002). Therefore, we have chosen a forma-
tive measurement for the independent variables. We calculated
the means across the formative items; we also tested the impact
of the eight drivers on the customers levels of remote service
satisfaction.
4
Results of the regression analysis are presented in
Table 2.
The data show that each regression coefficient is statistically
significant on a .01 level, and only one of the drivers is margin-
ally significant on a .10 level. The sign of each independent
variable also displays the expected direction. Furthermore, our
results indicate that the economic benefit of the remote service
(B .661, p < .01), its reliability (B .543, p < .01), and
support services (B .533, p < .01) have the greatest impact
on remote service satisfaction. Moreover, we find level of
process integration (B .474, p < .01), post-provision documen-
tation (B .473, p < .01), individualization of delivered RS
(B .449, p < .01), exchange options (B .397, p < .01), and
security in remote service encounters (B + .228, p < .10) to
display a moderate impact on remote service satisfaction. There-
fore, our validation study confirms Hypothesis 1ah.
Study 3
The Service Separation/Customer Integration Paradox
The qualitative in-depth interviews also indicate that customers
are ambivalent about their experience with remote services.
Based on the qualitative data, we assume the existence of a
paradoxthe simultaneous existence of opposite assumptions
or statements (Handy 1994), that is exemplified by a situation
in which the customer wants the service to be separated, and at
the same time wants to be integrated into the service provision
process. The participants in our study give evidence for both
desires at the same time; approximately 76% of the individuals
indicated that they simultaneously want the service to be
offered as a separated service, and as an unseparated one. One
customer explains, I want to know every change they do to my
system [IC: C39]. Sometime later in the interview he says: I
dont like it that when the service center calls me and tells me
. . . oh [name changed] your scanner is running again ( . . . ) I
know when my scanner is up [IC: C122]. By analyzing the
qualitative data, we also find numerous statements indicating
that each quality dimension is affected by service separation.
The Customers Desire for Service Integration. The customers indi-
cated that they dislike service separation, and instead strongly
wish to become part of the remote service delivery process in
order to better understand the changes taking place in the main-
tained system, and to effectively supervise the provided ser-
vice. I want to know what is going on in my system ( . . . )
I have to understand what they are doing [remote service
customer IC: A25]. When defining service inseparability,
Zeithaml, Bitner, and Gremler (2006, p. 21) argue that . . . the
customer is present while the service is being produced and
thus views and may even take part in the production process.
Hence, the customer can be either (a) physically or (b) mentally
involved in service provision. If the customer is involved, it is
easier for the customer to evaluate the service provision
because providers actions are more obvious and understand-
able. We have chosen the terms physical and mental integration
based on Silpakit and Fisks (1985, p. 117) various types of the
Table 2. Results of Regression Analysis (Validation Study).
Predictor Variable
Proposed
Effect B
p
Level
Security in Remote Service
Encounters
.228 .10
Reliability of the Remote Service .543 .01
Level of Process Integration .474 .01
Economic Benefits of RS .661 .01
Post-Provision Documentation .473 .01
Exchange Options .397 .01
Individualization of Delivered RS .449 .01
Support Services .533 .01
420 Journal of Service Research 16(3)
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 11, 2014 jsr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
customers involvement in service provision. According to the
authors, the customers involvement can be both . . . mental
and physical, necessary to participate in production and deliv-
ery of services. Physical integration refers to the physical
presence of the customer during service provision (e.g., the
customer is positioned in front of a monitor and observes the
remote maintenance/repair of the system; the service is either
physically separated or physically unseparated and the cus-
tomer is either physically integrated or physically not inte-
grated in service provision). Similarly, mental integration
refers to information being presented to the customers mind
during service provision (e.g., the customer receives e-mails
with maintenance plans or a phone call from the technician
when accessing the system; the service is either mentally
separated or mentally unseparated and the customer is either
mentally integrated or mentally not integrated in service provi-
sion). A simple phone call or e-mail saying we are doing this
right now would be just fine [remote service customer IC:
K78]. Note that ex-ante information is different from the
expected documentation after remote service delivery, because
it refers to information about the current activities of the provi-
der, whereas documentation refers to ex-post activities of the
provider (e.g., the remote service provider sends the customer
a monthly report about the undertaken changes summarizing all
of its activities).
