Towards a Taxonomy for Buy Online Pick up in Store Service

Artem Bielozorov

School of Business, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland

Keywords: Omnichannel, Channel Integration, Buy Online Pick up in Store, BOPIS, Service Taxonomy.

Abstract: Following the best practices in retail, along with home delivery, many companies also offer customers the

option to buy online and pick up in store (BOPIS). The paper provides insights into the essential components

of the BOPIS service conceptualized in the form of a taxonomy together with literature review on

omnichannel retail and channel integration quality dimensions. The data were collected through semi-

structured interviews and focus group discussion in the scope of case study with an Irish retailer. The study

represents a valuable contribution into the existing body of knowledge on omnichannel retail.

1 INTRODUCTION

Rapid technological development and diffusion of

innovations within retail industry keep changing the

nature of business strategies and interactions between

retailers and customers (Keeling et al., 2013).

However, digitalization of retail landscape brings

particular challenges to small and medium enterprises

(SMEs) as they are much more vulnerable to

technological disruptions than large retail networks

which can afford investing substantial funds into

technological development (Inman & Nikolova,

2017).

Along with adoption of the Internet technologies

in retail, many companies started offering buy online

pick up in store service to their customers on top of

home delivery option (Gao & Su, 2017).

The general design of the BOPIS service is

simple: the shopper orders online from a dedicated

website or a mobile application and then comes to the

pickup area to collect an order (Weber & Maier,

2020). Despite the apparent simplicity of the BOPIS

process, multiple versions, inconsistent operations,

and conflicting approaches of the same process model

are only some of the issues (Alotaibi, 2016; Smirnov

et al., 2012; Branco, 2014).

This paper attempts to systematically structure the

components of the BOPIS service through answering

the following research question:

RQ 1: What are the principles, requirements, and

objectives for the BOPIS service model?

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. First,

the author provides insights into omnichannel retail

concept and the BOPIS service as an essential step

towards channel integration. In the section 3, the

author describes the research design and data

collection methods used in the current study. Section

4 describes the BOPIS service taxonomy built upon

the collected data. Discussion about limitations,

future steps, and implications for research and

practice is in the section 5.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Omnichannel Retail Concept

Along with rapid technology evolution and the

ongoing trend of digitalization, various channels,

such as brick-and-mortar stores, mobile phones,

social media, etc. have become available to customers

to interact with the retailers (Shen et al., 2018). In

many cases, however, introduction of a new channel

was stipulated by emerging market trends and

evolving customer needs. The channel

implementation process was mostly focused on

encouraging customers to make a decision in favour

of one or another channel (Chen et al., 2018) and has

not been subjected to thorough consideration and

planning (Klaus & Nguyen, 2013). And after having

the multiple channels implemented, retailers keep

managing these channels independently, which

results in information and operations inconsistency

(Saghiri et al., 2017). As a result, achieving the

Bielozorov, A.

Towards a Taxonomy for Buy Online Pick up in Store Service.

DOI: 10.5220/0010214202990308

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications (CHIRA 2020), pages 299-308

ISBN: 978-989-758-480-0

299

integration of information and services from multiple

available channels is becoming a high priority for

retailers (Lazaris & Vrechopoulos, 2014). To date the

majority of papers belonging to the service research

dedicated to embracement of online and offline

channels were trying to define the factors determining

consumers’ channel preference, treating online and

offline channels as competing forces (Chen et al.,

2018) and summarizing it as a multichannel retailing

(Beck & Rygl, 2015).

In the retail research, many authors use the term

multichannel as an umbrella concept to describe

different strategies, regardless of the channel

configuration (Beck & Rygl 2015; Verhoef et al.

2015). However, according to Neslin et al. (2006) and

Rigby (2011) incorporating all channel concepts

under the single term multichannel does not

appropriately describe the complexity of channel

integration and the seamless and interchangeable

nature of how the channels need to be designed and

used. Trenz (2015) also argues that there is a

mismatch between the concept of multichannel

strategy used in retail research and market realities

today as it cannot encompass the full complexity of

an evolving multichannel environment. Omnichannel

is perceived as an evolution of multichannel strategy

(Piotrowicz & Cuthbertson, 2014) and represents an

attempt to establish a borderless cross-channel

communication ecosystem (Verhoef et al., 2015)

where services and interactions with customers are

coordinated across areas of advertisement,

information access, inventory management, products,

and pricing, order fulfilment, as well as customer

service (Li et al., 2018). Therefore, the authors keep

embracing the term omnichannel management to

capture and express the new capabilities and features

of this advanced channel management concept (Beck

& Rygl 2015; Brynjolfsson et al. 2013; Verhoef et al.

