The Emerging Smart Event Experience. An Interpretative ...€¦ · Web viewIn the Smart Tourism...
Transcript of The Emerging Smart Event Experience. An Interpretative ...€¦ · Web viewIn the Smart Tourism...
The Emerging Smart Event Experience. An Interpretative Phenomenological AnalysisJohn Bustard, Dr Peter Bolan, Dr Adrian Devine, Dr Karise Hutchinson
Abstract
The use of ‘Special Events’ as an attractor for destinations in the Smart Tourism paradigm has been suggested as one element of an effective destination strategy. This study aimed to create new understandings of this potentiality by exploring an event from a participant perspective in Smart Tourism contexts. The authors conducted 5 online focus groups using Facebook secret groups to engage spectators of an international sports event. Discussions focused on the digital event experience with particular reference to the event app. A subsequent Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) facilitated the examination of how people make sense of this digital phenomenon and the impact on the overall event experience. Findings demonstrate an increasing demand for real-time event integrative information, with more immersive and augmented experiences often sought by users. This has significant implications for the management of the digital event experience for all event stakeholders. The study therefore, meets a critical gap in existent literature by providing the first event experience model in a smart tourism context. presenting the interlocking elements through the 4 P’s and the 7 R’s of digital event experience.
1.0 Introduction:
Tourism’s continued growth and diversification has seen destination competitiveness
become the critical focus for many governments and regions (Crouch & Ritchie,
1999; Buhalis 2000; Boes et al., 2015). Increasingly, events are being used as key
attractors for destinations to seek competitive advantage and differentiation from
global and regional competitors (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Getz & Page, 2015). The
importance of integrating event visitors at destination level to increase satisfaction
and enhance experiences is a strategic imperative (Luxford & Dickinson, 2015).
Recently Koo et al. (2016) highlighted ‘special events’ as a core attractor within what
is termed Smart Tourism Destination Competitiveness. These events deliver
extraordinary experiences at scale and are also critical to destination image and
marketing efforts (Getz, 2008). At all stages of the experience journey, the
opportunities of better interoperability of tourism stakeholders through embedded as
well as user integrated ICTs has become the focus of strategies aimed at increasing
satisfaction and enhancing tourist experiences through sustainable advantage
(Buhalis & Amaranggana, 2013).
Discourse in marketing, media, tourism and events literatures highlight co-creation
as the key ingredient in providing these more personalised, unique and memorable
experiences (Vargo et al., 2008; Neuhofer et al., 2013). Getz & Page (2015, p.619)
posit that “consumers are seeking to accumulate more authentic leisure experiences
and events and festivals offer one way to do this, increasingly through co-creation.”
In the Smart Tourism context, these co-creation opportunities around events at
destinations are reliant on the exchange of touristic resources, facilitated by a
plethora of technologies now rapidly integrating into the various stages of what is
coming to be known as the smart experience (Gretzel et al., 2015a). The Internet of
Things (IoT), Near Field Communication (NFC) and now, Artificial Intelligence (AI)
mediated through mobile or wearable technologies are increasing the capacity to
drizzle designed experiences with unique and memorable digital encounters
(Tussyadiah, 2017).
At their most advanced, these experiences often leverage our own socially mediated
data through experience touch points, building on societal immersion in personal
mobile computing, as actors integrating resources in the co-creation of value
(Gretzel et al., 2015a; Neuhofer et al. 2015). This evolving integration via ever more
open, social and intelligent software platforms, is ensuring that tourism and event
experiences are laden with data and real-time insights which has significant potential
to further augment and direct experience encounters at destination, event and
attraction level (Wang et al. 2016).
The research herein focuses on the smart event experience with the purpose to yield
new understanding of Smart Tourism contexts, an area ripe for deeper analysis
(Getz & Page, 2015; Bustard et al. forthcoming, 2017). Specifically, the overall
objective is to develop a model that enables greater understanding of the event
experience linking personalisation, people, processes and places through the use of
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). The structure of the subsequent
discussion of theoretical underpinnings examines the study’s critical themes.
2.0 Theoretical Underpinnings
2.1 Personalisation
For Smart Tourism conceptions to become more impactful in people’s experiences of
tourism and events, it is critical that they support personalisation in what is a
dynamic and competitive marketplace (Neuhofer et al., 2015). Smartphones and
their applications (apps) can often provide the process touch-point for experience
personalisation (Luxford & Dickinson, 2015). Thus, apps become one potential
conduit of connectivity and intelligence where people can engage in technology
mediated co-creation experiences in the smart tourism paradigm (Gretzel et al.,
2015b).
