Service Robotics: How Ready are Consumers to Adopt and What Drives Acceptance?

CHARLES L. COLBY, ROCKBRIDGE ASSOCIATES, INC.A. PARASURAMAN, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI

PRESENTED TO THE 25TH ANNUAL FRONTIERS IN SERVICES CONFERENCE | JUNE 24, 2016

• Determine consumer interest in service robots and identify the correlates of interest in this technology

• Assess the potential for a robotics technology assessment tool based on the Technology Readiness Index (TRI)

Study Objectives

• Robot – introduced by playwright Karal Capek (1920). Based on the Czech word “robata” which means servant or obedient worker.

• Robotics – introduced by science fiction writer Isaac Asimov (1945). Asimov subsequently created the 3 “laws of robotics” including “a robot may not injure a human being … or allow a human to come to harm.”

• Service Robot – “a robot which operates semi- or fully autonomously to perform services useful to the well being of humans and equipment, excluding manufacturing operations.” (International Federation of Robotics).

Definitions

• Goal was to identify consumer interest in emerging robotic service applications and perceptions that influence interest.

• Survey questions were included in the 2015 U.S. National Technology Readiness Study*. Survey included 933 U.S. Adults surveyed from a consumer online panel, and were weighted to match the U.S. Census. The NTRS includes measures of technology readiness (Parasuraman & Colby, 2015) and demographics.

Our Study

*SPONSORED BY ROCKBRIDGE ASSOCIATES, A. PARASURAMAN AND THE CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE IN SERVICE.

• “For this study, robots are defined as follows: they are technology that can perform physical tasks (e.g., driving, housework, serving in a restaurant), operate autonomously without needing instruction, and are directed by computers without help from people.”

Survey Definition of a Service Robot

Perform Services

ServiceRobot

Perform Physical

Tasks

Intelligent/ Autonomous

Examples of Service Robots

Desirability of Service Robots• Consumers are

highly interested in robots that free them from household toil.

• Consumers are also interested in robotic deliveries. It makes no difference if a “drone” is piloted by a human or computer.

• Technology readiness (TRI 2.0) is a significant correlate of perceived desirability of service robots.

NetDesirability

Correlation with TRI 2.0 (r)

-8% .35**

-14% .36**

+13% .39**

+10% .40**

+36% .32**

-10% .38**35

60

44

46

35

37

20

16

23

21

16

18

45

24

34

33

49

45

Perceived Desirability of Service Robots

Agreement (5-7) Neutral (4) Disagreement (1-3)

Purchase or lease a driverless vehicle: the vehicle would transport you to where you request, but would drive itself aided by computers

Ride in a driverless taxi: the taxi would transport you to where you request, but would drive itself aided by computers

Receive a package from a remote controlled drone: the aircraft would be controlled by a human pilot from a remote location

Receive a package from an automated pilotless drone: the aircraft would find its way to you aided by computers

Robotic Home Assistant: the robot would autonomously handle physical labor tasks inside your home including vacuuming, scrubbing floors and cleaning bathroom fixtures, all controlled by computers

Robotic Server: when you go to a restaurant or coffee shop, you would be waited on by a robot that would take your order, bring it to you, collect your payments, and help with special requests

• The Technology Readiness Index (TRI) measures consumer technology beliefs on 4 independent dimensions. It is highly stable in the short term.

• Acceptance measures for service robots were designed to mirror the dimensions of the TRI. We call these a Robot Acceptance Index.

Measuring Perceptions of Robots

Technology Readiness Service Robot PerceptionsMOTIVATORS

Optimism • Give Control• Make me Productive

Innovativeness • First to adopt• Interested in topic

INHIBITORS

Discomfort • Hard to use• Not for anyone

Insecurity • Risk of dependence• Risk of harm

General Beliefs/Psychographics Acceptance/Robot Specific

• The most prevalent view of service robots is that they will lead to dependence. Yet, this has little correlation with perceived desirability.