2015; Trenz, 2015; Lazaris & Vrechopoulos, 2014;

Shen et al., 2018; Saghiri et al., 2017).

However, since the terms multichannel and

omnichannel are often used interchangeably a lack of

distinction regarding the underlying concept exists.

The author made an attempt to capture the unique and

fundamental features of both strategic approaches to

reduce ambiguity around these concepts. Based on

the previous studies, the author conducted a literature

review of the major differences between omnichannel

and multichannel concepts, provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Differentiation of multichannel and omnichannel.

Based on: Mirsch et al., 2016; Picot-Coupey et al., 2016;

Juaneda-Ayensa et al., 2016; Verhoef et al., 2015; Beck &

Rygl 2015.

Multichannel Omnichannel

Definition

A siloes

approach

where

channels are

designed and

operated as

independent

entities.

A unified

approach that

manages

channels and

touchpoints in

a synergetic

way to allow

consumers to

have a

seamless

experience.

Channel

characteristics

Separate

channel

coexist and

compete with

each other.

Touchpoints

are integrated

within unified

channels to

allow smooth

flow of

information to

provide

seamless

experience.

Channel

management

Management

of the

channels and

touchpoints is

aimed to

optimize the

experience

with every

channel

separatel

The

management

of the

channels and

touchpoints is

synergetic

with the major

aim to provide

a unified

experience.

Channel

integration

No or limited

switching

between

channels

Easy and

seamless

switching

among all

touchpoints

and channels.

Retailers

Cannot fully

control the

integration of

all channels

Control full

integration of

all channels.

Customers

Perceive

interaction

with a single

channel.

Perceive

interaction

with entire

rand.

WUDESHI-DR 2020 - Special Session on User Decision Support and Human Interaction in Digital Retail

300

The researchers working on omnichannel concept

argue that although the retailers have recognized the

significance of omnichannel concept, the extent to

which such strategy can achieve the desired business

goals greatly depends on customers' perception and

usage of the delivered omnichannel service (Shen,

2018; Payne et al., 2017; Pantano & Viassone, 2015).

Previous research has regarded channel integration

and the resulting fluency of experience as the

essential enablers of omnichannel business success

(Saghiri, 2017; Verhoef et al., 2015; Cao & Li, 2015).

In their study Lee et al. (2019), Shen (2018) and

Hossain et al. (2019) state that channel integration

quality has a critical role in creating a positive

customer experience in the context of omnichannel

retailing. Therefore, the integration quality of parallel

channels should be regarded as the core element that

distinguishes omnichannel from multichannel

services.

2.2 Channel Integration Quality

Channel integration quality refers to omnichannel

retailer's ability to provide customers with seamless

shopping experiences across channels (Sousa & Voss,

2006; Lee et al., 2019). Subscribing to social

exchange theory (Blau, 1968) researchers argue that

omnichannel retailers' efforts invested into channel

integration quality will be valued by customers which

in turn will lead to enhanced experience among

customers and, ultimately, to desirable business

outcomes (Lee et al., 2019).

Following the systematic literature review

approach, proposed by Levy and Ellis (2006) the

author explored the channel integration quality

dimensions in the current literature and presented

them in the form of a concept matrix, demonstrated in

Table 2.

Google Scholar, Web of Science, Ebsco Host, and

Science Direct databases were searched for the

keywords namely “channel integration quality”,

“channel integration”, “integrated channels”,

“omnichannel” OR “omni-channel” with the

established time limit from 2004 and 2019. The first

round of search resulted in in 86 papers for further

elaboration. The author was further looking for the

keywords in the titles, abstracts, and sub-titles of the

selected papers. The major criterion at this step was a

sufficient number of keywords e.g. the manuscripts

should have contained at least three channel

integration quality criteria described in detail in order

to be considered. This step resulted into a pool of 43

papers. During the second part, the author read,

analysed, and interpreted the full texts to identify

elements that could assist in composing the concept

matrix and identified 19 papers, which were explicitly

describing the channel integration quality criteria.

These papers became a foundation for the concept

matrix.

