TY - JOUR
T1 - Rules of (household) engagement
T2 - technology as manager, assistant and intern
AU - Letheren, Kate
AU - Russell-Bennett, Rebekah
AU - Mulcahy, Rory Francis
AU - McAndrew, Ryan
N1 - Funding Information:
This project was a collaboration with CitySmart, and the authors would like to acknowledge the important contributions to the project of Neil Horrocks and Reid Ossington. The project was funded by Energy Consumers Australia Limited (www.energyconsumersaustralia.com.au) as part of its grants process for consumer advocacy projects and research projects for the benefit of consumers of electricity and natural gas. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of Energy Consumers Australia. Funding was also provided by the following electricity network providers: Energex Limited, TasNetworks, Ausgrid, Western Power, Ergon Energy, Essential Energy and Endeavour Energy. The authors would also like to acknowledge the work of visual designer Natalie Sketcher, some of whose work accompanies this manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, Emerald Publishing Limited.
PY - 2019/9/20
Y1 - 2019/9/20
N2 - Purpose: Practitioners need to understand how households will engage with connected-home technologies or risk the failure of these innovations. Current theory does not offer sufficient explanation for how households will engage; hence, this paper aims to address an important gap by examining how households set “rules of engagement” for connected-home technologies in the context of electricity use and monitoring. Design/methodology/approach: A review of the extant psychology, technology and engagement literature is conducted and yields two research questions for exploration. The research questions are addressed via 43 in-depth household interviews. Analysis includes thematic analysis and computerized text analysis. Findings: The results include a typology of technology engagement (the “PIP typology”) and discuss three main roles for technology in assisting households: intern, assistant and manager. Key contributions are as follows: consumers in household settings may experience “compromised engagement” where the perceived middle option is selected even if no-one selected that option originally; households open to using connected-home technologies are often taking advantage of their ability to “delegate” engagement to technology, and because consumers humanize technology, they also expect technology to follow social roles and boundaries. Research limitations/implications: Future research may examine the PIP typology quantitatively and/or in different contexts and would benefit from a longitudinal study to examine how household technology engagement evolves. Four research propositions are provided, which may form the basis for future research. Practical implications: Recommendations for practitioners are presented regarding the benefits of keeping consumers at the heart of connected-home technology goods and services. Specific design principles are provided. Originality/value: This paper fulfills the need to understand how households will engage with connected-home technologies and the roles this technology may fulfill in the complex household service system.
AB - Purpose: Practitioners need to understand how households will engage with connected-home technologies or risk the failure of these innovations. Current theory does not offer sufficient explanation for how households will engage; hence, this paper aims to address an important gap by examining how households set “rules of engagement” for connected-home technologies in the context of electricity use and monitoring. Design/methodology/approach: A review of the extant psychology, technology and engagement literature is conducted and yields two research questions for exploration. The research questions are addressed via 43 in-depth household interviews. Analysis includes thematic analysis and computerized text analysis. Findings: The results include a typology of technology engagement (the “PIP typology”) and discuss three main roles for technology in assisting households: intern, assistant and manager. Key contributions are as follows: consumers in household settings may experience “compromised engagement” where the perceived middle option is selected even if no-one selected that option originally; households open to using connected-home technologies are often taking advantage of their ability to “delegate” engagement to technology, and because consumers humanize technology, they also expect technology to follow social roles and boundaries. Research limitations/implications: Future research may examine the PIP typology quantitatively and/or in different contexts and would benefit from a longitudinal study to examine how household technology engagement evolves. Four research propositions are provided, which may form the basis for future research. Practical implications: Recommendations for practitioners are presented regarding the benefits of keeping consumers at the heart of connected-home technology goods and services. Specific design principles are provided. Originality/value: This paper fulfills the need to understand how households will engage with connected-home technologies and the roles this technology may fulfill in the complex household service system.
KW - consumer engagement
KW - New technology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062084132&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1108/EJM-10-2017-0759
DO - 10.1108/EJM-10-2017-0759
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85062084132
SN - 0309-0566
VL - 53
SP - 1934
EP - 1961
JO - European Journal of Marketing
JF - European Journal of Marketing
IS - 9
ER -