THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A FRAMEWORK TO DETERMINE THE ADDED VALUE OF A COBOT IN SERVICE DELIVERY

THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION

OF A FRAMEWORK TO DETERMINE

THE ADDED VALUE OF A COBOT

IN SERVICE DELIVERY

Master Thesis University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc BA Strategic Innovation Management

Esther Mussche

S3195473

Supervisor: Dr. Eelko Huizingh

Co-assessor: Dr. Wim Biemans

1

ABSTRACT

As collaborating robots are increasingly used in service environments organizations need to know how to determine the added value of such technology for their service delivery. Therefore, this study aims to answer the research question ‘How can an organization determine the added value of implementing a cobot for their service delivery?’ A literature review was conducted to develop a framework with five steps. Consequently, an exploratory single case study was conducted in an HVAC-Industry organization to validate the framework by taking semi-structured interviews. The result of this study suggests that the developed framework must be revised to be fully applicable in an organization. The revised framework contributes to the literature with an organizational

perspective on how organizations can determine the added value of implementing a cobot in a service delivery environment. It focuses on the factors underlying the interaction between customer, employee and cobot, and their needed capabilities for value creation in service delivery. The

organizational perspective is addressed in determining organizational readiness, organizational short-, long-term and soft benefitsshort-, and the ‘risk’ factors for implementing a cobot successfully. The framework provides prioritization, focus and overview of the relevant factors. Therefore, it helps organizations more effectively determine the added value of a cobot in the service delivery.

Keywords: collaborative robots (cobots), stage-gate model, human-technology interaction, service delivery

2

PREFACE

This thesis is the final work of my master’s in Strategic Innovation Management - Business Administration at the University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business.

As the world of robotics evolves at a high pace there will be a greater need for organizations to know how such technology can be implemented and add value. The purpose of this study is to introduce a framework useful for organizations how they can determine the added value of a collaborative robot, cobot, in their service delivery. The work is divided into two parts. First, I developed the framework based on the literature. Second, I validated the framework through a case study.

My personal interest in the development of new, emerging technologies made me feel motivated to research this topic thoroughly. Especially, the application of my research in a single case study made me feel connected to the organization and the process.

Acknowledgements

In truth, I could not have completed my thesis without a strong support group. First, I am grateful for the help of my supervisor’s Dr Eelko Huizingh and Dr Wim Biemans, each of whom has provided valuable instructions and guidance throughout the research process. Second, I would like to express my profound thanks to the CEO and former CTO of the organization where the case study was conducted, for their (practical) advice and support. Third, my thanks and appreciations go to all the employees of the organization who contributed with useful feedback and willingness to participate in the interviews. My sincere gratitude for all the unwavering support.

Esther Mussche

3

TABLE OF CONTENT

2.2 Human-technology Interaction Typology 9

2.3 Customer Perspective 9 2.4 Stage-Gate Model 9 3. METHODOLOGY 10 3.1 Research Design 10 3.1.1 Framework development 10 3.1.2 Framework validation 10 3.2 Case Selection 11

3.3 Data Collection Method 12

4. DEVELOPMENT OF THE FRAMEWORK 13

4.1 Phase 1: Organizational Readiness for Cobot Implementation 15

4.1.1 Organizational necessity 15

4.1.2 External factors 15

4.1.3 Organizational readiness 17

4.2 Phase 2: Estimation of Added Value Potential Cobot 18

4.2.1 Short-term value creation 18

4.2.2 Long-term value creation 19

4.3 Phase 3: Interaction between Cobot, Customer and Employee 20

4.3.1 Employee perspective 20

4.3.2 Organizational perspective 21

4.3.3 Customer perspective 21

4.4 Phase 4: Compliance between Capabilities and Requirements 22

4.4.1 Employee requirements 22

4.4.2 Cobot requirements 22

4.4.3 Customer requirements 22

4

4.5 Phase 5: Cobot Implementation Issues 23

5. VALIDATION OF THE FRAMEWORK 24

5.1 Testing 24

5.2 Application 27

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 34

6.1 Contribution 36

6.2 Managerial Implications 38

6.3 Limitations and Further Research 39

REFERENCES 40

APPENDIX 45

Appendix A. Interview Protocol – Medewerkers 45

Appendix B. Interview Protocol – Klant 46

Appendix C. Interview Protocol – Cobot Expert 47

Appendix D. Interview Protocol – Organisatie/Management 48

5

1. INTRODUCTION

As technology is rapidly changing, the implementation of collaborative robots in service delivery is progressively advancing (Van Doorn et al., 2017). We define a collaborative robot, or cobot, as an advanced, adaptable machine that can be entrusted to work together with humans without being kept in a cage or a separate room (Jeffery, 2018). For instance, a cobot is used for repetitive tasks such as inspection or pick and place. Besides, in a Thai restaurant, a cobot is stationed in a kitchen to assist working chefs and waiters. Moreover, as we are currently facing the pandemic due to the COVID-19, the implementation of cobots in various service delivery environments is increasing (McBurnett, 2020). Careful cobot implementation strategies can alleviate employee and customer safety concerns during the pandemic. For instance, the front-line medical workers of a hospital in Wuhan (China), have been using cobots to help contain the pandemic (Goel, 2020). All medical services in the hospital such as screening, monitoring of heart rate, temperature, and blood oxygen levels were carried out by cobots to prevent spreading of infections (Goel, 2020).

Considering that the service sector has expanded enormously in the last few decades and is now a substantial part of the global economy, the introduction of cobots in service delivery has major consequences and scores high on theoretical and managerial interest (Elms et al., 2017). Cobots will be of paramount importance in upcoming years, such a technology will become a prominent one in the next decades (Bloss, 2016). Therefore, this highly innovative and topical subject needs to be further examined to be accurately understood by organizations for possible value-adding opportunities (Khalid et al., 2016).