2.3 Concept Matrix Construction

The systematic literature review resulted in the

concept matrix of channel integration quality

dimensions in their work identified new dimensions

of channel integration quality by conducting a

qualitative study through organizing twenty in-depth

interviews and two focus group discussions. Hossain

et al. (2019) identified the sub-dimensions of privacy

and security and service recovery accessibility which

were parts of the assurance quality dimension. These

dimensions in the current study due to their infancy

and insufficient literature coverage.

The thorough analysis of the concept matrix of

channel integration quality dimensions clearly

demonstrates that:

1. Process consistency dimension is less covered in

the literature to date compared to channel-service

configuration and content consistency

dimensions

2. Those authors who addressed the dimension of

process consistency in their work in the majority

of cases also covered both integrated order

fulfilment and channel reciprocity sub-

dimensions.

According to Sousa and Voss (2006) process

consistency in the context of channel integration

refers to the consistency of processes within

organization associated with managing different

channels. According to literature analysed, process

consistency dimension is comprised of two sub-

dimensions namely integrated order fulfilment and

channel reciprocity.

Integrated order fulfilment enables retailers to

provide logistical support at one channel for products

purchased at other channels (Oh et al., 2012). Usually

it realized in the form of buying a product online and

picking it up in store (BOPIS), returning a product

which has been purchased online in-store or

providing post-purchase service by online support

team for products purchased in brick-and-mortar

store (Oh et al., 2012; Wu & Chang, 2016; Yong-zhi,

2014).

Channel reciprocity refers to the absence of any

one type of channel dominance over another channel;

instead, both channels are designed to support each

other (Chan & Pan, 2005).

Towards a Taxonomy for Buy Online Pick up in Store Service

301

Table 2: Channel integration quality dimensions.

In the context of channel reciprocity, customers

utilize both channels, not because they prefer one

channel to another, but because there are more

advantages to using both channel synergistically (Lee

& Kim, 2010). When channels are designed

reciprocally customers can purchase products via

online channels and then pick them up at the brick-

and-mortar retailer at their convenience (Lee & Kim,

2010).

When asked about omnichannel priorities, the

retail companies surveyed by Forrester Research

reported that fulfilment initiatives is a top priority

among the other channel integration programs.

Furthermore, among all omnichannel fulfilment

activities, that enable customers to buy online and

pick up in store (BOPIS) is regarded as the most

important one (Forrester, 2014). According to Retail

Systems Research (RSR), as of June 2013, 64% of

retailers have implemented or consider

implementation of BOPIS (RSR, 2013).

2.4 BOPIS Service

After introduction of the Internet in the customer

buying process, retailers, which used to operate a

single brick and mortar strategy, based on a physical

network of stores, were enabled to introduce a click-

and-mortar approach and combine the strength of

each channel (Dinner et al., 2014). In addition to

carrying out their traditional in-store shopping,

customers were enabled to do online purchases, with

an ease of offering 24/7 access, with home delivery

or in-store pickup (Jara et al., 2018). As BOPIS

“combines the strength of physical and online stores”

(Beck & Rygl, 2015), it can be classified into cross-

channel retailing. The concept of cross-channel retail

is also in line with the omnichannel management

paradigm, which views channels as seamlessly

integrated touchpoints, regardless of their position

(Verhoef et al., 2015).

Existing research on BOPIS has addresses a range

of aspects and concepts associated with this service.

In their work, Lewis et al. (2014) examined the

technology-related challenges that retailers encounter

when they aim to offer BOPIS service. Chatterjee

(2010) undertook an effort to establish which

customer characteristics (e.g., higher price

consciousness) can be used as a potential moderator

variable as a driver towards implementing BOPIS

service. In their research, Weber and Maier (2020)

explored how BOPIS can be used as a mean of

channel integration targeted at reducing competitive

research shopping. Gao and Su (2017) explored how

information availability and convenience serve as

drivers towards selecting BOPIS service among

shoppers. Oh et al. (2012) found out that BOPIS

options increase perception of convenience, which

leads to overall increase of consumer value of the

retailer.