One such means of explicitly engaging smart technologies for this purpose is
through intelligent apps which leverage technologies such as the Internet of things
(IoT), near field communications (NFC) and sensors in coordinating real-time
technology enhanced experiences (Neuhofer et al., 2015; Buonincontri & Micera
2016). Caution is urged as applied technology solutions have the ability to create or
destruct value across the multi-phasic tourism event experience (Neuhofer 2016).
In Smart Tourism contexts, experience consumers become central actors who
integrate their resources (operand and/or operant) in seeking to co-create
experience value with other actors (Neuhofer & Buhalis, 2013). By adopting and
adapting technology through what can be termed ‘smartness’ (Buhalis &
Amaranggana, 2013; Gretzel et al., 2015b), this technology use for co-creation in
this paradigm perceives human centred design integrated with non-human actors as
critical to co-creating transformative experience encounters (Wang et al., 2016).
Personalisation is a significant driver within the smart experience (Gretzel et al.,
2015) but how is it impacted – by whom and what?
2.2 People
Given that technology enhanced experiences can impact different people in different
ways, it is pertinent to explore “what makes event-tourism experiences memorable
and transforming?” (Getz & Page 2015, p.610). From the perspective of mediating
experience through smartphone apps, satisfaction relies on smart tourism
implementations being catalysts to providing personalisation through the tenet of
engaging everyone uniquely in their reality (Neuhofer et al., 2015). Smart
technologies facilitate actual and potential experience encounters across the various
stages of tourist experience and thus enlarge the experience process across time
and space (Buonincontri & Micera 2016). Applied to event experiences, smartphone
apps can impact behaviour (conative); emotion (affective) and cognition and require
deeper analysis in event and festival contexts (Nordvall et al. 2014; Van Winkle et
al., 2016). Indeed, the habits formed in using ICTs in other contexts and the impact
of these habits on the rituals of participants in their pre-event discovery, on-site
immersion and post event review are critical areas which require deeper analysis in
the context of technology enhanced experiences (Neuhofer & Buhalis, 2013)
Smart tourism is a social phenomenon (Koo et al., 2016) but how does it extend in
practice?
2.3 Processes
Luxford & Dickinson (2015, p.44) posit that apps “extend opportunities for network
sociality and relational development both within and outside the festival confines
through the creation of personalized networks providing a medium that transcends
spatial boundaries and enhances the sense of connectivity.” These processes are
an obvious opportunity, particularly in the critical ‘real-time’ destination context
offered through smart tourism ecosystems by connecting mobility with surprise –
through integration and value creation (Gretzel et al., 2015b). These special events
from the destination competitiveness perspective must deliver the underlying
transformations anticipated by event goers through renewal and personal growth
(Getz, 2008). Anticipating such value being sought, how are these experiences
embedded and in what way?
2.4 Places
Given the centrality and competitive importance of situating ‘special events’ in
domains and places of ‘smartness’ (Buhalis & Amaranggana, 2013), the
phenomenological study of smart event experiences, although highly warranted, is
still relatively under explored (Getz & Page 2015). In offering a current and thorough
perspective of the experiential paradigm of events, Ziakis & Boukas (2014) posit that
events management is significantly lagging which is unfortunate, and requires focus
given the importance of meaning in varying experience contexts.
Therefore, this paper is a focused pursuit of new understanding of this new relativity
and its impact on participant experience as a means of informing new value
propositions in smart tourism contexts (Koo et al., 2016). There is limited knowledge
of how people personalise their experiences in event places as they engage through
smartphones (Luxford & Dickinson, 2015) and thus research is critical in its
implications to experience design, management, research and future development of
Smart Tourism (Gretzel et al. 2015b). More specifically, the objectives of this study
are to develop a model that enables greater understanding of the event experience,
which links people, processes and personalisation. This study focuses on the smart
event experience in order to yield understanding of its implications for event tourism
providers in Smart Tourism contexts. Figure 1 presents the initial model derived
through IPA and is used as a frame for deeper analysis of the event app experience
through a highly relevant exemplar of the digital event experience phenomenon.
Figure 1. Superordinate Themes Through Analysis of Co-creation and the Digital Event
The use of IPA as a means of researching topics were relatively little is known, is a
fertile ground (Stainton, 2016). The use of IPA in this study is now outlined in the
next section.