Where existing research elaborates on the factors important for possible value-adding opportunities of cobots in manufacturing environments, the literature lacks a framework with factors and decisions important for the implementation in the service delivery (Simões et al., 2020). Remarkable, since the manufacturing and service delivery environments show fundamental differences between each other causing the inability to make a one-to-one comparison (Sohal et al., 2001; Williams, 2014). One important discrepancy involves the focus on different elements in their production environment when implementing a cobot. Where manufacturing operations mainly consider the manufacturing layout and its effect on the flow of work, the focus in service environments is primarily on the interaction between customer and employee (Tax et al., 2013). Therefore, the effect on customer experience and how to involve the customer in the co-creation of value, regarding

6

2017; Williams 2014). Concluding, research for the value-adding possibilities of a cobot in service delivery is needed. But, since the existing research in service delivery predominantly focuses on solely the customers perspective on new technology implementation, the organizational perspective is not fully examined (Følstad & Kvale, 2018; Gurski, 2013; Schmidtler, 2015; Van Doorn et al., 2017). Therefore, this study addresses the organizational perspective on cobot implementation in service delivery researching how organizations can determine the added value of new technologies in their service delivery. The organizational perspective is particularly important to enlighten, because determining the added value of a cobot for the organization, involves next to the customers’ perspective, multiple other layers of the organization (Simões et al., 2020). The involved

organizational layers are the top managers and employees who will be working with a cobot. This is in line with the findings of Van Doorn et al. (2017) who suggest that, for organizations, understanding how cobots and service employees can optimally collaborate in co-creating value with customers and therefore generate value for the organization is another fruitful area of research. By taking an organizational perspective our study will examine all mentioned organizational layers, in contrast, to solely a customers’ perspective. This in turn provides a more comprehensive overview of relevant factors influencing added value creation in service delivery for organizations (Chiarini, 2020; Gurski, 2013; Larivière et al., 2017).

Such a comprehensive overview is missing, since no framework exists that integrates the literature on value-adding possibilities of cobots and important factors underlying human-technology

interaction (Calitz et al., 2017; Sanders et al., 2011; Van Doorn et al., 2017). Moreover, the literature lacks a framework on how organizations can determine for which tasks, under which circumstances and, in which service environments a cobot can add value (Abdelfetah et al., 2019). Therefore, the main purpose of this study is the development and validation of a framework with factors necessary to consider how an organization can determine the added value of a cobot in service delivery. The research question we address is: “How can an organization determine the added value of implementing a cobot for their service delivery?”

7

1.1 Contribution

The main contribution of this study is a framework from an organizational perspective on how an organization can determine the added value of implementing a cobot in a specifically service delivery environment. The study contributes a framework that integrates employee and customers

perspective on and their needed capabilities for the co-creation of value with a cobot. Besides, the framework addresses the organizational perspective on cobot implementation by determining the elements where short- and long-term added value and soft benefits can be gained for the

organization. Moreover, the project contributes with the finding that the organization first must determine its readiness for cobot implementation based on the necessity and external pressure to innovate before it can implement a cobot. Additionally, this study identifies the ‘risk’ factors which the organization must consider making the implementation succeed. The factor communication stands out as most important and makes sure that first the planning, second design and third training of the implementation can be executed successfully. Furthermore, this study contributes with the additional finding that the same internal organizational and external environmental factors are of influence on the readiness and decision to implement a cobot in both manufacturing and service environments. Additionally, this research shows that people first must get acquainted with new technology before they accept it in their private spheres.

The remainder of this paper contains the following content. In section 2 we provide the theoretical background of this study. Next, section 3 presents the research method in which we elaborate on how we developed and validated the framework. The development of the framework is presented in section 4. Subsequently, in section 5 we show the findings based on the validation of the framework. Following, the discussion and conclusion are shown in section 6. Ultimately, also in the 6th section, we show the final framework guiding an organization how it can determine the added value of a cobot in their service delivery.

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Collaborating Robots

8

repeatable, accurate or tasks that must show heterogeneity over time (Huang & Rust, 2018). By executing those tasks, the cobot can alleviate human workers which results in more time for them to focus on decision making and problem-solving tasks (Peshkin et al., 2001). Moreover, cobots are used for optimization; they generate process data that AI analysis uses to identify ways to streamline methods, working double duty by not only completing a task but by also gathering useful data on how to improve that task (Prutz, 2018). Cobots appear in various sizes. The integrated sensors, friendly shapes and soft surfaces reduce the risk of impact, pinching and crushing (Tobe, 2015). Moreover, cobots are developed with power and force limitation to establish a safe environment for collaborative activities with humans. However, a cobot could be physically safe and is made for alleviating employees, for humans mentally it could entail some pain points. The feeling for humans that they must collaborate with an emotionless piece of technology can lead to a feeling of loss of control and a sense of alienation from their work as purposeful, mutual social interactions decline (Calitz et al., 2017).Trust in and the understanding of technology by humans is key to make the collaboration with a cobot a success (Sanders et al. 2011; Yagoda & Gillan 2012). Moreover, achieving acceptance by employees is more likely when they are involved in the implementation process from the beginning (Simões et al. 2020). Besides, a clear understanding of how the

implementation of a cobot contributes to the organizations’ objectives also supports acceptance by employees.

Although cobots mostly are deployed in manufacturing environments, they are also increasingly used in several service environments where employees can collaborate with robots to jointly deliver the service, such as hospitals or restaurants (Van Doorn et al., 2017). However, existing literature mainly provides frameworks for the implementation of a cobot for specifically manufacturing environments. It explores in-depth influential factors in advanced technologies in the manufacturing context, which can assist managerial practices that consider the role of these factors and how it can lead to

successful implementations (Simões et al. 2018). Moreover, research highlights 39 important factors in three contextual environments; 1) innovation, 2) internal organizational and 3) external

9

2.2 Human-technology Interaction Typology

The existing literature stresses the need for an accurate human-technology interaction typology to implement a new technology successful (Malik & Bilberg, 2019). Therefore, it identifies various possible levels of engagement in the interaction between human and cobot. The levels range from placing a cobot on the right spot, so it can execute its task independently (level 1. ‘cell’) to exhaustive collaboration between human and cobot (level 5. ‘collaboration’). The levels of engagement in between, ascending in the degree of engagement, are 2. coexistence, 3. synchronization and 4. cooperation.

2.3 Customer Perspective

The implementation of a cobot in service encounters influences the satisfaction, loyalty, well-being and engagement of customers (Van Doorn et al., 2017). Moreover, the customer perspective on cobot implementation is positive under the condition that customers assess the technology as useful and when the technology causes customer benefits such as a cost saving (Ho & Ko, 2008). A high degree of customer readiness is required from customers to accept new technology implementation in service delivery (Vaittinen et al., 2018).

2.4 Stage-Gate Model

For organizations holding onto a model as guidance during the decision-making process to

10

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

Since the literature lacks a theory-based framework for organizations to determine the added value of a cobot in their service delivery, we aim to fill that gap by developing and validating a framework.

3.1.1 Framework development

We developed the framework by using the existing literature on cobot implementation in

manufacturing and the possible interaction typologies between cobot and human workers based on the level of engagement, as identified in the theoretical background. We developed the framework for the service delivery environment, considering which factors are of interest in this context, contrary to a manufacturing environment. To identify those factors, we made use of a literature review. A literature review is particularly suited as it functions to gain an understanding of the existing research and debates relevant to the topic of cobot implementation (Snyder, 2019). It helps to identify, collect and analyse relevant literature for the development of the framework.