With respect to service quality and remote service satisfac-
tion, we find indications that separation complicates the
evaluation of remote services. One customer who is not
regularly part of remote service provision noted, Remote ser-
vices are like a black box to me [remote service customer IC:
C4]. Respondents had difficulty expressing expectations
regarding service quality and satisfaction, which is consistent
with a key conclusion reached by Mick and Fournier (1995,
1998), based on their in-depth probing of consumer reactions
to new technologies: In buying and owning technological
products, an individuals pre-consumption standards are often
nonexistent, weak, inaccurate, or subject to change as life
circumstances shift (Mick and Fournier 1995, p. 1). For unse-
parated services, customers are mentally or physically present
at the service encounter, and even become co-producers by
closely interacting with the remote service technicians (Bitner
et al. 1997). Consequently, it is easier for them to predict the
outcomes of the service process. When evaluating IT-related
services, perceptions of a lack of understanding about the ser-
vice processes are discussed as having significant importance
(Collier and Sherrell 2011). Numerous studies have recognized
perceived understanding as necessary to connect humans and
technology (Bezjian-Avery, Calder, and Iacobucci 1998; Guedj
et al. 1980). Between 10 and 38 customer statements indicate
that service separation is negatively linked to each service
dimension. We find that for separated services, service perfor-
mance is assessed as being of poorer for unseparated services,
because the customer has problems in evaluating the quality of
the service and is less aware of the expectations. How should I
know that remote services are good? I dont even know what it
is [remote service customer IC: O65].
The Customers Desire for Service Separation. At the same time, we
find statements indicating that some individuals do not wish to be
part of the service provision. The argument is that they have paid
for the remote service andtheyperceive the provider tobe respon-
sible for service provision. Why should I call them or push the
button, I have paida lot of moneythat theytake care [remote ser-
vice customer IC: K51]. These customers want to gain the advan-
tages of service separation, because they perceive remote services
to be more convenient, faster, and more flexible than the tradi-
tional form of maintenance and repair in which a field service
engineer visits the customer to provide the service on site. For
example, the 24/7 support offered by remote service providers
means that customers can easily get help by phone. When the ser-
vice is provided, the remote service provider is expectedtoreduce
the contact with the customer to a minimum. The customer does
not want to be integrated into the service provision, either (a) phy-
sically or (b) mentally.
With respect to service quality and remote service satisfac-
tion, we conclude that the customer is primarily interested in
getting the system to work again as quickly and as conveniently
as possible. All I want is that my machines are running. I
dont care what they did [remote service customer IC: L44].
Having already paid for the remote maintenance, received
extensive information from the provider, and/or being
involved, themselves, in service provision, cause the customer
to consider that the provider may not be able to remotely repair
the system as easily as was initially promised. I dont see that
they fulfill our service contract [remote service customer IC:
N81]. Due to limited contact with the provider, the customer has
fewer cues for evaluating the providers performance. Although
services are, by nature, intangible performances, tangible attri-
butes in service production were important for signaling service
quality (Bitner 1990, 1992; Rapoport 1982). For instance,
Rapoport (1982) finds that customers often use the tangible envi-
ronment to judge a service providers capability and quality.
Similarly, Bitner (1992) proposes that servicescapes influence
numerous customer responses during the service encounter,
including cognitive, affective, and physiological responses.
For separated services, customers absence from production
means that they sense fewer tangible attributes of the service
encounter, compared with their physical and mental presence
during production of unseparated services. When being
integrated, the customer might assess the quick help, the prepa-
redness of the technician, or the providers easy access to the
customers system, and use these cues to evaluate performance.
When there are not enough cues, the customer might perceive
information and integration activities of the provider as a cue
about the providers lack of competence. The customer expects
the provider to independently maintain the system, but instead
of repairing it, the customer has to help solve the problem.
Between 5 and 36 interview statements indicate that service
separation is positively linked to each service dimension. We
find that for unseparated services, service performance is
assessed as being poorer than for separated services, since the
customers interpret their involvement as a cue for the provi-
ders lack of competence (Price, Arnould, and Deibler 1995).
Paluch and Blut 421
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 11, 2014 jsr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
The Role of Service Initiation in Service Evaluation
Individually, each of the above desires is incontestably true, but
when juxtaposed against each other, they appear to be contra-
dictory. Johnson, Bardhi, and Dunn (2008) argue that the
negative feelings associated with paradoxes have the potential
to substantially undermine customer satisfaction. Service
separation has the potential to simultaneously impact service
evaluations, both positively and negatively. In our study,
we found service initiation to be such a factor, shifting the ser-
vice evaluations from positive to negative. The service can be
either requested by the customer and implemented by the
providers technicians ( customer-initiated services), or the
provider may find a malfunction in the system and then start
remote service delivery ( provider-initiated services). Note
that in both cases, the provider can decide to physically or men-
tally integrate the customer.
Provider-Initiated Services. In the case of provider-initiated ser-
vices, we find the customers desire for physical and mental
service integration dominates the desire for separation. Com-
pared with customer-initiated services, provider-initiated ser-
vices tend to be more difficult to assess. If the customer has
no understanding about the problem that occurred, and cannot
determine whether or not it is serious, the negative effect asso-
ciated with service separation might exceed the positive ones.