3.0 Methodology
For Event studies, the related discipline of Tourism has had a more fruitful
relationship with phenomenology (Ziakas & Boukas 2014), arguably none more so
than the seminal contribution of Cohen’s (1979) study which birthed a
phenomenology of tourist experiences. There are several Leisure and Events works,
with particular relevance to this study in terms of warrant (Getz 2008), impact
(Morgan 2008) and research design (Holst Kjaer 2011; Ziakas & Boukas 2014;
Berridge 2014). At the heart of this research process is the interpretation of the
digital event experience phenomenon as it is ever more impactful in an era of
ubiquitous connectivity (Gretzel, et al. 2015a). The subjectivity of experience
requires nuanced appraisal to assure understanding of the sense making at play
where technology is impacting experience (Tussyadiah, 2014). Interpretive
Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) offers insights on people in given contexts making
sense of a phenomenon. IPA was adopted in the delivery and analysis of the
research findings presented herein.
3.1 Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)
According to Smith et al. (2009, p.3) IPA is a method by which to assure a detailed
examination of an experience phenomenon given as “it wants to know in detail what
the experience for this person is like, what sense this particular person is making of
what is happening to them.” It has been more often used within health and social
sciences to unlock meaning and understanding and has been successfully applied in
assessing sport (Smith 2016) and music (Kelleher 2012), particularly in large scale
events in relation to understanding the opportunities and challenges of varying
participation perspectives. This is significant in the study of tourist event
experiences given that the meanings that are attached to event experiences are
integral to understanding how events are experienced but are also critical
antecedents to behaviour in future event settings. (Getz & Page, 2015).
Online focus groups provide a unique and distinct set of data given that multiple
conversations can be ongoing, politeness and order is less inhibited and as such
silos of individual reflections are created which are repositories of individual
experience. Accessibility is also an important benefit in this study, given the digital
habitus under review. Limitations of participant access or descriptive capability are
somewhat less of an issue given the double hermeneutic process of IPA where the
researcher’s sense making of the participant’s endeavours to unpack their own
experiences, provides more context through the netnographic approach, where
access to additional data and observation of digital selves facilitates thicker
description (Kozinets 2010).
Additionally, the use of NVivo - a computer aided qualitative data analysis system
(CADQAS) which allows for a systematic processing of analysis to be applied,
ensures a rigorous approach and significant audit trail of actions taken, which is
arguably the most important criteria for trustworthiness and plausibility of a study
(Drisko 1998). Below is a table of the steps of IPA taken and how these were
managed through NVivo’s qualitative research tool following Smith et al.’s (2009)
guidelines for data analysis and interpretation.
Analytical focus - IPA (Smith
et al. 2009)
Nvivo Process
1. Reading & Initial Noting Nodes (open codes) created in NVivo – first pass,
iterative process of code and re-code both reflexively
and interrogatively
2. Open Coding Capture summary of overall description and content –
supported/journaled with rich descriptive comments
3. Categorisation of
Codes
Category folder holds copy of open codes for the
participant in-tact. Broader categories from re-ordered
codes through parent and child nodes.
4. Coding on IPA strategically focused to create superordinate
themes for coding clusters and assess linkages or
evolve into emergent themes
5. Data Reduction Consolidate codes and compare/contrast in a matrix to
facilitate cross-case and in-case analysis
6. Analytical Memos Accurately summarise higher level themes through
analytical memos and propose empirical findings
against categories
7. Validation A period of testing, validating and revising memos to
explore data beyond textual quotes to support/expand
stated findings through embedded meaning
8. Synthesis of Analytic
Memos
Synthesis of analytic memos into cohesive, coherent
and supported findings offering descriptive account of
study participants’ views and perceptions
Table 1. Steps in IPA utilising a systematic approach in CADQAS Software
3.2 The Event – The International Northwest 200 Motorcycle Road Race (NW200)
The NW200 is a long standing international tourist event established over 88 years
ago, adjacent to the Giants Causeway World Heritage Site. According to Bullough et
al. (2017), the NW200 event attracted 82,132 unique admissions and had a direct
economic impact of £9.8 million. The event’s fanbase are 17% resident, 78% visiting
and 5% deemed as ‘casual’ visitors (not fans). Fans are quite loyal, with 31%,
highlighting their event awareness came through familiarity and having been
‘attending for years’ (Bullough et al. 2017, p.9)
3.3 Data Collection
Recruitment was through purposive sampling from participants who had completed
an App Event Satisfaction Survey which was carried out post event in 2016. This
had a positive impact and added validity on three counts. Firstly, through prior
knowledge via the sign-up process, participants had a sense of group belonging
(Nordvall et al. 2014). Secondly, having participated in the prior survey, it assured
validity as interviewees had experience of using the event app and could be vetted
as such. Finally, using interviewees who had participated in the survey offered a
further comparative opportunity for study development.
