Purpose The purpose of this paper is to offer a discussion, definition and comprehensive conceptualization of the smart service experience, i.e. the way guests and customers in hospitality and tourism experience and value the use of personalized and pro-active services that the intelligent use of data and technology enable. Design/methodology/approach Based on prior research on service experience, smart services and the differences between regular and smart services, this paper develops a conceptual framework in which the smart service experience is the central construct. Findings The characteristics of smart services (the intelligent, anticipatory, and adaptable use of data and technology) permit customers to experience services that previous conceptualizations of the service experience could not capture. The smart service experience provides empowerment, a seamless experience, enjoyment, privacy and security, and accurate service delivery. The paper also discusses challenges that service firms face in employing smart services, and proposes a future research agenda. Practical implications Both academics and practitioners expect smart services to revolutionize many industries such as tourism and hospitality. Therefore, research is needed to help understand the way customers experience smart services, what values they derive from them and the way service firms can employ them sensibly to enhance customers’ experiences. Originality/value This paper synthesizes insights from the literature on customer experience, smart services and co-creation into a conceptualization of the smart service experience, and distinguishes it from previous conceptualizations of regular services.

His research focuses on customer loyalty, servitization, servicescape, consumer well-being, and multichannel management. He intensively collaborates with Belgian companies bridging the gap between practice and academia. His research has been published in

Purpose Focusing on decisional control of the outcome provides only a partial picture of how firms may handle customer complaints and ignores many (alternative) opportunities to recover the relationship with the customer when service delivery fails. The purpose of this paper is to introduce other types of control and explore their effects. Design/methodology/approach This paper conducts a field study using survey instruments to collect data from real consumers, which are subsequently analyzed with structural equations modeling. Findings The main conclusion of this study is that there is more to control than having a choice. Different types of control have differential main effects: behavioral control affects distributive justice, cognitive control affects procedural justice and decisional control affects interactional justice (which in turn affect satisfaction and loyalty). Research limitations/implications Service recovery research should include behavioral, cognitive and decisional control of the service recovery as aspects of the firm’s organizational response to customer complaints. The effects of these customer control types on satisfaction and loyalty are mediated by dimensions of justice. Practical implications Firms should offer complaining customers information to interpret and appraise the failure (cognitive control), opportunities to personally take action and influence the recovery (behavioral control), and choices in the recovery process and outcome (decisional control). Originality/value This study is the first to offer a comprehensive investigation of the subtle interrelationships between types of control and dimensions of justice in a service recovery context.

Purpose Research on empowerment and service co-production assumed that customers want more control and that more control is better. An empirical test of this assumption, however, is lacking. This study tests this assumption by not only focusing on the customer’s capacity and opportunity for control, but also taking into account the customer’s desire for control. Design/methodology/approach This study uses an experiment employing video clips depicting a service encounter in a banking context in which control beliefs are manipulated. Findings This study shows that more control in services is not always better because individuals vary in their desire for control; that state-measures of control are effective predictors of relevant attitudinal and behavioral effects like satisfaction and loyalty, and that the mechanism which produces these effects is the consistency between control beliefs. Research limitations/implications Future research on customer empowerment and service co-production should acknowledge the pivotal role of variations in desire for control, focus on inconsistencies in control beliefs to predict effects, and measure control beliefs as varying states rather than as stable personality traits. Practical implications Enhancing customer control of a service may primarily mean: giving the customer the option to control or not to control the service. Originality/value This study contributes to literature and marketing practice by demonstrating that more control may have negative effects and by demonstrating the mechanism by which these effects occur.

His research focuses on customer loyalty, servitization, servicescape, consumer well-being, and multichannel management. He intensively collaborates with Belgian companies bridging the gap between practice and academia. His research has been published in