Because the customers have no knowledge of the changes in
the system that will be necessary to make it work again, their
wish to be integrated in the service delivery may dominate.
With respect to service quality and remote service satisfaction,
we assume that in the case of provider-initiated services, cus-
tomer integration is not perceived as a cue for lacking compe-
tence of the provider, but instead, integration helps the
customer to correctly evaluate the service and shape expecta-
tions. The provider makes a quick note and tells me what
he changed [remote service customer IC: B23]. Conse-
quently, physically and mentally separated services are evalu-
ated as being poorer than unseparated services.
Customer-Initiated Services. In contrast, we find the opposite
effect for customer-initiated services. The customers desire for
physical and mental separation dominates their desire for
integration. The customers have initiated the remote service
delivery due to a concrete problem that they have experienced.
I call in and tell them whats wrong here [remote service
customer IC: B11]. Therefore, already having an understanding
about the problem to be solved, and the desire to make the sys-
tem run again as quickly as possible, dominates the desire to
observe the providers activities during maintenance. In the
case of customer-initiated services, integration is indeed per-
ceived as a cue for a lack of competence on the part of the pro-
vider that leads to poor service evaluations. Consequently,
physically and mentally separated services are better evaluated
than unseparated services are.
Summarizing the above discussion leads to an assumption of
two interaction effects. The first interaction effect is between
service initiation and physical separation on performance of
remote service (Hypothesis 2a/b), while the second effect is
between service initiation and mental separation, also on
remote service performance rating (Hypothesis 3a/b). Hence,
we formulate,
Hypothesis 2ab: There is an interaction effect between ser-
vice initiation and physical separation on performance
ratings: In the case of (a) provider-initiated services, phy-
sically separated services are evaluated as being of poorer
quality than physically unseparated services, whereas (b)
in the case of customer-initiated services, physically
separated services are evaluated as being of better quality
than physically unseparated services.
and
Hypothesis 3ab: There is an interaction effect between
service initiation and mental separation on performance
ratings: In the case of (a) provider-initiated services, men-
tally separated services are evaluated as being of poorer
quality than mentally unseparated services, whereas (b)
in the case of customer-initiated services, mentally sepa-
rated services are evaluated as being of better quality than
mentally unseparated services.
Method
To empirically test the proposed interactions, we have
collected data for a second quantitative study. We contacted
customers of a large provider that sells robotized automation
systems and receive different levels of remote services from the
provider. Thereby, we ensure enough variation among the vari-
ables of interest: service initiation, physical, and mental separa-
tion. Based on the firms database, we invited every customer
of that provider to participate in our online survey, resulting in
118 usable questionnaires. The respondents were, on average,
32 years old (SD 9.34), and had experience with the remote
service for about 2.76 years (SD 1.31). The sample is compa-
rable to the population of all B2B customers of this remote ser-
vice provider.
We measured service initiation by asking those customers
who primarily initiates the received service in the case of
malfunctions (provider vs. customer). Similarly, respondents
had to evaluate physical integration (physically unseparated
vs. physically separated) and mental integration (mentally
unseparated vs. mentally separated). Among the respondents,
64% had to initiate the remote service provision themselves,
while in 35% of cases the provider initiates the remote service
provision. Furthermore, 46% of respondents are regularly phy-
sically involved in the service provision process, while 54% are
not. Finally, 58% are informed during service provision and
thereby are mentally involved in the service provision, while
42% are not. The items for measuring the performance of
remote services are identical to the items employed in the first
quantitative study. We also make use of 5-point Likert-type
422 Journal of Service Research 16(3)
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 11, 2014 jsr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
scales with anchors of 1 poor job and 5 excellent job.
Again, we chose formative measures to assess the satisfaction
drivers and averaged the items for every construct.
Results
To empirically test whether the proposed interactions sug-
gested by our research Hypotheses 2a/b and 3a/b are signifi-
cant, we employed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with
performance as dependent variable and physical/mental separa-
tion as independent variables. With respect to the service initia-
tionphysical separation interactions (see Figure 1), we find a
significant interaction effect for level of process integration
(F 2.86, p < .10, Z
2
3%), post-provision documentation
(F 5.15, p < .05, Z
2
4%), exchange options (F 7.24,
p < .01, Z
2
6%), and individualization of delivered RS
(F 3.97, p < .05, Z
2
3%). In line with Hypothesis 2a, for
five of the eight tested dependent variables, provider-initiated
and physically separated services are evaluated as being of
poorer quality than provider-initiated and physically unsepa-
rated services, due to the dominance of the customers desire
for integration. Contrary to Hypothesis 2b, however,
customer-initiated and physically unseparated services are not
evaluated as being better than physically customer-initiated
and separated services. Hence, Hypothesis 2a is partially sup-
ported, while Hypothesis 2b has to be rejected. In addition to
the interaction effects, we find a direct effect of service separa-
tion on support services (F 8.64, p < .01, Z
2
7%).