Besides, we borrowed as much as possible from prior research to combine and integrate it into our framework. We used the framework of Kung and Kung (2015) with perceived external pressures influencing organizational necessity to innovate to develop a part of phase 1 of our framework. Besides, we integrated the framework of Slack et al. (2016) in phase 2 to identify what elements create value in service delivery. Also, phase 3 of the framework is based on the literature of Malik and Bilberg (2019) to identify a valuable interaction typology. The development of phase 4 and 5 is based on the literature on cobot implementation. Besides, we developed the framework with the help of multiple conversations with associate professors. We iteratively enhanced the model by specifying the relevant steps and feedback loops for organizations to accurately determine the added value of a cobot in service delivery.

The construction of the framework is based on the principle of the stage-gate model by Cooper (1990) to provide structure and a comprehensive overview of the steps an organization must take.

3.1.2 Framework validation

In this study, we conducted a qualitative single case study to empirically validate our framework in-depth by testing and applying the model (Yin, 2009).

11

We tested the usefulness and completeness of the framework by asking interviewees their

perspective on the clarity and unambiguity of the phrasing and logic of the framework, either missing important steps or covering redundant ones (Stock et al., 2017). We tested every phase of the framework with the top management and cobot experts who are experienced in new technology implementation.

● Application

Consequently, we applied the model by following the steps of the framework to determine the added value of a cobot in this case. For the application of the framework, we involved all

interviewees and their perspectives on the implementation of a cobot. In phase 1 predominantly the top management was involved. Phase 2 was mainly based on the expertise of the cobot experts and experience of the service employees. Phase 3 and 4 involved every category of interviewees and, phase 5 was principally focused on the top management and cobot experts’ perspectives.

As a research design, we chose a qualitative single case study research, since it is particularly suited to explore a real-life - complex, unique, exploratory - phenomenon in-depth (Yin, 2009). Since our framework needs to be validated in a real-life situation, with several complex intertwined actors within and outside the organization, a single case study is best fitted for our research. Such intertwined actors in our case are the conditions of the HVAC-industry, the customers, the

competitors, partners, the holding and employees. Those factors need to be considered because they influence the decision making of the management.

Furthermore, a qualitative single case study can provide accurate in-depth descriptions and test theory and is therefore relevant when validating our framework within the organization (Eisenhardt, 1989). Within our case study, we have multiple embedded units of analysis (Yin, 2003). We focused on the following sub-units: the organizational top management, the employee, the customer and the internal/external cobot expert since these categories are used in the data collection.

By validating our framework in a real-life case study, we can contribute to the literature with a well-developed, scientific-based and empirically tested framework on how to determine the added value of a cobot in the service delivery.

3.2 Case Selection

12

The organization was founded in 1903 originally as an iron smithy. In 1964 the organisation started with the production of air heating. The oil crisis in 1973 made gas and energy more expensive, resulting in people better insulating their homes, except they forgot about ventilation. Consequently, this could cause mould, which is harmful to human health. The government intervened by imposing requirements on both insulation and ventilation. The organisation then started developing

ventilation systems. Over the years the organisation has grown considerably. It now has subsidiaries in Germany and France, and they have partners worldwide. In 2015 they started a subsidiary for the delivery of maintenance and service to the appliances at people’s homes. The core of their business lies in manufacturing, but service delivery nowadays becomes very important because the service employees shape the image of the organization. Therefore, this leaves room for continuous improvement in service delivery to generate high customer satisfaction and an improved company reputation.

The organization aims to explore the added value of a cobot in their service delivery. They

implemented a cobot in their manufacturing a few years ago but lacked the knowledge on how to determine if it also benefits their service delivery.The organization runs into the problem that manufacturing and service areas are fundamentally different and that the service areas have

different factors to be considered before implementing new technology. Therefore, our theory-based framework is highly applicable to be tested and applied in this case to provide us with valuable empirical insights. In turn, this enables us to answer our research question accurately.

3.3 Data Collection Method

In this qualitative research, we made use of primary data; we conducted semi-structured interviews as our method of data collection for original information. We used semi-structured interviews to fully explore participants' feelings, thoughts and beliefs about the topic (Smith, 1995). Moreover, allowing discussion and freedom to express their thoughts based on experiences, expectations or expertise (Smith, 1995). Grounded in the initial literature review, we developed interview protocols (see Appendix A, B, C and D), allowing for comparability of answers and improving the reliability of the study (Yin, 2009). Accordingly, the interviews followed a standard core organized under broadly defined topics with open-ended questions and probes to encourage detailed responses (Yin, 2009). We developed four semi-structured interview protocols, one for each category, to cover all

13

cobot functioning and possibilities; and 4) the customers who receive the service delivery at their homes. The customers are the end-users, so the service is provided from business to consumer. We conducted interviews from a technically inclined customer, a customer who has been loyal to the organization for years and a nontechnical customer. None of the customers nor employees had experiences with cobots, therefore prejudgements were excluded.

All these perspectives together provided us with in-depth understanding and empirical evidence of the relevant factors that influence the added value creation of implementing a cobot in the service delivery. In table 1 we provide an overview of the conducted interviews, which we refer to in section 5.

Table 1

Interview details

Interview Category Job position Length interview

Mngr. 1 Organization (manager) CEO 27:27 minutes

Mngr. 2 Organization (manager) Head of Services and Techniques 35:36 minutes Mngr. 3 Organization (manager) Commercial Manager 40:51 minutes

Emp. 1 Employees Service mechanic 35:27 minutes

Emp. 2 Employees Service mechanic 17:53 minutes

Emp. 3 Employees Maintenance/Service mechanic 32:27 minutes

Cust. 1 Customer N/a 30:22 minutes

Cust. 2 Customer N/a 26:25 minutes

Cust. 3 Customer N/a 24:00 minutes

Co Ex. 1 Cobot expert (internal) Project Coordinator Operations 41:20 minutes Co Ex. 2 Cobot expert (external) Technology Manager Cobotics 52:18 minutes

14 Yes No

Phase 3

Interaction

between cobot,

customer and

employee

Phase 1

Organizational

readiness for

cobot

implementation

Identify organizational necessity

• Perceived opportunities for improvement

External factors

• Customers

• Partners and suppliers • Government and

regulatory bodies • The holding • Competitors

Identify organizational readiness

• Organizational infrastructure

Do not implement (yet)

Ready for the implementation of a cobot?

Yes

Yes

No

No

Estimate added value of a cobot in service

delivery:

• Short-term added value • Long-term added value

Does a cobot adds sufficient value?