Participants were contacted by email and/or through Facebook and asked to
complete a further online ethical approval stage before being eligible for inclusion.
Of the 182 participants in the App Event survey, a total of 56 prospective
interviewees completed participant consent and were eligible for the Secret
Facebook Focus Groups (SFFG’s). Groups were stratified by gender as this was felt
to reduce any potential dominance of exchange, particularly given the largely male
fan base of the event. 3 male SFFG’s and 2 female SFFG’s were conducted
between October and December 2016, the shortest being 10 days from initiation to
completion (SFFG 4 female) and the longest being 11 days. The inducement
provided for participation was a weekly pass to visit the event which retails at £55.
IPA facilitated the exploration of critical experience outcomes sought through mobile
apps by spectators of international sports events. This research develops on the
event app focus of Luxford & Dickinson (2015) which has been highlighted more
recently as having significance to Smart Tourism related research (Wang et al.
2016). Taking a netnographic approach at the outset (Kozinets 2010) has ensured
immersion and credibility in data procurement techniques that suitably address this
critical research gap. The aim of the following analysis is to unpack the emergent
themes revealed through IPA (presented in Fig. 1) and confirmed as relevant in
smart experience contexts through post-hoc literature review. The 8-step process
outlined helps in understanding smart experience dimensions as perceived and
presented by participants of the 5 online focus groups analysed. Now follows a
narrative of these critical findings.
3.4 Data Analysis
Through this more immersive method, it has been possible to explore the patterns of
personalisation sought by people through process and located in places (Tomkins &
Eatough, 2010). It has led to the re-conceptualising of the earlier model, which
presented 4Ps and is now overlain with 7 Rs’. These 7Rs were categorised during
an earlier phase of IPA and integrate more holistically in Figure 2. The following
sections will clarify these elements and their linkages as a means of re-constituting
the event experience and as a lens for exploring co-creation in practice in smart
contexts (Buonincontri & Micera 2016).
4.0 Findings & Discussion
The processes of IPA has revealed an enhanced model of the digital event
experience - more accessible and memorable in relation to interpreting event
experiences in smart tourism contexts. The model reflects critical touch-points and
experience levers which may offer deeper understanding to the ever-evolving
process of co-creation of experience value in and across the event experience-
scape. Figure 2 below provides a visual representation of these interlocking
elements through the 4 P’s and the 7 R’s of digital event experience.
People, processes, personalisation and places are integrated and interlocked across
spatial and temporal boundaries. The interlocking elements offer a realistic lens
through which to further analyse the digital experience from the perspectives of
event and consumer, providing a holistic reversible frame of reference in exploring
experience value creation, destruction and renewal.
The 7 Rs’ are woven into and presented across linked aspects, with a particular
focus on 4 central premises, which are more critical to the co-creation of value in the
digital event experience.
4.1 Model Derived Through IPA
Figure 2. Superordinate Themes & Categories of Co-creation of the Digital Event
4.1.1 Rituals and the Digital Event Experience
Rituals have their roots of study in social and cultural anthropology and are a
significant factor in terms of experience and meaning for participants of events,
across the spectrum and range of event types. Their impact on affective, conative,
and cognitive experiential outcomes is an area which evidently offers further
opportunities to be explored and contextualised in terms of review but also, with
particular significance to further engagement via digital event components.
SC (male) highlights the potential of this outcome, where the event becomes a
pilgrimage of sorts.
“There's 6 of us that come up from Cornwall for 2 weeks each May. Dad started the trip 15 years ago and I've been going for the past 6. Wouldn't miss it!”
Interconnecting with these emerging stories through the event diaspora through
digital is one of many potential opportunities to deepen experience and extend
relational outcomes and deepen event rituals.
4.1.2 Realms of the Digital Event Experience
Once again, and critical to the meaning ascribed to an event experience, it is
pertinent to assess how individuals and groups are exploring meaning being derived
from an event across a myriad of touch-points (with mind of the cognitive, conative,
and affective realms of that experience).