With respect to the service initiation-mental separation inter-
actions, results are inline withHypotheses 3a/b(seeFigure 2). For
seven of the eight examined dependent variables, we find signif-
icant interaction effects and identical patterns for security in
remote service encounters (F7.79, p<.01, Z
2
6%), reliability
of the remote service (F 2.93, p < .10, Z
2
3%), level of pro-
cess integration (F 9.52, p < .01, Z
2
11%), economic benefit
of RS(F2.90, p<.10, Z
2
3%), post-provisiondocumentation
(F6.63, p <.05, Z
2
6%), exchange options (F4.66, p <.05,
Z
2
4%), and individualization of delivered RS (F 7.37,
p < .01, Z
2
6%). Consistent with Hypothesis 3a, provider-
initiated and mentally separated services are evaluated as being
of poorer quality than provider-initiated and mentally unsepa-
rated services. Moreover, in line with Hypothesis 3b, customer-
initiated and mentally separated services are evaluated as being
of better qualitythancustomer-initiatedandmentallyunseparated
services. Hence, both Hypotheses 3a and b are supported by our
findings.
Support Services
Physical Separaon
Iniaon
2.84
2.31
2.73
2.28
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
Unseparated Separated
Customer-
iniated
Provider-
iniated
F p
Iniaon .14 n.s. .00
Physical separaon 8.64 p<.01 .07
Iniaon x separaon .06 n.s. .00

2
3.30
3.22
3.51
2.72
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
Unseparated Separated
Customer-
iniated
Provider-
iniated
Individualizaon of Delivered RS
F p
Iniaon .65 n.s. .01
Physical separaon 6.03 p<.05 .05
Iniaon x separaon 3.97 p<.05 .03
Physical Separaon
Iniaon
F p
2
Iniaon 6.30 p<.05 .05
Physical separaon .95 n.s. .01
Iniaon x separaon 2.86 p<.10 .03
2.98
2.90
3.43
2.54 2.50
3.00
3.50
Unseparated Separated
Customer-
iniated
Provider-
iniated
Post-Provision Documentaon
F p
2
Iniaon .06 n.s. .01
Physical separaon 7.44 p<.01 .06
Iniaon x separaon 5.15 p<.05 .04
Physical Separaon
Iniaon
2.96
3.05
3.53
3.17
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
Unseparated Separated
Customer-
iniated
Provider-
iniated
Level of Process Integraon
Iniaon
Physical Separaon
F p
2
Iniaon .05 n.s. .00
Physical separaon 2.36 n.s. .02
Iniaon x separaon 7.24 p<.01 .06
3.31
3.53
3.78
2.98
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
Unseparated Separated
Customer-
iniated
Provider-
iniated
Exchange Opons
Iniaon
Physical Separaon
Figure 1. Interactions of service initiation and physical separation on performance ratings.
Paluch and Blut 423
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 11, 2014 jsr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
We tested the stability of our findings by including control
variables in the additionally conducted analyses of covariance.
Following indications by Keh and Pang (2010), we speculate that
variables relatedtotrust inthe provider, as well as experiencewith
remote services (or with IT in general) affect the stability of our
results. However, even when controlling for the impact of
relationship duration, IT involvement, or age and experience of
the respondents, the results of our study remain consistent.
General Discussion
Despite its importance, service inseparability is not well under-
stood in the literature (Keh and Pang 2010). Therefore, this
research examines the impact that service separation associated
with remote services provision has on service satisfaction. We
conducted one qualitative and two quantitative studies to
(a) identify factors leading to remote service satisfaction and
(b) empirically test the impact of physical and mental service
separation on satisfaction assessment, giving evidence for a
paradox associated with service separation.
Contribution to Research on IT-Related Services
We contribute to the literature by exploring the satisfaction
drivers of remote servicesa type of technology-mediated ser-
vices that has received little attention in the service literature to
date (Wunderlich, von Wangenheim, and Bitner 2012). In
Studies 1 and 2, we found the themes of security in remote ser-
vice encounters, reliability, economic benefit, and individuali-
zation to be frequently mentioned by the participants in our in-
depth interviews, which identified them as key dimensions or
subdimensions of e-service quality. While several perceptual
attributes of remote service satisfaction are the same as in
e-service quality, some of the perceptual attributes of the eco-
nomic benefit of remote services deal with remote service-
specific issues such as capacity utilization and uptime of
machines, which are attributes that cannot be found in
e-service quality scales. Particularly, we found two dimen-
sionslevel of process integration and support servicesto
be important drivers of satisfaction that are not in the categories
of the scales against which we compared our findings. As our
validation study indicates, these categories represent important
gaps that should be considered for the scale incorporated here.