• The top correlates of perceived desirability of service robots are positive attributes – control, productivity, a desire to adopt, and a desire to keep up.

• The top negative correlate is related to discomfort – a concern making robots work properly.

Consumer Views of Service Robots (Robot Technology Assessment Index)

36

66

44

39

48

30

44

42

30

17

24

22

20

14

19

25

35

17

33

40

33

57

37

33

Perceptions of Service Robots

Agreement (5-7) Neutral (4) Disagreement (1-3)

NetAgreement

Correlation with Robot Desirability

+9% .54**

+7% .57**

-27% .55**

+15% .57**

-1% -.24**

+11% -.15**

+49% -.05 ns

+1% -.18**

POPT1: They would give people more control over their daily lives

POPT2: They would make me more productive in my personal life

PINN1: I would be the first in my circle of friends to acquire one

PINS2: They could cause harm to people who use them

PINS1: People would become too dependent on them

PDISC2: They would not be designed for use by ordinary people

PDISC1: I would have trouble learning how to make them work properly for me

PINN2: I would try to keep up with the latest developments about them

• Technology Readiness (measured by the TRI 2.0) correlates with Robot Acceptance and Desirability.

• Positive technology readiness dimensions correlate most closely, but inhibitor dimensions also play a role.

Role of Technology Readiness in Explaining Acceptance and Desirability of Service RobotsTechnology Readiness Index (Dimensions and Overall Score)

Pearson r correlation with Robot

Acceptance IndexPearson r with mean

desirability of Robotics Applications

Optimism .45** .38**

Innovativeness .43** .43**

Discomfort -.31** -.20**

Insecurity -.38** -.27*

Overall TRI .55** .46*

• Segments with higher overall technology readiness (Explorers and Pioneers) show greater acceptance of service robots and consider specific applications more desirable.

• Pioneers, who possess high discomfort and insecurity with technology in general, still consider service robots highly desirable (second only to Explorers).

Desirability and Acceptance of Robots Varies by Technology Readiness Segments

Explorers Pioneers Skeptics Hesitators Avoiders

4.6

3.93.5 3.4

3.0

4.9

4.4

3.63.3

2.8

Robotics Acceptance Index Desirability of Six Applications (Mean)

• Segments that consider service robots most desirable (starting with highest correlates): Younger consumers: 18 to 34 year olds and 35 to 49 year olds Males Tech professionals Residents of suburbs (outer and close-in) Children live in the household Marital status is single Middle income ($30,000 to $75,000 annual HH income) Asian or Hispanic

• Education does not correlate, even though it is an important correlate of techno-readiness

Demographic Correlates of Service Robot Desirability

• While service robots are advanced technology, consumers would like the robots to free them from menial drudgery (better to clean the toilet than drive the kids to school).

• Consumers are less enthusiastic when a robot simply replaces a human to perform a comparable task.

• Positive perceptions are more important than negative perceptions in driving interest.

• Technology readiness is a significant correlate, which means service robots need to be marketed the same way as other cutting edge innovation (e.g., sell the value proposition to “skeptics”).

• Demographics such as gender and age are important correlates.

Takeaways on Service Robotics…

• Developing an “Acceptance Index” for a specific technology shows promise. It would offer the benefits of a solid theoretical foundation and a rich diagnostic framework to explain acceptance.

• In the future, an index for a specific technology may require a comprehensive development process. It may not be easy to create an in index that fits all situations. The motivators and inhibitors may be different for each technology.

• While the TRI benefits from a balanced set of attributes (half positive, half negative), an acceptance metric may work better in surveys if all items have a consistent direction (similar to SERVQUAL or CSI). E.g., I am confident they will not harm you; anyone can use them.

Takeaways on a Robot Acceptance Index

For more information or comments, please contact:

Charles Colbyccolby@rockresearch.com

A. Parasuramanaparasur@bus.miami.edu