There is certainly great scope for further personalisation of experience through the
digital context as social media and ICT realms continue to provide the most
interactive and personalised experiences in a cost-effective manner. There are
some challenges, which the following comment from JM (male) brings to light is one
of the critical fears of unfiltered content sharing which is impacting many of digital
channels and content strategies.
“You mentioned pictures in your reply. I hadn't considered that. Sharing live pics from around the course would be good. As long as they weren't grim. I suppose that's where administrators would come in to play.”
These opportunities, challenges (realities) require strategic oversight in order to
mitigate some risk without losing the opportunity to further develop the event
experience. Where processes and personalisation overlap, is where the various
experiences that people have and seek come to light and as such, in a digital sense,
consider care and thought to ensure a more positive outcome for those who are
digitally engaging. Could the self-auditing practices of periscope through the crowd
adopted as an event communication standard ensure safer digital realms?
4.1.3 Realities of the Digital Event Experience
As evidenced in the multiplicity of experience outcomes sought, people experience
their reality in differing ways and with differing desires. In examining these realities,
consideration is given to the overlap of people and personalisation as, particularly in
a digital context, there is evidence of very different experience outcomes being
sought and received. Although evidence was gathered purely from a qualitative
perspective, innovative thought, ideas and iterations of suggested digital event
experience outcomes, were not particularly gender, age or background specific,
which is not such a surprise given its tendency to emerge from attitudinal roots and
is often more about being inquisitive and engaged. The types of innovation through
suggested iterations, or at times new experience elements, were rich with both
operand and operant resource integration, perceived to support event experience.
CB’s satisfaction with the app post event measured low in the Likert type survey
question at only 2 out of 5. In the same survey, he also had this to say about the
app.
“It serves no purpose on the day. I would happily pay for the app instead of buying a programme to get each grid & rider number on my device. furthermore, it should provide real time lap times and positions and maybe a facility where you can punch in rider positions as they go bubbly this could also be done live. - the event commentary could be streamed on the app for when you are out of speaker range.”
Taking CB as an initial example of where online engagement and involvement in
experience design and experience co-creation can have a profound positive effect,
further analysis of his journey and renewal are related below. Of course, this is a
temporary state of being and in other circumstances or around differing contexts, a
state which could have remained negative or worsened in impact. Whilst this is a
distinct possibility, this case is worthy of further exploration.
4.1.4 Renewal of the event experience
It was most interesting to explore the potential of online co-creation through social
media to reconnect and re-invigorate people like CB. There is evident potential,
indeed this is most clearly related through the ‘pure gold’ co-created by CB and a
fellow participant relating to the question of the most important factor of their digital
event experience. Using visuals, dialogue and constructing a picture from across a
range of perspectives, JM (male) and CB (male) provide some of the most critical
evidence as to how impactful online co-creation can be. Although the outcome of his
experience of co-creation within the event is not straight forward to measure in
qualitative terms, one would take the following quote as an indication of the personal
‘sense making’ of exploring the event experience.
“..what a unique experience which I thoroughly enjoyed being part of - thanks for involving me and best thoughts to you for wherever these findings take you regarding the final product.”
4.1.5 Reviewing the event experience
As with CB, the experience of 'reviewing' the event’s digital dimension was of critical
experience value – where participants 'felt listened to' and assessing the preferred
outcomes of an event experience with a 'passionate' community increased
satisfaction and was not unique to CB.
Review is a foundational aspect of this process, where time is provided to discover
core issues, opportunities and challenges presented by event fans and as such, is a
staging post to ‘renewal’ – whether of event or of participant experience. Review
assures that the central premise of improving the event experience is in focus and
that the various and myriad relationships across the super-ordinate themes of
people, processes, personalisation and places is examined holistically by giving
voice to individual contexts.
Of critical importance to the success of review is the affordance of time and
resources to ensure familiarity with the phases, contexts and outcomes sought is
provided. A framework of engagement and an understanding of what is achievable
and what is not (budgetary, timeframe, resources etc.) is also of fundamental
importance to ensure adequate insights can be provided to a discerning event fan
base. Where possible, a means of continuing the review dialogue post event would
also ensure that a feedback loop was existent to mitigate the risks of someone (like
DB in the following example) feeling disconnected from the event.