Because not only were these two dimensions distinct compared
to related studies, but some of the perceptual attributes were
also. Scale designers in the field of industrial technology
mediated services may wish to capture these elements of
service quality. Interestingly, Study 3 also indicates that
satisfaction levels depend on physical and mental service
separation, which complicates service provision in
technology-mediated services settings such as remote services.
Despite the separability claim for some services, previous
research has neither sufficiently elaborated on nor empirically
examined its implications for customers (Keh and Pang 2010).
This is surprising, because the technology infusion leads to
greater service separation and it often physically and mentally
disconnects service customers and providers. Against this back-
ground, we followed the suggestion of Keh and Pang (2010) and
empirically tested the impact of service separation on service
quality. The qualitative interviews indicate a paradox: Custom-
ers wish to be integrated into the service provision process, and
at the same time they do not wish to be integrated. Depending on
F p
Iniaon 8.90 p<.01 .07
Mental separaon 2,27 n.s. .02
Iniaon x separaon 7.79 p<.01 .06
3.71
4.25
4.12
3.89
3.70
3.90
4.10
4.30
Unseparated Separated
Customer-
iniated
Provider-
iniated
RS Reliability
F p
Iniaon .02 n.s. .00
Mental separaon .46 n.s. .00
Iniaon x separaon 2.93 p<.10 .03
Mental Separaon
Iniaon
Post-Provision Documentaon
Mental Separaon
Iniaon
3.41
3.46
3.67
2.72
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
Unseparated Separated
Customer-
iniated
Provider-
iniated
Exchange Opons
F p
Iniaon 1.10 n.s. .01
Mental separaon 3.83 p<.10 .03
Iniaon x separaon 4.66 p<.05 .04
Mental Separaon
Iniaon
2.90
3.25
3.20
2.40 2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
Unseparated Separated
Customer-
iniated
Provider-
iniated
F p
Iniaon 1.56 n.s. .02
Mental separaon 1.03 n.s. .01
Iniaon x separaon 6.63 p<.05 .06
3.23
3.50
3.19
2.28
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
Unseparated Separated
Customer-
iniated
Provider-
iniated
RS Security
Iniaon
Mental Separaon
F p
Iniaon .11 n.s. .00
Mental separaon .00 n.s. .00
Iniaon x separaon 9.52 p<.01 .11
3.72
4.13
4.08
3.83
3.70
3.80
3.90
4.00
4.10
4.20
Unseparated Separated
Customer-
iniated
Provider-
iniated
Economic Benets of RS
F p
Iniaon .03 n.s. .00
Mental separaon .16 n.s. .00
Iniaon x separaon 2.90 p<.10 .03
Mental Separaon
Iniaon
Individualizaon of Delivered RS
Mental Separaon
Iniaon
2.64
2.08
2.65
2.17
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
Unseparated Separated
Customer-
iniated
Provider-
iniated
Support Services
F p
Iniaon .06 n.s. .00
Mental separaon 6.21 p<.05 .05
Iniaon x separaon .03 n.s. .00
Mental Separaon
Iniaon
3.22
3.63
3.33
2.56
2.40
2.80
3.20
3.60
Unseparated Separated
Customer-
iniated
Provider-
iniated
F p
Iniaon 4.74 p<.05 .04
Mental separaon .71 n.s. .01
Iniaon x separaon 7.37 p<.01 .06
2.95
3.47
3.51
3.01
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
Unseparated Separated
Customer-
iniated
Provider-
iniated
Level of Process Integraon
Iniaon
Mental Separaon
2

Figure 2. Interactions of service initiation and mental separation on performance ratings.

424 Journal of Service Research 16(3)
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 11, 2014 jsr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
the customers view of service separation, service quality assess-
ments will differ. Thereby, we add a further paradox that we
refer to as the service separation/customer integration paradox
to the eight paradoxes of technology that have been identified
by Mick and Fournier (1998). We contribute to this stream of
literature by additionally identifying service initiation as a new
situational characteristic that leads to a dominance of either the
positive or the negative evaluation of technology. With respect,
particularly, to the remote services literature, we find service
initiation to be a critical factor for designing remote services,
because it leads to varied service evaluations.