Phase 2

Estimation of

added value

potential cobot

Identify division of roles between cobot,

customer and employee

Phase 4

Compliance

between

capabilities and

requirements

Is the interaction typology viable in practice?

Do not implement (yet)

Change

Phase 5

Cobot

implementation

issues

Consider the following issues when implementing a cobot: • Planning

• Design

• Communication • Training

Check if requirements comply with available

capabilities for:

• Employees • Customers • Cobot • Organization

Do the capabilities meet the requirements?

Organizational perspective

Employee perspective

Customer perspective

15

4.1 Phase 1: Organizational Readiness for Cobot Implementation

In this phase, we elaborate on what it takes for an organization to consider innovating by investing in new technology. We identify external factors causing pressure on the organization resulting in the feeling of necessity to innovate. Besides, we identify the factors underlying organizational readiness to innovate.

4.1.1 Organizational necessity

The organizational necessity to change requires the organization to assess its current situation as critical which needs to be changed to stay competitive (Cyert & March, 1963). Assessing the organization’s operations as unsatisfactory, therefore risking a fall in market value is a core reason for organizations to realize innovation is inevitable (Kelman, 2006).

We identify two major factors underlying the organizational necessity to innovate: substandard performance and perceived opportunities for improvement.

● Substandard performance

Substandard performance is a severe disruption of organizational control systems and has substantial managerial diseconomies which lead to a decline in organizational performance (Bolton, 1993). It underlies the feeling of organizational necessity to innovate and implement new technology (Boukis, 2016). Substandard performance is determined by losing market share, losing competitive advantage and a decline in customer satisfaction (Pasha, 2018). The management team in poorly performing firms frequently demonstrate risk-seeking, innovative behaviour to try and improve organizational performance (Bolton, 1993).

● Perceived opportunities for improvement

Another concept feeding the feeling of organizational necessity is the organizations’ perceived opportunities for improvement. This is caused by new knowledge awareness that offers a better way of doing things and improving processes (El Zaatari et al., 2019). Also, assessing organizations' process weak spots and identifying opportunities for correcting or redesigning them stimulate organizations to innovate (El Zaatari et al., 2019). For instance, ergonomic challenging tasks and highly precise handlings that could be better executed by a cobot (Colim et al., 2020).

4.1.2 External factors

The external context refers to the environment in which the organization conducts its business and is dealing with (Simões et al., 2020). Kung and Kung (2015) provide us with a conceptual model

16 1. Competitors

Competitive pressure refers to the degree of pressure from competitors, which is an external power pressing a firm to adopt new technology to gain a competitive advantage or to avoid competitive decline (Zhu et al., 2002). For instance, when major competitors invest in cobots in their service delivery causing a competitive advantage, the organization can experience pressure to innovate as well.

2. Customers

Customer pressure refers to exogenous customer demands that require a firm to initiate and implement certain business practices (Wu & Lee, 2005). When customers can wield substantial power in their relationship with a firm, they will leverage their power to pressure the firm to adopt new technologies and provide superior customer service.

3. Partners and suppliers

An organization should regard itself not as a single organization but as a member of a business ecosystem (Majava et al., 2016). Therefore, partners in the ecosystem could exert pressure on the organization. One important group of partners in the organizations’ ecosystem are suppliers (Majava et al., 2016). Often suppliers recognize new technologies and trends before the organization does (Wallenburg et al., 2019). Consequently, they can inform and persuade the organization to invest in a cobot.

4. Government and regulatory bodies

Government and regulatory bodies can exert normative pressure: this is an environmental influence that motivates conformance to widely accepted norms and structures within the environment (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Certain norms foster innovation activities for organizations if they did not comply with these norms before. For instance, the governmental ergonomics regulations that exert pressure on organizations to provide their employees with an ergonomic friendly environment (Budnick, 2019), can stimulate implementing a cobot which could take over ergonomic unhealthy tasks of employees.

5. The holding

17 4.1.3 Organizational readiness

Organizational readiness is a state wherein an organization is willing and prepared to make business process changes for the implementation of new technology (Greenhalgh, 2004). It requires

synchronization and coordination between people, processes and systems to ensure organizational capacity to facilitate change. A state of organizational readiness will help organizations to survive the dynamic environment and is needed for an innovation to contribute to organizational success (Lokuge et al., 2018). Therefore, one of the important first steps to determine the added value of a cobot in an organization’s service delivery is to identify one’s organizational readiness to the change that innovations bring along (Vakola, 2013). Simply put, an organization can feel the necessity to innovate but when an organization is not ready for the change the innovation will entail, it will not add value for the organization.

Two major concepts underlying organizational readiness: employee readiness for change and the organizational infrastructure (Kotter, 1996; Lewin,1947; Preskill and Torres, 1999; Weiner, 2008).

● Employee readiness

Employee readiness comprises beliefs, attitudes and intentions of change target members regarding the need for and capability of implementing organizational change (Armenakis et al., 1993).

Organizational members naturally seek to maintain circumstances that provide them with a sense of psychological safety, control, and identity (Eby, 2000). Attempts to alter such an environment often produce strong resistance and can harm organizational readiness (Armenakis et al., 1993). The other way around can enthusiastic and motivated employees foster an innovation culture contributing to organizational success.

● Organizational infrastructure

The organizational infrastructure consists of the systems, processes and protocols that give structure to the organization and support the organization's core functions. It is key as it can support or hinder change within the organization (Jones et al., 2005). The organization has a higher level of readiness when the organizational infrastructure supports change (Snyder-Halpern, 2001).

18

Receptiveness or cultural readiness of an organization is defined as the strength of the core values of an organization that facilitates innovation and is open to change (Džamić, 2015). The organizational receptiveness for change is highlighted as a crucial factor because organizations with an

experimenting character and flexible departmental boundaries have proven to be more innovative (Lehman, 2002). A culture open to change stimulates sharing ideas, decentralized decision-making, and low-risk aversion, consequently fostering organizational readiness (Parveen et al., 2015).

4.2 Phase 2: Estimation of Added Value Potential Cobot

In phase 2 we identify elements where cobots could have an added value in service delivery. We identify short- and term added value for as well the customer as the organization. The long-term added value appears to be most applicable to the organizational value creation.

4.2.1 Short-term value creation

We elaborate on an existing framework consisting of five elements underlying value creation in service delivery on the short-term, with how a cobot can have an influence (Slack et al., 2006).