“..they are scared of a change I would hear stuff in the meeting with the club some of it is **** they just drive ppl away”
It is noteworthy to highlight that other participants were somewhat at odds with DB
on his viewpoint and although not tacitly stated there were clearly frustrations with
this member’s general negativity. This leads on to our exploration of the ‘relational’
elements of the digital event experience and how time and thought around such
issues can be mitigated.
4.1.6 Relational elements of the Digital Event Experience
It is clear from the participants that engaging with the event and sharing views and
opinions is a positive catalyst for connection. The challenge as always is
maintaining connection and seeking to support a positive and motivating dynamic
beyond the initial interaction. A major challenge of managing this complicated
network of individuals is revealed in the comment of AR (male) relating to event
communications
“As previously said, an event that's well run and planned with communication between organisers and fans, if that's through the app or whatever then that's important to me. Being there in person is the thrill of it all, live streaming will and has killed off some spectators as they just sit on their sofa's instead of supporting the event.”
A communications strategy is one clear necessity in facilitating better outcomes and
understanding of event fans and their various event expectations. Do
communications aim to celebrate and connect to the ‘being there’ essence through
fans networks, content and accounts at the risk of some negative outcomes dues to
weather, scheduling delays or poor performances or do they focus solely on
‘pushing’ event content and not give voice to any negativity? These are challenges
which event teams must answer as they are fundamental to the relational impact of
the overall experience – a form of cultural presentation.
4.1.7 Resourcing the Digital Event Experience
Finally, resourcing of the digital event experience, is fundamental to the overall
shaping and experience dimensions as it is through objective assessment of the
resource based view that the practicalities and realities of an experience outcome
can be understood. Evidence of connectivity challenges were abundant throughout
the data collected and the impact of this operand resource on the digital event
experience of present ICTs and social media cannot be understated. RC highlights
his more positive recent experience of coverage in this excerpt
“I agree - it's a good base and found it much improved in the second year, had no problems with connection as there is a good 4g signal which I believe is boosted when big events are on, I had no problems with FB live during races.”
Evidently, this is not the case across networks with CV (female) relating the following
“..as for network signal to text people it becomes very difficult to contact people due to the vast amount attending the event and 3G can be quite hard to connect to.”
That said, there is significant evidence to suggest that the ubiquitous connectivity
promised by many providers is closer to reality than previously. Apart from FB live in
the earlier example, MH (male) also demonstrates the potential of an ever more
engaged and dynamic digitally enhanced event experience with the following
comment
“I have no issues with mobile phone connectivity. I was able to stream to periscope at the event last year.”
5.0 Implications for Theory and Practice
Smart Tourism as a construct is multi-layered and the collection, exchange and
processing of real-time data seeks context from which to build more personalised
experience opportunities, often as a means of leveraging destination
competitiveness (Koo et al., 2016). This knowledge is best gained through
contextualising individual experience and as such our model provides a mirror
through which consumer ‘smart experiences’ (Gretzel et al. 2015a) can be unpacked
in relation to smartness contexts (Boes et al. 2015) and within the new
conceptualisation of the ‘smart event experience’ (Bustard et al., forthcoming).
In explaining this ‘Special Event’ app experience, the model builds new knowledge
and supports new knowledge relating events as smart tourism destination
competitiveness attractors (Koo et al., 2016). The model offers deeper exploration
and a more holistic engagement with smart technology, to improve experience
outcomes for consumers in digitally mediated contexts (Buonincontri & Micera,
2016). The model derived from the research carried out, presents the 7
interconnected aspects of event experience, with a particular focus on the 4
overlapping contexts of People, Places, Processes and Personalisation, all critical to
the co-creation of value through interconnected info-structures comprising the digital
event experience in a Smart Tourism destination context (Buhalis & Amaranggana,
2013).
This emerging era of ubiquity in computing intelligence, provides the potential of the
interconnectedness of experience through multiple stakeholders, driven through the
provision of ‘always on’ service encounters. Undoubtedly an area of potential
competitive advantage and opportunity (McCabe et al., 2012). Given that Tourism
Events are often considered as mini destinations (Ziakas & Boukas 2013), their
openness within such an ecosystem of smart tourism providers could significantly
scale in terms of sharing optimized ‘real-time’, informed and transformed consumer
experiences (Gretzel, et al. 2015a; Wang et al.,2016).