Managerial Implications
These findings suggest a number of managerial implications
for remote service providers. First, services managers who are
responsible for marketing remote services can use our findings
to improve their operations and, with the help of the developed
measurement, to assess customer satisfaction with their opera-
tions. Our scales may also be used to benchmark the providers
performance against competing providers of remote services.
With respect to the newly identified satisfaction dimensions,
our study indicates that remote service providers should pay
special attention to the level of process integration. Our quali-
tative interviews indicate that remote service providers should
advance their process efficiency through seamless operations
and quick responses to customer problems.
Similarly, customers expect that support services will be
offered, which represents an important area for improvement.
Some customers are highly motivated to learn more about the
benefits of remote service, and how to get the most of it. This
is particularly true because many customers of remote services
are themselves technicians, and having the responsibility for see-
ing that the machines and systems run without problems, they
prefer to expand their knowledge of remote services and how
best to guarantee system availability. Special skills and expertise
are necessary to make use of the technology and, consequently,
customers expressed a desire to receive proper training on the
remote technology. On the basis of this idea, customers suggest
initiating regular round-table meetings with various stakeholders
for the remote technology, as well as with involved persons from
the providers organization, to jointly review the service perfor-
mance and develop strategies for future improvements.
Second, remote services are designed to reduce personal
contact between the service provider and the customer, and to
deliver the service without integrating the customer in service
provision. By identifying the paradox, we provide management
with stronger support for ensuring a satisfying service experience
when service separation is an issue. In the case of provider-
initiated services, providers are recommended to (a) mentally
integrate customers into the service process by informing them
about the planned maintenance and the corrections to the system
and (b) to physically integrate customers into the provision pro-
cess. When the provider does not involve or even informcustom-
ers, problems arise on the customers side for the correct
assessment of whether or not the remote service is beneficial.
a. In the case of customer-initiated services, our results indi-
cate that customer should not be integrated in the service pro-
vision process since it is interpreted as a cue that the remote
service provider lacks competence. In the case of customer-
initiated services rather than physical integration, we find that
mental integration alone backfires. We conclude that the cus-
tomer develops an understanding of why the integration of the
customer may indeed be necessary, following that physical
integration is not interpreted as a cue for a lack of expertise
on the part of the provider.
Limitations and Further Research
This study has like most studies several limitations that should
be addressed in further research. First, after identifying the
determinants of remote service satisfaction, the literature lacks
a quantitative large-scale assessment of the determinants. In
addition to examining overall satisfaction as a dependent vari-
able, future research might examine the impact of remote ser-
vice satisfaction on outcomes such as word-of-mouth,
customer loyalty, and customer complaints.
Second, with respect to the service separation/customer
integration paradox, we suggest development of research that
will deepen our understanding for which technology-
mediated services the paradox exists, and those services for
which it does not. In this light, it is easy to speculate that for
credence services, the paradox is more likely to exist than it
is for experience services, due to the customers greater diffi-
culties in understanding service provision.
Third, studying whether the paradox is stable over time
might also be of value. Our study controlled for the customers
expertise and relationship duration, but it would be interesting
to study whether the paradox is inherently unstable or ever-
changing. If so, then strategies designed to increase satisfaction
levels must also have a dynamic component. Longitudinal
research is called for to examine such issues.
Fourth, our study has revealed several interaction effects
between service initiation and (physical and mental) service
separation. Therefore, it is important for future studies to
identify the provider activities for which integration is more
important than separation. Service initiation was a first situa-
tional factor, but one can speculate that further factors exist,
impacting the shift from positive to negative evaluations of ser-
vice separation. For instance, factors such as time pressure or
dependence from the provider might also impact the custom-
ers desire for either service integration or for service
separation.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank David Mothersbaugh for his helpful
comments on previous versions of the article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Paluch and Blut 425
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 11, 2014 jsr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. There has been a debate in the literature about the distinction
between service quality or satisfaction drivers, but it is quite usual
among online researchers to make no distinction (Holloway and
Beatty 2008).
2. Some interviews comprised more than one interview partner.
3. We developed a questionnaire and asked service experts to sort the
provided items to the main categories. After the first round the
expert classification resulted in an interjudge agreement rate of
86%. We used ideas and suggestions of the experts and slightly
modified the definitions of the main categories. In a second round,
we asked two parallel groups; one consisting of service experts and
one of practitioners using remote service at their organization, to
categorize the items again using the modified schema. The result-
ing interjudge agreement increased to 92% (service experts) and
97% (practitioners). In the final phase, the two original judges
reviewed the categories and subcategories and made some minor
improvements to the definitions. In the end, we identified 8 main
categories and 25 subcategories.
4. To empirically test the appropriateness of our formative measures,
we individually regressed the formative items on the averaged
reflective measures. All estimates for the first-order formative indi-
cators for each construct were significant, along with all the
estimates for the reflective indicators.
