Development of Intelligent Agents through Collaborative Innovation

• Autorzy: Mateusz Kot , Grzegorz Leszczyński
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This study focuses on the development of a specific type of Intelligent Agents - Business Virtual Assistants (BVA). The paper aims to identify the scope of collaboration between users and providers in the process of agent development and to define the impact that user interpretations of a BVA agent have on this collaboration. This study conceptualises the collaboration between providers and users in the process of the BVA development. It uses the concept of the collaborative development of innovation and sensemaking. The empirical part presents preliminary exploratory in-depth interviews conducted with CEOs of BVA providers and analyses the use of the scheme offered by Miles and Hubermann (1994). The main results show the scope of the collaboration between BVA users and providers in the process of the BVA development. User engagement is crucial in the development of BVA agents since they are using machine learning algorithms. The user interpretation through sensemaking influences the process as their attitudes guide their behaviour. Apart from that, users have to adjust to this new kind of entity in the market and learn how to use it in line with savoir-vivre rules. This paper suggests the need to develop a new approach to the collaborative development of innovation when Artificial Intelligence is involved. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Artificial intelligence; Innovations; Cooperation

PL

Sztuczna inteligencja; Innowacje; Współpraca

• Czasopismo: Engineering Management in Production and Services
• Rocznik: 2019
• Numer: nr 3
• Strony: 29--37

Twórcy

autor

Mateusz Kot

• Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poland

autor

Grzegorz Leszczyński

• Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poland

Bibliografia

• Baldwin, C., & von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation. Organization Science, 22(6), 1399-1417.
• Bogers, M., Zobel, A.K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L., & Hagedoorn, J. (2017). The open innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 8-40.
• 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, 539-548.
• Cornelissen, J.P. (2011). Sensemaking Under Pressure: The Influence of Professional Roles and Social Accountability on the Creation of Sense. Organization Science, 23(1), 118-137. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0640
• Cuevas?Rodríguez, G., Cabello?Medina, C., & Carmona?Lavado, A. (2014). Internal and external social capital for radical product innovation: do they always work well together? British Journal of Management, 25(2), 266-284.
• Cui, A.S., & Wu, F. (2016). Utilizing customer knowledge in innovation: antecedents and impact of customer involvement on new product performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(4), 516-538.
• Dahlander, L., & Gann, D.M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699-709.
• El Kadiri, S., Terkaj, W., Urwin, E.N., Palmer, C., Kiritsis, D., & Young, R. (2015). Ontology in Engineering Applications. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 225, 5-9.
• Eslami, M.H., & Lakemond, N. (2016). Knowledge integration with customers in collaborative product development projects. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(7), 889-900.
• Frankelius, P. (2009). Questioning two myths in innovation literature. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 20, 40-51.
• Gallaud, D. (2013). Collaborative Innovation and Open Innovation. Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 236-241.
• Glezer, C. (2002), A conceptual model of an interorganizational intelligent meeting-scheduler (IIMS). Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 12, 47-70.
• Gordini, N., & Veglio, V. (2017). Customers churn prediction and marketing retention strategies. An application of support vector machines based on the AUC parameter-selection technique in B2B e-commerce industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 62, 100-107.
• Grönroos, C. (2001). The Perceived Service Quality Concept - A Mistake? Managing Service Quality, 11(3), 150-152.
• Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.), 163-194.
• Gummesson, E. (2002). Relationship marketing and a new economy: it's time for deprogramming. Journal of Services Marketing, 16, 585-589.
• Hargrave, T.J., & van de Ven, A.H. (2006). A collective action model of institutional innovation. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 864-888.
• Ibrahim, A. (2019). A Study About Using a Cognitive Agent in Replacing Level 1 and 2 Service Desk Activities. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 307-316.
• Jer, R., Kim, D., & Bello, D.C. (2017). Relationship-based product innovations: Evidence from the global supply chain. Journal of Business Research, 80, 127-140.
• Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who's the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62(1), 15-25.
• Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, United States: Sage Publications.
• Morgan, A., & Piccinini, G. (2018). Towards a cognitive neuroscience of intentionality. Minds & Machines, 28(1), 119-139.
• Mou, Y., & Xu, K. (2017). The media inequality: Comparing the initial human-human and human-Artificial Intelligence social interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 432-440.
• Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E.R. (1994). Computers are social actors. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, 72-78.
• Nicholson, J.D., LaPlaca, P., Al-Abdin, A., Breese, R., & Khan, Z. (2018). What do introduction sections tell us about the intent of scholarly work: A contribution on contributions. Industrial Marketing Management, 73, 206-219.
• Nilsson, N. (1998). Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis. Morgan Kaufmann.
• Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116-145.
• Russell, S.J., & Norvig, P. (2009). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, United States: Prentice Hall.
• Russell, S., Dewey, D., & Tegmark, M. (2015). Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence. Ai Magazine, 36(4), 105-114.
• Shakshuki, E., Koo, H., Benoit, D., & Silve, D. (2008), A distributed multi-agent meeting scheduler. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 74, 279-296.
• Syama, N., & Sharmab, 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, 135-146.
• Vendrell-Herrero, F., Bustinza, O.F., Parry, G., & Georgantzis, N. (2017). Servitization, digitization and supply chain interdependency. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 69-81.
• Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in organisations, 3rd ed. Sage.
• Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.

Identyfikatory

DOI

https://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2019-0018