Therefore, the exploration of ‘smart experience’ thinking (Gretzel et al. 2015a) is vital
in relation to applying and integrating smart tourism potentialities and thus is critical
in gaining perspective and understanding (McCabe et al. 2012). As Buhalis &
Amaranggana (2013) posit, the potential to integrate stakeholder objectives within an
interoperable and open platform creating value, enriching experiences is an
opportunity for all involved. Critically, this model brings the event participant as co-
creator of experience, back into the center of the smart tourism phenomenon (Koo et
al. 2016).
5.1 Implications for Tourism & Event Practitioners
The findings of this paper contribute new knowledge in the research of events as
strategic integrations in smart tourism destination competitiveness (Koo et al., 2016).
Firstly, connecting and contributing are clearly two areas where digital event
experiences are being improved upon and were demand for such integration is
escalating (Getz & Page, 2015). Positioning people as tourist-centric Operant
resource - integrating and sharing entertaining and participatory content, in a more
connected and empowered manner, is the new norm in co-creating elements of their
destination experience (Wang et al., 2016).
Given this expanding propensity toward co-creation, integration of Artificial
Intelligence (AI), particularly the inclusion of chatbots to mediate these
communications, can be seen as a significant catalyst in speeding up and multiplying
co-creation and experience opportunities (Boes et al., 2015). The emerging ‘smart
event experience’ (Bustard et al. forthcoming, 2017) and the potential it offers in the
re-imagining of event and tourism experience connectivity has significant
implications for practice and the study of digital ecosystems (Gretzel et al., 2015a).
5.2 Implications for Research
The research presented in this paper provides a sound theoretical and empirically
tested model of the Smart event experience. Yet as Benckendorff & Pearce (2012)
explain, events are large laboratories where experience-scapes can offer new and
significant pathways of study and discovery. Adapting this viewpoint to the smart
event experience, ensures a suitable and focused approach to carrying out further
studies, given the nature and subjectivity of the event experience phenomenon (Getz
& Page 2015). With the emerging integration of AI such as chatbots as part of the
event experience – it is possible to imagine contexts where ‘real-time’ co-creation
with event fans will become a central competitive advantage for destinations,
attractions and events, throughout the experience journey (Neuhofer et al., 2012).
5.3 Limitations and Avenues for Future Research
This study is limited in its analysis of the smart event experience due to the use of a
purposive sample from the International NW200 Event in Northern Ireland, which
may limit the generalizability of research findings. Future research should therefore
investigate participant experiences through phenomenological means at other
destinations, events or attractions where differing experience outcomes are sought.
Additionally, analysis of how ‘special event’ practitioners are employing technology to
provide enhanced smart event experiences through the Internet of Things is
advisable. For example, the use of beacon technology, RFID and other emerging
platforms as actors integrating value (Gretzel et al. 2015a) into smart experiences.
These co-created offerings, for example leveraging location as a service (LaaS) in
‘real-time’ offer significant and memorable experience enhancing opportunities but
are critically under-examined in varying Smart Tourism contexts such as events (Koo
et al., 2016).
Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the 2016 Innovation
Fund of the International Federation for IT in Travel and Tourism (IFITT).
6.0 References
Benckendorff, P. & Pearce, P.L. (2012). The psychology of events. The Routledge
Handbook of events, (2012), pp.165–185.
Berridge, G. (2014). Event experiences : Design, Management and Impact.
University of West London.
Boes, K., Buhalis, D. & Inversini, A. (2015). Conceptualising Smart Tourism
Destination Dimensions. Information & Communication Technologies in Tourism
2015, p.391.
Buhalis, D. and Amaranggana, A. (2013). Smart tourism destinations. in Information
and Communication TechNologies in Tourism 2014 Springer, 553-564
Bullough, S., Ramchandani, R. & Coleman, R. (2017). NW200 Economic Impact,
available at:
https://www.causewaycoastandglens.gov.uk/uploads/minutes/ITEM_12_-
_170808_-_NW200_Economic_Impact.pdf (accessed 25 August 2017).
Bustard J., Bolan, P., Devine A., Hutchinson K. (2017) Improving the app
experience: collaboratively co-creating through social media. The Journal of
Tourism and Development, forthcoming.
Buonincontri, P. & Micera, R. (2016). The experience co-creation in smart tourism
destinations : a multiple case analysis of European destinations. Information
Technology & Tourism, 16(3), pp.285–315.
Cohen, E. (1979). A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology, 13(2),
pp.179–201.
Drisko, J. (1998). Using qualitative data analysis software. Computers in Human
Services, 15(1), pp.1–19.
Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tourism
Management, 29(3), pp.403–428.
Getz, D. & Page, S.J. (2015). Progress and prospects for event tourism research.
Tourism Management, 52, pp.593–631.
Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z., Koo, C. (2015a). Smart tourism: foundations and
developments. Electronic Markets, 25(3), pp.179–188.
Gretzel, U., Werthner, H., Koo, C., Lamsfus, C. (2015b). Conceptual foundations for
understanding smart tourism ecosystems. Computers in Human Behavior, 50,
pp.558–563
Holst Kjaer, S., (2011). Meaningful Experience Creation and Event Management.
Culture Unbound, 3, pp.243–267.
Kelleher, C. (2012). Interpreting the score : participant experiences of value
cocreation in a collaborative consumption context. , (October 2012), pp.2012–
2013.
Koo, C., Shin, S., Gretzel, U., Hunter, W.C. & Chung, N. (2016). Conceptualization of
smart tourism destination competitiveness. Asia Pacific Journal of Information
Systems, 26(4), pp.561-576.
Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Sage
publications.
Luxford, A. & Dickinson, E.J., (2015). The Role of Mobile Applications in the
Consumer Experience at Music Festivals. Event Management, 19(1), pp.33–46.
McCabe, S., Sharples, M. & Foster, C., (2012). Stakeholder engagement in the
design of scenarios of technology-enhanced tourism services. Tourism
Management Perspectives, 4, pp.36–44.
Morgan, M., (2008). What, makes a good festival? Understanding the event
experience. Event Management, 12(2), pp.81–93.
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D. & Ladkin, A., (2012). Conceptualising technology enhanced
destination experiences. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management,
1(1–2), pp.36–46.
Neuhofer, B. & Buhalis, D., (2013). Experience , Co-Creation and Technology:
Issues , Challenges and Trends for Technology Enhanced Tourism
Experiences. Handbook of Tourism Marketing Book, (2013), pp.124–139.
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D. & Ladkin, A., (2015). Smart technologies for personalized
experiences: a case study in the hospitality domain. Electronic Markets, 25(3),
pp.243–254.
Neuhofer, B., (2016). Value Co-creation and Co-destruction in Connected Tourist
Experiences. In A. Inversini & R. Schegg, eds. Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism 2016: Proceedings of the International Conference in
Bilbao, Spain, February 2-5, 2016. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp.
779–792.
Nordvall, A., Pettersson, R., Svensson, B. & Brown, S. (2014). Designing events for
social interaction. Event Management, 18(2), pp.127-140.
Smith, J.A. (2016). Getting at experience. In Routledge Handbook of Qualitative
Research in Sport and Exercise. Routledge, p. p.219.
Smith, J.A., Flowers, P. & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological
analysis: theory, method and research,
Stainton, H. (2016). Current Issues in Tourism The “Blogosphere” as a platform for
interpretative phenomenological analysis: the case of TEFL tourism. Current
Issues in Tourism, 0(0), pp.1–10.
Tomkins, L. & Eatough, V. (2010) Reflecting on the Use of IPA with Focus Groups:
Pitfalls and Potentials. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7(3), pp.244–262.
Tussyadiah, I.P. (2014). Toward a Theoretical Foundation for Experience Design in
Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 53(5), pp.543–564.
Tussyadiah, I.P. (2017). Technology and Behavioral Design in Tourism. In D. R.
Fesenmaier & Z. Xiang, eds. Design Science in Tourism. Springer International
Publishing., pp. 173–191.
Van Winkle, C. Cairns, A., MacKay K., Halpenny, E. (2016). Mobile device use
during festivals: opportunities for value creation Introduction. International
Journal of Event and Festival Management, 7(3).
Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P. & Akaka, M.A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A
service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal,
26(3), pp.145–152.
Wang, X., Li, X., (Robert) Zhen, F., Zhang, J. (2016). How smart is your tourist
attraction? Measuring tourist preferences of smart tourism attractions via a
FCEM-AHP and IPA approach. Tourism Management, 54, pp.309–320.
Ziakas, V. & Boukas, N. (2013). Extracting meanings of event tourist experiences: A
phenomenological exploration of Limassol carnival. Journal of Destination
Marketing and Management, 2(2), pp.94–107.
Ziakas, V. & Boukas, N. (2014). Contextualizing phenomenology in event
management research: Deciphering the meaning of event experiences.
International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 5(1), pp.56–73.