Despite the seeming straightforwardness of the

BOPIS process, different design approaches,

inconsistent steps, and conflicting versions of the

same process model are only some of the issues that

have been listed (Alotaibi, 2016; Smirnov et al., 2012;

Branco, 2014). Existing research on channel

integration in the form of the BOPIS service in this

Information Transaction System Image ChannelReciprocity

Sousa&Voss(2006)



Chan&Pan(2005)



Berman&Thelen(2004)

 

Banerjee(2014)



Seck&Philippe(2013)



Hsiehetal.(2012)



Lee&Kim(2010)

 

Ohetal.(2012)

  

Wu&Chang(2016)

 

Madalenoetal(2007)

 

Pantano&Viassone(2015)



Bapat&Bapat(2015)



Whiteet

al.(2013)



Yuetal.(2011)



Hammerschimdt(2016)



Yong‐zhi(2014)

 

Lietal.(2018)



Leeetal.(2019)

 

Shenetal.(2018)

 



Authors

IntegratedOrder

Fulfillme nt

Channel‐serviceconfiguration

Contentconsistency

Breadthof

channelchoice

Transparencyof

channel‐service

configuration

Integrat edinteractions

Processconsistency



WUDESHI-DR 2020 - Special Session on User Decision Support and Human Interaction in Digital Retail

302

regard and does not provide a full picture on what are

the essential elements of this process. The problem

addressed in this work is collection and

systematization of the elements required to build an

efficient BOPIS service within retail organizations.

This is an important step towards creation of a

reference BOPIS service model which would help

retailers configure and customize their existing

models to meet their business requirements (van der

Aalst et al., 2010; Reinhartz-Berger et al., 2010)

which is the step for further investigation and lies

beyond the scope of the current study.

3 RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 Case Study

The case study is a research strategy, which focuses

on understanding the dynamics present within

specific context. Case studies typically combine data

collection methods such as archives, interviews,

questionnaires, and observations with the subsequent

qualitative and quantitative evidence. Case studies

can be used to accomplish a number of goals: to

provide description, test theory, or generate theory

(Eisenhardt, 1989).

The retail company involved in the case study was

established over 50 years ago by the Irish government

with the aim to help local designers and

manufacturers grow into independent entrepreneurs

and to create extensive market of handcrafts in

Ireland. Today the company is one of the largest Irish

companies that sells high-quality design products

through numerous stores across the country and e-

Commerce platform with over 25 000 stock keeping

units (SKUs) including fashion, knitwear,

accessories, jewelleries, cutlery, art and other.

3.2 Semi-Structured Interviews

In order to reinforce the theoretical foundation, the

author was looking for eliciting the real business

challenges the company faces in their practice. The

most suitable approach at this stage of the research

was a semi-structured interview method. Semi-

structured interviews imply the use of an interview

guide with the set of predetermined questions aimed

to collect similar types of data from all interviewees,

where the researcher, however, is free to seek

clarification (probing) and vary the order and wording

of the questions (Doody & Noonan, 2013; David &

Sutton, 2004). Semi-structured interviews enable

researchers to word questions instinctively and

develop a conversational style during the interview

that focuses on the topic (Patton, 2002). According to

Dearnley (2005) the open nature of the questions in

semi-structured interviews encourages depth and

vitality, which can help researchers develop new

concepts and gain a deeper understanding of the

research topic.

3.3 Focus Group Discussion

Focus groups are aimed to investigate a clearly

defined area or set of issues (focus) in the context of

a group discussion (Stewart et al., 1990). With the

help of a moderator, a group of people discusses ideas

and thoughts on open-ended questions (Krueger,

2014).

In line with the method proposed by Tremblay et

al. (2010) the author has defined a sample size of six

participants for focus group discussion. Participants

were informed about the project before conducting a

discussion and participation in the discussion was

without any remuneration.

The questioning route designed according to

Trembley et al. (2010) provided a clear structure for

the moderator which enabled an extensive

communication. The questions were open-ended and

not suggestive and moderator was requested to be

only asking questions without indicating possible

answers. The questioning route consisted of 5

questions:

1. Principles: what are the principles for the BOPIS

process to be built upon?

2. Objectives: what are the key objectives when

designing BOPIS service?

3. Requirements: what are the requirements when

designing BOPIS service?

4. Planning: which steps of process planning are

systematic?

5. Methods: which methods and tools are applied to

support design of the BOPIS service?

The main objective of conducting the focus group

discussion at the partner organization was to elicit

practically relevant principles, requirements, and

objectives applied in real business settings when

designing BOPIS service model.

In order to reinforce findings collected during the

focus group discussion at the company, the author

conducted two semi-structured interviews with

Financial Director and Logistics Manager.

The objective of conducting the focus group

discussion and semi-structured interviews was to

enrich and improve the knowledge required to design

the taxonomy by collecting practically relevant

process principles, objectives, and requirements

Towards a Taxonomy for Buy Online Pick up in Store Service

303

considered by practitioners when designing BOPIS

service.