References
Allmendinger, Glen and Ralph Lombreglia (2005), Four Strategies
for the Age of Smart Services, Harvard Business Review, 83
(October), 131-145.
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1988), On Evaluation of Struc-
tural Equation Models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence, 16 (2), 74-94.
Bezjian-Avery, Alexa, Bobby Calder, and Dawn Iacobucci (1998),
New Media Interactive Advertising vs. Traditional Advertising,
Journal of Advertising Research, 38 (4), 23-32.
Biehl, Markus, Edmund Prater, and John R. McIntyre (2004),
Remote Repair, Diagnostics, and Maintenance, Communica-
tions of the ACM, 47 (11), 100-106.
Bitner, Mary. J. (2001) Service and Technology: Opportunities and
Paradoxes, Managing Service Quality, 11 (6), 375-379.
Bitner, Mary. J., Stephen W. Brown, and Matthew L. Meuter (2000),
Technology Infusion in Service Encounters, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), 138-149.
Bitner, Mary. J., William T. Faranda, Amy R. Hubbert, and Valarie A.
Zeithaml (1997), Customer Contributions and Roles in Service
Delivery, International Journal of Service Industry Management,
8 (3), 193-205.
Bitner, Mary. J. (1992), Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Sur-
roundings on Customers and Employees, Journal of Marketing,
56 (2) (April), 57-71.
Bitner, Mary. J. (1990), Evaluating Service Encounters: the Effects
of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses, Journal of
Marketing Research, 54 (2), 69-82.
Collier, Joel E. and Daniel L. Sherrell (2011), Examining the Influ-
ence of Control and Convenience in a Self-service Setting, Jour-
nal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38 (4), 490-509.
Cowles, Deborah and Lawrence A. Crosby (1990), Consumer
Acceptance of Interactive Media in Service Marketing Encoun-
ters, Service Industries Journal, 10 (3), 521-540.
Cox, J. and B. G. Dale (2001), Service Quality and E-commerce: an
Exploratory Analysis, Managing Service Quality, 11(2), 121-131.
Curran, James M. and Matthew L. Meuter (2005), Self-Service Tech-
nology Adoption: Comparing Three Technologies, Journal of
Services Marketing, 19 (2), 103-113.
Dabholkar, Prathiba A. (1996), Consumer Evaluations of New
Technology-based Self-Service Options: An Investigation of
Alternative Models of Service Quality, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 13 (1), 29-51.
Dabholkar, Prathiba A. (1994), Technology-based Service Delivery:
A Classification Scheme for Developing Marketing Strategies,
Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 30 (3), 241-271.
DuBay, John W. (2009), Remote Service Reduces Maintenance
Costs, Applied Automation, 63 (7), 14.
Flanagan, John C. (1954), The Critical Incident Technique, Psy-
chological Bulletin, 51 (4), 327-358.
Fornell, Claes (1992), A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer:
The Swedish Experience, Journal of Marketing, 56 (1), 6-21.
Guedj, Richard A., P. J. W. ten Hagen, F. R. Hopgood, H. A. Tucker,
and D. A. Duce (1980), Methodology of Interaction: Seillac II.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
Handy, C. (1994), The Age of Paradox. Boston, MA: Harvard Busi-
ness School Press.
Harbor Research (2010), Machine-To-Machine (M2M) & Smart Sys-
tems Forecast 2010-2014. San Francisco, CA: Harbor Research.
Holloway, Betsy Bugg and Sharon E. Beatty (2008), Satisfiers and
Dissatisfiers in the Online Environment, Journal of Service
Research, 10 (4), 347-364.
Johnson, Devon S., Fleura Bardhi, and Dan T. Dunn (2008), Under-
standing How Technology Paradoxes Affect Customer Satisfaction
with Self-Service Technology: The Role of Performance Ambiguity
andTrust inTechnology, Psychology &Marketing, 25 (5), 416-443.
Kaynama, Shohreh A. and Christine I. Black (2000), A Proposal to
Assess the Service Qualityof Online Travel Agencies: AnExploratory
Study, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 21(1), 63-88.
Keh, Hean Tat and Jun Pang (2010), Customer Reactions to Service
Separation, Journal of Marketing, 74 (March), 55-71.
Loiacono, Eleanor T., Richard T. Watson, and Dale L. Goddhue (2007),
WebQual: AMeasure of Web Site Quality, International Journal
of Electronic Commerce, 11 (3), 51-87.
Madu, Christian N. and Assumpta N. Madu (2002), Dimensions of
E-quality, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Man-
agement, 19 (3), 246-258.
Meuter, Matthew L., Amy L. Ostrom, Robert Roundtree, and Mary J.