1. Quality

The quality of service delivery in general is predominantly shaped by the lack of mistakes and the intangible characteristic of a positive customer experience (Macintyre et al., 2011). In contrast to employees making mistakes due to human error and fatigue, a cobot behaves identically across a service delivery system, providing predictable and homogeneous service interactions and solutions (Calitz et al., 2017; Wirtz et al., 2018). Existing research shows the increase of quality by cobots mainly in standardized tasks (El Zaatari et al., 2019).

2. Speed

The delivery of an efficient, fast and smooth service positively contributes to the value creation and customer experience (Macintyre et al., 2011). A cobot can assist and complement service employees in the service encounter. Existing research shows that problem-solving tasks can be executed faster and more efficiently due to cobot implementation because the intelligence automation part of a cobot can support human thinking, analysis and behaviour (Froehle & Roth, 2004).

3. Dependability

19

(Peshkin et al., 2000; Prutz, 2018). Also, a cobot can contribute to the factor of consistency since it is a pre-programmed machine.

4. Flexibility

Being flexible and putting customer needs and convenience first, are valuable characteristics for value creation in service delivery (Macintyre et al., 2011). Cobots are re-deployable and can be programmed in several ways (Calitz et al., 2017). Besides, they can understand their working

environment providing the ability to respond to external changes (Tilley, 2017). Moreover, advances in artificial intelligence and sensor technologies can allow cobots to cope with task variability, potentially contributing to flexibility in service delivery.

5. Cost

Important for the value creation in service delivery is the execution of the service efficiently while providing the customer with what they want without wasting time or money (Macintyre et al., 2011). Cobots and humans in some situations can complement each other, making work potentially more productive providing (better) service at a lower cost, which can lead to financial cost savings (Decker et al., 2017; Fast-Berglund et al., 2016).

4.2.2 Long-term value creation

The identified short-term benefits can result in long-term benefits. Short-term benefits such as lower cost, higher flexibility, speed and degree of quality can create long-term organizational value as these advantages better satisfy customers’ needs which can lead to increased customer satisfaction

(Macintyre et al., 2011). Moreover, an increase in customer loyalty can be realized since customers value the conveniences of the new technology in service delivery (Gounaris et al., 2003).

Besides, an organization’s innovative character can cause an enhanced organizational reputation (Lange and Dai, 2011). On the long-term, this can result in the attraction of new customers to the organization.

20 Determine sufficient value creation

Consequently, the organization must determine how and what value which cobot could add to their particular service delivery and whether this is sufficient for the organization in comparison to the needed investment.

4.3 Phase 3: Interaction between Cobot, Customer and Employee

The purpose of phase 3 is to determine how a cobot in service delivery will work out in practice and which division of roles between employee, customer and cobot is most suitable and valuable for the organization. Besides, we elaborate on important factors underlying employee, customer and organizational perspectives on the interaction with a cobot.

4.3.1 Employee perspective

In this section, we examine the employee perspective on a cobot and what factors influence the interaction between both.

● Trust

Trust is a prominent factor in the employee-cobot interaction to let human and technology optimally collaborate (Sadrfaridpour et al., 2014). Trust determines a worker’s acceptance of a cobot in a collaborative work environment (Sanders et al., 2011). Moreover, the degree of autonomy of the robots is also affected by employee’s trust in the technology and hence affects the efficiency of the collaboration (Sadrfaridpour et al., 2014). Besides, trust is influenced by the employees’ perception of safety when working with new technology.

● User experience

The perceived usefulness, ease of use of the technology and user experience influence the

employee’s perspective on a cobot. Employees who experience the added value, the usefulness and user-friendliness of a cobot are more likely to accept and adopt a cobot in their workspace (Weiss et al., 2009).

● Ergonomics

Service cobots are likely to be increasingly used for tasks that can cause health problems, are strenuous or are a physical burden for humans, therefore a cobot might cause an ergonomic

21

extra time that can be used to personally bond with customers in service delivery situations (Redbord, 2020).

4.3.2 Organizational perspective

In this section, we examine important factors underlying the organizational perspective on a cobot. ● Ease of implementation

For organizations, the implementation of a cobot is easier to set up and deploy than that of a traditional robot. Whereas an industrial robot needs to be programmed by a skilled professional, a cobot can be easily programmed in a few steps due to user-friendly software and uncomplicated applications (Prutz, 2018). Moreover, where cobots are reprogrammable within an hour, the industrial robot needs an engineer to write a whole new code. Due to growing interest in cobots, people with the skills to design, install, operate, and maintain them are becoming more widely available for organizations (Tilley, 2017).

● Relative advantage

The relative advantage of a cobot for organizations is predominantly expressed in an increase in service quality because of fewer mistakes, or in a decrease of costs due to higher efficiency. For instance, because of faster service delivery, but also due to possible savings in employee sickness- and absence costs for the organization, since a cobot can provide ergonomic advantages to employees (Simões et al., 2020).

4.3.3 Customer perspective

The customer’s perspective on cobot implementation is predominantly shaped by customer readiness to accept and adopt new technology.

● Customer readiness

First, the functional value of a cobot plays an important role in customer readiness: it refers to how well products’ features satisfy customers’ utilitarian needs (Pallas et al., 2014). Second, the epistemic value is important, it refers to curiosity, novelty, or knowledge gained through the use of a new technology that increases customer readiness (Poushneh et al., 2018). Thirdly and lastly, if the implementation of cobots in service delivery provides customers with fewer costs the customer readiness increases (Ho and Ko, 2008).

Viable interaction typology

22

has to determine the division of roles in such a way that it is feasible in practice and that the added value of a cobot as determined in phase 2 can be captured. Moreover, the organization has to decide what interaction typology is most beneficial to the organization. If the interaction typology is not viable, the organisation has to adjust the division of roles till the added value can be captured.

4.4 Phase 4: Compliance between Capabilities and Requirements

Based on the previously identified interaction typology, several requirements become clear that must meet the currently available capabilities to make the implementation a success. We identify often mentioned requirements in the human-robot interaction.

4.4.1 Employee requirements

Important requirements of the employees are their competency to work with a cobot, their

personality and motivation (Sanders et al., 2011). Employees need to be competent enough to work with such new technology and therefore, they need to have the right skills (Carnevale & Smith, 2013). Moreover, even though they are competent enough, it also requires a mindset that accepts new technologies and is willing to learn new things and accept changes in their work routines (Barati & Mohammadi, 2009). For employees to collaborate with a cobot they need to be flexible and innovative because they must perform tasks that are different from their previous work routine and may experience tension between their own (human) experience and the world of robotics

(Kagermann et al., 2013).