4 RESULTS

4.1 Taxonomy Development

Taxonomies represent a classification of objects that

helps researchers understand and analyse complex

domains (Nickerson et al., 2013). Taxonomies

provide a structure and an organization to the

knowledge of a field, thereby enabling researchers to

study the relationships between concepts and

hypothesize about these relationships (Glass &

Vessey, 1995).

In the course of the current work, the author

applied the deductive approach towards taxonomy

development. According to Nickerson et al. (2013)

the deductive approach implies that dimensions, and

characteristics are derived not from empirical cases

but instead from a solid theoretical and conceptual

foundation through a logical process.

The major purpose was to develop a useful

taxonomy and not necessarily the ‘best’ one as this

cannot be defined (Nickerson et al., 2013). According

to Nickerson et al. (2013) the usefulness of the

taxonomy can be measured through the range of

qualitative attributes:

 the taxonomy is concise and contains a limited

number of dimensions and characteristics;

 the taxonomy is robust and has a sufficient

number of dimensions and characteristics to

clearly classify and differentiate the objects of

research;

 the taxonomy is comprehensive and according to

Doty and Glick (1994) ‘provides complete

descriptions of each type using the same set of

dimensions’;

 the taxonomy is extendible and allows for being

compounded with additional elements and new

dimensions when new types of objects

discovered.

In the current study, the author has formalized a

taxonomy of the key elements required for creation of

the BOPIS service model: service principles, service

requirements, service objectives, enterprise

resources, and enterprise capabilities (higher-level

and lower-order capabilities). The proposed

taxonomy can be considered useful in line with the

qualitative characterises of the taxonomy usefulness

defined by Nickerson et al. (2013) as it has a concise

yet robust and comprehensive list of the elements

which can be extended if new dimensions of the

BOPIS service model appear.

Taxonomy is an essential step in building

conceptual model of the BOPIS service in the course

of the current study as “concepts and conceptual

frameworks at this level aim at identifying essences

in the research territory and their relationships”

(Iivari, 2007).

4.1.1 Service Principles, Requirements, and

Objectives

Service principles, requirements, and objectives were

elicited during focus group discussion and two semi-

structured interviews at the company. The mentioned

characteristics are essential components in the BOPIS

service model as they enable the BOPIS service

provision and serve as key constructs for the process

design. The identification of the principles,

requirements, and objectives for developing BOPIS

service is important for guiding the design of the

actual process model based on those elements. The

investigation of these service model components

provides the justification behind the design decisions

in relation to definition of the new strategic concepts.

4.1.2 Enterprise Resources & Capabilities

In line with the resource-based paradigm, resources

are considered as inputs that enable a firm to carry out

its activities through utilizing tangible and intangible

assets, organizational processes, firm attributes,

information, or knowledge which organization owns,

controls or has access to on a semi-permanent basis

to achieve business goals (Barney, 2001; Mata et al.,

1995; Helfat & Peteraf, 2003).

An enterprise capability represents an abstract

construct and refers to the ability of an organization

to perform, using organizational resources, with the

purpose of achieving a particular business goal

(Helfat & Peteraf, 2003; Henkel et al., 2014). In the

course of the current study, the author has included

the resources and capabilities outlined in the

taxonomy, as those are the essential ones for

supporting the design, development, deployment, and

operation of the BOPIS service according to the data

from practitioners the author has collected in the

scope of the current case study.

WUDESHI-DR 2020 - Special Session on User Decision Support and Human Interaction in Digital Retail

304

Figure 1: Taxonomy of the key elements of the BOPIS reference model.

5 SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

This work adds to the existing body of knowledge on

omnichannel retailing by examining the growing

phenomenon of cross-channel retail strategy through

the adoption of BOPIS service by small and medium

retailers. The efforts undertaken in this paper were

primarily aimed at the collection of key principles,

requirements, and objectives which were arranged

into a comprehensive BOPIS service taxonomy. The

author has carried out the empirical analysis using the

data from real business practitioner, hence biases due

to faulty recollection, false reporting, and demand

effects are reduced. This paper makes a contribution

to our understanding of service models through

providing an empirical support for a BOPIS service

modelling not previously found in the literature and

insights into structuring principles, requirements, and

objectives of the service.

Mapping the elements within service models in an

omnichannel environment can be often performed by

different employees, from different departments, for

different projects who have limited technical

expertise which results in multiple models of the

same process and can lead to losing a significant

number of person-days and open up possibilities to

introduce errors into the process (Branco et al., 2014).