Bitner (2000), Self-Service Technologies: Understanding Cus-
tomer Satisfaction with Technology-Based Service Encounters,
Journal of Marketing, 64 (3), 50-64.
426 Journal of Service Research 16(3)
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 11, 2014 jsr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Mick, David G. and Susan Fournier (1998), Paradoxes of Technol-
ogy: Consumer Cognizance, Emotions, and Coping Strategies,
Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (2), 123-144.
Mick, David G. and Susan Fournier (1995), Technological Consumer
Products in Everyday Life: Ownership, Meaning, and Satisfaction,
working paper 95-104, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Arvind Malhotra (2005),
E-S-QUAL : A Multiple-Item Scale for Assessing Electronic Ser-
vice Quality, Journal of Service Research, 7 (3), 213-233.
Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry (1988),
SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer
Perceptions of Service Quality, Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry (1985),
A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Implications for
Future Research, Journal of Marketing, 49 (Fall), 41-50.
Patton, Michael Q. (2009), Qualitative Research and Evaluation
Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Price, Linda L., Eric J. Arnould, and Sheila L. Deibler (1995), Con-
sumers emotional responses to Service Encounters, Interna-
tional Journal of Service Industry Management, 6 (3), 34-64.
Rapoport, Amos (1982), The Meaning of the Built Environment.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rossiter, John R. (2002), The C-OAR-SE Procedure for Scale
Development in Marketing, International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 19 (4), 305-335.
Rust, Roland T. and P. K. Kannan (2003), E-Services: A New Para-
digm for Business in the Electronic Environment, Communica-
tions of the ACM, 46 (6), 36-42.
Rust, Roland T. and Bruce Cooil (1994), Reliability Measures for
Qualitative Data: Theory and Implications, Journal of Marketing
Research, 31 (1), 1-14.
Ruth, Julie A., Frederic F. Brunel, and Cele C. Otnes (2002), Linking
Thoughts to Feelings: Investigating Cognitive Appraisals and Con-
sumption Emotions in a Mixed-emotions Context, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (1), 44-58.
Schumann, Jan. H., Nancy V. Wunderlich, and Florian von Wangen-
heim, (2012), Technology Mediation in Service Delivery: A New
Typology and an Agenda for Managers and Academics, Techno-
vation, 32 (2), 133-143.
Silpakit, Patriya and Raymond P. Fisk (1984), Participatizing the
Service Encounter: A Theoretical Framework, in AMA Services
Marketing Proceedings, Service Marketing in a Changing
Environment, T. M. Block, G. D. Upah and V. A. Zeithaml eds.
Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 117-121.
Szymanski, David M. and David H. Henard (2001), Customer Satis-
faction: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (1), 16-35.
Wunderlich, Nancy, V., Florian von Wangenheim, and Mary J.
Bitner (2012), High Tech and High Touch: A Framework for
Understanding User Attitudes and Behaviors Related to Smart
Interactive Services, Journal of Service Research, June 11,
1-18.
Yang, Zhilin and Xiang Fang (2004), Online Service Quality
Dimensions and their Relationships with Satisfaction, Interna-
tional Journal of Service Industry Management, 15 (3),
302-326.
Yoo, Boonghee and Naveen Donthu (2001), Developing and Vali-
dating a Multidimensional Consumer-Based Brand Equity Scale,
Journal of Business Research, 21 (1), 1-14.
Zeithaml, Valerie A., Mary. J. Bitner, and Dwayne D. Gremler (2006),
Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm.
Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Zeithaml, Valerie A., A. Parasuraman, and Arvind Malhotra (2002),
Service Quality Delivery Through Web Sites: A Critical Review
of Extant Knowledge, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence, 30(4), 362-75.
Zeithaml, Valerie A., Roy Richards, and Alice H. Richards (2002),
Service Excellence in Electronic Channels, Managing Service
Quality, 12 (3), 135-139.
Author Biograrphies
Stefanie Paluch, PhD, is an assistant professor of service and technol-
ogy management at TU Dortmund University, Germany. Her research
focuses on technology-mediated services, including adoption drivers,
relationship management, customer frustration with technology, ser-
vice innovations and social media management. Her work has been
published in the Journal of Service Research and she regularly pre-
sents her research on numerous international conferences.
Markus Blut, PhD, is a professor and chair of marketing at Newcastle
University Business School, UK. His primary areas of research inter-
est are service management, international marketing, and customer
relationship management. He has published on these issues in the
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Service
Research, Journal of Retailing, International Marketing Review,
Industrial Marketing Management, and Journal of Relationship
Marketing.
Paluch and Blut 427
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 11, 2014 jsr.sagepub.com Downloaded from