4.4.2 Cobot requirements

Often mentioned cobot requirements are: having a high degree of compatibility (Tilley, 2017), being flexible, easy to (re)program and integrate (Prutz, 2018), being high in efficiency and productivity (Murphy, 2013), providing constant and better quality than human actions and being safe (Huan and Rust, 2018). The organization can consult a cobot supplier or expert to determine the type of cobot (size, brand and model) and the cobot requirements for the specific task it must execute as

determined in phase 3.

4.4.3 Customer requirements

23 4.4.4 Organizational requirements

An essential requirement for organizations is the ability to educate and train employees themselves or afford a professional external training for employees when new technologies enter their work environment (Abbas et al., 2014). This positively influences employee readiness and provides a higher chance of a successful cobot implementation.

Enthusiasm for the implementation of a cobot is a major requirement and can be supported by establishing a learning environment within the organization (Seale, 2005). Employees are more positively oriented towards the acceptance of new technologies when top management involves them in decision making (Simões et al., 2020). Also, having transparent and efficient communication channels within the organization is key for employees to better understand the change (Argenti and Robert, 2005). Besides, organizational skills in change management are also an important

requirement to effectively use new technologies that change organizational processes (Paton and McCalman, 2008).

Comparison

The organization consequently has to compare the identified requirements with their current available cobot, customer, employee and organizational capabilities and determine whether they comply or not. Whenever they do, organizations can continue the framework to phase 5. Whenever they do not, organizations have the choice to 1) enhance the current capabilities or 2) go back to phase 3 to ‘lower’ the requirements by adjusting the division of roles so they do conform to the currently available capabilities.

4.5 Phase 5: Cobot Implementation Issues

Now that the organization has made clear that a cobot is valuable in its service delivery it must be implemented and introduced to the organization. Four major subjects are important to consider before and during the implementation process: planning, design, communication and training. In Appendix F we include a table with detailed questions of each subject for the organization to consider when implementing a cobot.

● Planning

24 ● Design

Consequently, thought should be put into demonstrating how the new technology will serve all stakeholders and will take form in daily practices (Vezzoli et al., 2015). How to design monitoring, control and evaluation activities (Roberts & Barrar, 1992).

● Communication

Communication is a highly important issue to address as failure to properly communicate the new technology to the organization may cause the implementation effort to fail despite considerable time and effort spent on the rollout (Delaney & D’agostino, 2015). The organization must identify proper communication channels: how will we communicate, to whom and when. Besides, development of key messages: what is important to communicate (Argenti & Robert, 2005).

● Training

Providing training during technology implementation is important because of the potential to influence user attitudes, behaviour, performance and acceptance of the technology (Amoako‐ Gyampah, 2004). Also, training has been identified as one of the most important critical success factors as this is the source of capable service employees creating value in their service delivery (Abbas et al., 2014). Therefore, the content of the training, whom to train, when to train and how to train are significant questions to consider for organizations.

5. VALIDATION OF THE FRAMEWORK

In this section, we present the findings of our study by a validation of the framework in a case study through a testing and applying section.

5.1 Testing

We test our framework on its usefulness and completeness (Stock et al., 2017). Usefulness is the clarity and unambiguity of the used phrasing and the logical order of the phases. Completeness refers to the quality of the framework: is it covering all important aspects for implementation decision making and not missing important steps, or covering redundant steps. We test the framework with the expertise of the top management and cobot experts.

We present the findings phase by phase, in which we refer to the degree of usefulness and

25

Phase 1: Organizational Readiness for Cobot Implementation

The findings highlight the importance of phase 1 over the other phases when it comes to a solid foundation for implementation decision making. A cobot can add sufficient value (phase 2) and the organization may answer ‘yes’ to every other phase (3 and 4), if the assessment in phase 1 of the organizational readiness is not accurately done, the implementation is hardly successful. “Now that I see the framework, I realize the organization skipped the ‘readiness’ part when we did implement an industrial robot a few years ago. (…) Nowadays it scares the employees and is called ‘the terminator’. If we look back the organization was not ready for the implementation, even though we were

convinced of its added value. If we did follow the steps of this framework back then, it would have shown that the organization was not ready for it and we could have intervened timely.” (Mngr. 2). Within phase 1, the findings proved the prominent influence the factor ‘substandard performance of the current service delivery’ has in the feeling of necessity to innovate. The organization tends to innovate when the current performance is declining. Moreover, it induces the discussion of the second factor ´perceived opportunities for improvement´, because the organization will look for opportunities for improvement when they assess the current performance as substandard. Besides, the feeling of necessity to innovate underlies most of the innovation projects often caused by external pressures. Therefore, the factor ´necessity´ and the external pressures that often causes such necessity, cannot be missing in the framework.

Concluding, both factors ‘substandard performance’ and ‘perceived opportunities for improvement’ are inseparably linked to the organizational necessity underlying innovation. In combination with the external pressures, they contribute to a high degree of completeness of the framework by

comprehending the core of the organization’s tendency to innovate and implement a cobot.

Phase 2: Estimation of Added Value Potential Cobot

26

organization wants to excel in being visionary, being an early adopter and being always one step ahead of the competition, the goal of implementing a cobot is not monetary value creation but rather added value creation in the form of an innovative company reputation.

Concluding, the word choice ‘sufficient value’ was found to be very useful since now every

organization can fill in their idea and goal behind ‘sufficient value’ creation and follow the framework accordingly. We integrated the identified other possible added ‘value’ dimensions as soft benefits to our revised framework. This contributes to a higher degree of usefulness of the framework. The revised framework is shown in section 6.

Phase 3: Interaction between Cobot, Customer and Employee

The degree of usefulness and completeness of phase 3 appears to be sufficient without further discussion.

Concluding, as the value-adding possibility of a cobot is identified in phase 2, an essential next step is to identify the most valuable division of roles when a cobot is used in practice. This contributes to the completeness of the framework since organizations need to consider how the added value can be captured in practice.

Phase 4: Compliance between Capabilities and Requirements

Phase 4 is a prominent step as it makes clear for organizations what is needed to make the interaction between cobot, customer and employee work to fully apprehend the added value of a cobot. The feedback loop to phase 3 appears to be logical since there is no need to exit the framework immediately whenever the capabilities do not meet the requirements. However, an organization can determine that the capabilities need to be improved to meet requirements when no other interaction typology (in phase 3) appears to be possible. When the organization determines that the needed enhancement of the capabilities is too costly and outweighs the added value as considered in phase 2, they need to be able to renounce the implementation of a cobot. Otherwise, they would just be stuck in a feedback loop to phase 3.

27 Phase 5: Cobot Implementation Issues

With regards to phase 5, the findings point out the inclusiveness of communication when

implementing a cobot. Without proper communication, it is hard, or even impossible, to train the employees and communicate the planning and design to the organization. Therefore, communication is the comprehensive factor that overshadows the other factors; planning, design and training. “Communication is key and makes an implementation stand or fall (…) if you have an ambassador of the cobot in the top management and an ambassador on-the-job you can communicate the

implementation bottom-up as well as top-down. This is in our eyes considered as a success formula” (Co. Ex 2). Besides, as the issues ‘planning’, ‘design’, ‘communication’ and ‘training’ in our framework are mentioned in random order, the findings show that they could follow a logic sequence. Firstly, the targets, risks and interpretation of human capacity must be made clear in the planning. Consequently, the daily activities of all stakeholders must be designed, next to the back office and the interpretation of monitoring and controlling activities. Finally, when the planning and the design of the implementation have been set up, it is clear when, how and whom to train by whom, so the training can start. “Starting with the planning of the implementation is crucial you need to plan capacity based on employees’ time and tasks (…) consequently, you can easily fill in the design and accordingly identify crucial factors for the training and execute the training. For me, that order would make sense” (Mngr. 3).

Concluding, to increase the usefulness and completeness of the framework, phase 5 needs to be changed with communication as the comprehensive factor followed by 1. planning, 2. design and 3. Training.

Conclusion of Framework Testing

With some adaptations to be made, the overall conclusion of testing the framework is that the usefulness and completeness of the framework are largely supported. Next to the content of the framework also the visual appearance is validated, since the decision moments stand out which increases the usability of the framework.

5.2 Application

28

framework appears to be highly valid to use in organizational decision making. The order of the phases guides the organization to set priorities and first make the relevant decisions to guarantee that a cobot is in fact valuable to the organization.

Phase 1: Organizational Readiness for Cobot Implementation Necessity to innovate

The findings show that substandard performance and perceived opportunities for improvement in this organization influence the interest in cobots and encourage the necessity to innovate. The organization is not performing substandard compared to competitors, however the organization lacks a customer focused service delivery according to the CEO, which results in some decline in customer satisfaction. To some degree this is assessed as substandard performance, since there is room for improvement in current service delivery. This fosters the attentiveness to a cobot which might improve the performance. Therefore, the added value possibilities of a cobot is felt to be interesting to research. ´

External pressure

External pressure on the organizational necessity to implement a cobot is not felt heavy. Governmental laws, such as the ‘Arbowet’ exerts to some degree a pressure on the employee’s ergonomic friendly work environment. However, despite complying to the holding and its regulations which is a must, no heavy external pressure is felt by the CEO. The perceived opportunities of a cobot predominantly cause the necessity to innovate in this case. The external pressures do influence the organization in its innovation activities, but for a cobot no substantial pressure is felt, just

encouragement.

Organizational readiness

The employees support the organizational readiness for the implementation of a cobot, but only under certain conditions. Employees who like the current way and are personally not interested in new technologies show some resistance. “Yes, to some degree I am open to the implementation of a cobot, but I think it is not necessary, I do it with my own hands for years - even without a laptop which some colleagues use - and I like it that way. New technologies do not get my attention, but if it really can benefit me, show me and you got me” (Emp. 3). The most apparent condition for

29

am an expert in the field and I know the daily activities the best. I want to give my opinion and when I see it does not add value and is not relevant according to my tasks, I want them to listen to my advice” (Emp. 2).

All the employees appeared to be open to training regarding the implementation of a cobot, predominantly to experience how it can benefit their jobs.

The organizational infrastructure fully supports organizational readiness in this case. The operation processes can easily be adjusted, and the financial resources are also in place. Moreover, because the organization has a flat structure, communication within the organization is easy and resources can be flexibly adjusted to projects. The organization's strategy and culture also support the

implementation of a cobot. According to the CEO, the degree of receptiveness to innovation is high, even though there are some employees having a hard time to change. The top management knows humans are intrinsically scared to change and is therefore willing to guide and support employees to make them feel at ease. Besides, the current shortage of in-house knowledge can be solved easily to get the organizational infrastructure ready. The organization has a lot of inhouse knowledge, but not sufficient to do the full implementation of a cobot on their own. For a successful implementation, the organization is open to acquiring external knowledge, by hiring new employees or paying our

supplier to do the implementation.

Concluding, we could answer the question ‘is the organization ready for the implementation of a cobot?’ with a solid ‘yes’ due to a high degree of receptiveness, a supporting organizational infrastructure and employees who are, under certain conditions, willing to work with a cobot.

Phase 2: Estimation Added Value Potential Cobot

30

this will not lead to a major increase in quality, flexibility or speed. Besides, a decrease in service costs is not possible yet, since, for instance, the service employee cannot be replaced by a cobot and the cobot is not able to assist the employee in such a way that service delivery time can be reduced. So, the implementation of a cobot with investment costs of approximately €30,000 on hardware and another €20,000 - €40,000 on software is not in proportion for a new technology which can be used as assistance but does not has the potential to add substantial value so that the investment costs can be recouped. The findings show that the current generation of cobots is not well developed yet to be explicitly valuable in this particular service environment. However, the external cobot expert sees added value potential of a cobot in the future, approximately in a decade from now, when a cobot may be specifically developed for maintenance or technical issue solving at people’s houses. “At this moment you can deploy a cobot for certain tasks in service delivery, and it will work, and it is a nice piece of technology. But the way a cobot is currently developed, it is not valuable enough to realize a positive business case in this service environment” (Co Ex. 1).

Besides, the strategy and the core goal of the organization is to increase their turnover and financially grow. For that purpose, a cobot does not add sufficient value to be implemented. Concluding, the answer to the question ‘does a cobot in the service delivery adds sufficient value?’ for this case at this moment is no.

We hypothetically continue the framework to give a full illustration of the application

Phase 3: Interaction Between Cobot, Customer and Employee

In phase 3 we identify two possible interaction typologies based on the level of engagement between the cobot, the employee and the customer as identified in the theoretical background.

● Typology 1, level of engagement 5. This typology considers the cobot as a smart tool for the service mechanic to exhaustively collaborate with and assist him during service delivery at the customer's home.

31 Organizational perspective

The organizational perspective on cobot implementation refers to the ease of implementation within and the relative advantage for the organization. Regarding the current developments of cobots the ease of implementation is increasing. Cobots are easy to deploy and attract young people because of its high-tech reputation “(…) it’s becoming harder for organizations to find employees for jobs such as service mechanic, which, not to be judging, are jobs less people want to execute. But

implementing a cobot in such jobs makes it more attractive to young people'' (Co Ex. 2). The relative advantage we identify in this case is the availability of more and motivated (young) employees to be recruited, making interaction typology 1 viable in practice.

Typology 2 for organizations would bring a relative advantage in the form of less labour costs since a service employee could be replaced by a cobot.

Employee perspective

The important issues for employees are the perceived benefits of the technology and trust in the technology when they have to interact with a cobot as described in typology 1. When the employees see what value a cobot can add and that a cobot is safe in collaboration, trust in the technology increases. Besides, the ergonomic benefits appear to be important for employees experiencing some physical symptoms. “I turned 58 this year, so laying on the ground to reach a certain area is not that ergonomic friendly to me. If a cobot could cover such tasks, I perceive the certain benefits” (Emp. 3). The employees have a strong aversion against typology 2 since they are scared that robots will take over their jobs.

Customer perspective

Customers who are personally not into (new) technologies appear suspicious towards a cobot in service delivery. They do not trust a cobot right away. On the contrary, for the ‘technophile

customers,’ the implementation of a cobot is very exciting. Besides, the findings show an indifferent customer who just wants the problem to be solved, regardless of how the task is executed.

32

away some uncertainty about it. If I see it works perfectly fine in a public space, I am more open to try it at home as well” (Cust. 3). Except for the ‘technophile’ customer, that would feel enthusiastic about this development, for most customers the feeling changes negatively in this situation. They miss the social interaction with the service employee and the service delivery would feel less

personal to them. Moreover, they are suspicious whether the technology is developed correctly, and they do not like the extra efforts it takes. However, if the costs of the service delivery would decrease by 50%, all customers are willing to have a cobot delivered.

Concluding, the answer to the question ‘is the interaction typology viable in practice’ in this case is ‘yes’ for typology 1. Typology 1 theoretically is viable in practice and got support from as well the organization as well as from the customers. Even the employees would be open to it when they perceive the benefits and get trust in the technology.

Typology 2 got low support because the employees got scared that they would be replaced by a robot. This negatively influences employee satisfaction. Also, customer satisfaction would decrease since most customers feel suspicious about a new technology independently entering their private sphere. Moreover, the currently available cobots are not well developed yet to be deployed in such a way. Therefore, making typology 2 not viable in practice.

Phase 4a: Compliance between Capabilities and Requirements & Phase 4b: Estimation of Additional Costs

Customer requirements

For typology 1 the requirements for customers appear to be minimal. The customer only has to accept a service employee to use a cobot in their private home. Besides, when the cobot is assisting the service mechanic there are no particular (new) requirements the customer demands. “I just see it as a smart tool, increase in quality or lower costs would be nice but is no requirement” (Cust. 1).

Cobot requirements

The requirements of a cobot that appear from the findings are light weighting, agile and, not too big because it has to be used in sometimes small spaces. Besides, it must be safe for humans to work with. The customers find it no problem when the use of a cobot results in noise nuisance, so no specific silence requirements exist.

Employee requirements

33

cobot in their situation, then they are willing to use a cobot and to be trained how to use it. The employees currently do not have the right technical capabilities or insights to work with a cobot, but to solve this, training opportunities can be offered. This requires the employee to be enthusiastic, willing to learn new capabilities and to have a positive attitude towards the cobot implementation. “You have to make them enthusiastic, that is the key. If they are enthusiastic about the new technology, they show interest and efforts to learn new things” (Mngr. 2). At this moment the employees are not enthusiastic, however, this can also change when (personal) benefits of a cobot can be shown.

Organizational requirements

One organizational requirement is to provide their employees with the right training locations consisting of a simulation of an attic room with an appliance to train the use of a cobot. The training locations must either be deployed on-site, or the organization must arrange training sessions

externally. Furthermore, the implementation of a cobot requires the organization to foster a learning environment with clear communication channels to avoid misunderstanding between the top

management and the service mechanics. The cobot implementation requires the organization to make the goal and strategy clear towards the employee. The benefits for the employees themselves in particularly must be explained accurately.

Concluding, the answer to the question 4A ‘do the capabilities meet the requirements?’ is ‘yes’. In contrast to the answer to question 4B ‘does the implementation still add sufficient value?’ Even though providing training opportunities, enhancing organizational communication mechanisms and establishing a learning environment do not involve much extra costs, the implementation of a cobot still does not add sufficient value as already determined in phase 2. This has not changed and therefore, the answer stays no.

Phase 5: Cobot Implementation Issues

When the cobot will be implemented in service delivery, the organization must invest in proper communication. Also, establishing a multifunctional team that executes the planning and design of the implementation is needed. When the planning and design have been made clear the training of employees can start and is ultimately essential to a successful implementation. Phase 5 of the framework can be considered a ‘risk assessment’, all these elements must be executed correctly, otherwise no successful implementation can be guaranteed.

34

The application proves the validity of the framework as it provides the organization with overview, focus and priority setting. The organization is now able to effectively make the decision whether to implement a cobot based on the phases, without wasting time on wrong priorities. For instance, the organization has already determined in phase 2 that a cobot is not of sufficient value adding in this particular situation, without wasting time on first identifying how a cobot could be practically deployed (phase 3) and what capabilities would be needed (phase 4). Besides, the application shows the validity of the framework guiding organizations to easily determine the added value of a cobot, whereas it would have been a complex process without the guidance of the framework since so many factors are involved.

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

As cobots are highly developing nowadays their implementation in service delivery is increasing (Van Doorn et al., 2017). Therefore, knowledge from an organizational perspective on how to decide the added value of implementing a cobot is relevant (Khalid et al., 2016).The findings of this research contribute to the ongoing investigations on the role and added value of cobots in service delivery. To answer the research question of how an organization can determine the added value of a cobot in service delivery, we developed and validated a framework to guide organizations in the decision-making process of implementing a cobot.

The framework we developed based on the literature is to some degree adjusted after the validation in our case study. The revised framework is shown in figure 2. Firstly, the ´soft benefits´ are added to phase 2. The findings suggest that another reason for organizations to implement a cobot could be an increase in employee satisfaction due to ergonomic benefits. Also, an enhanced organizational reputation as an innovative and forward-thinking organization can add certain value. Next to mainly hard benefits on the short- and long-term, can soft benefits also be a reason to implement a cobot. Secondly, phase 4b is added to the framework. After testing the degree of completeness of the framework it appeared that an extra moment to decide not to implement a cobot yet must be added. In phase 4 the organization can determine the extra costs of enhancing the capabilities if needed. These costs can fade out the added value of a cobot, therefore making it not attractive anymore for organizations to implement a cobot. Third and lastly, in phase 5 communication appeared to be the comprehensive factor. Without effective communication the other ‘risk’ factors cannot be executed properly. Also, it appeared that the sequence of first planning the