This study helps retail managers identify and

distinguish components required to design a

successful BOPIS service.

The future step is structuring the discovered

BOPIS process elements into a comprehensive

BOPIS reference service model which would be able

to capture proven practices and in the retail domain

and meet the requirements of individual companies.

The findings and contributions of the current work

are constrained by a certain number of limitations,

which provide opportunities for further research. The

first thing to consider is that the author follows the

interpretivist approach where the results conform to the

available action-prospects and the researcher’s "world

view" is the strongest determining factor in explaining

the phenomenon (Mullarkey & Hevner, 2019). It

should be also noted that the actual use of the

taxonomy in order to design and implement a long-

term oriented BOPIS service in organizational practice

would not be possible in the short term. Furthermore,

the implications the service implementation is going to

bring in the form of the concrete results e.g. new

processes or increased turnover would take additional

time to be visible and measurable. It would hardly be

possible to identify the direct causal relation between

actions and measures taken due to process model

implementation and specific quantifiable outcomes in

organizational practice.

Towards a Taxonomy for Buy Online Pick up in Store Service

305

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The present work was conducted within the training

network project PERFORM funded by the European

Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation

program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant

agreement No. 76539. This study reflects only the

authors’ view, the EU Research Executive Agency is

not responsible for any use that may be made of the

information it contains.

REFERENCES

Alotaibi, Y. (2016). Business process modelling challenges

and solutions: a literature review. Journal of Intelligent

Manufacturing, 27(4), 701-723.

Banerjee, M. (2014). Misalignment and its influence on

integration quality in multichannel services. Journal of

Service Research, 17(4), 460-474.

Bapat, D. (2017). Exploring the antecedents of loyalty in

the context of multi-channel banking. International

Journal of Bank Marketing.

Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of

competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the

resource-based view. Journal of management, 27(6),

643-650.

Beck, N., & Rygl, D. (2015). Categorization of multiple

channel retailing in Multi-, Cross-, and Omni Channel

Retailing for retailers and retailing. Journal of Retailing

and Consumer Services, 27, 170-178.

Berman, B., & Thelen, S. (2004). A guide to developing and

managing a well ‐ integrated multi ‐ channel retail

strategy. International Journal of Retail & Distribution

Management.

Blau, P. M. (1968). Social exchange. International

encyclopedia of the social sciences, 7, 452-457.

Branco, M. C., Xiong, Y., Czarnecki, K., Küster, J., &

Völzer, H. (2014). A case study on consistency

management of business and IT process models in

banking. Software & Systems Modeling, 13(3), 913-

940.

Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y. J., & Rahman, M. S. (2013).

Competing in the age of omnichannel retailing (pp. 1-

7). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Cao, L., & Li, L. (2015). The impact of cross-channel

integration on retailers’ sales growth. Journal of

Retailing, 91(2), 198-216.

Chan, C. M., & Pan, S. L. (2005, August). Intertwining

Offline and Online Channels In Multi-Channel Public

Service Delivery: A Case Study. In Academy of

Management Proceedings (Vol. 2005, No. 1, pp. C1-

C6). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of

Management.

Chatterjee, P. (2010). Causes and consequences of ‘order

online pick up in-store’shopping behavior. The

International Review of Retail, Distribution and

Consumer Research, 20(4), 431-448.

Chen, Y., Cheung, C. M. K., & Tan, C. W. (2018).

Omnichannel business research: Opportunities and

challenges. Decision Support Systems, 109, 1–4.

David, M., & Sutton, C. D. (2004). Social research: The

basics (Vol. 74, No. 3). Sage.

Dearnley, C. (2005). A reflection on the use of semi-

structured interviews. Nurse researcher, 13(1).

Dinner, I. M., Heerde Van, H. J., & Neslin, S. A. (2014).

Driving online and offline sales: The cross-channel

effects of traditional, online display, and paid search

advertising. Journal of marketing research, 51(5), 527-

545.

Doody, O., & Noonan, M. (2013). Preparing and

conducting interviews to collect data. Nurse researcher,

20(5).

Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique

form of theory building: Toward improved

understanding and modeling. Academy of management

review, 19(2), 230-251.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study

research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-

550.

Forrester (2014). Customer desires vs. retailer capabilities:

Minding the omni-channel commerce gap. Technical

report, Forrester Consulting.

Gao, F., & Su, X. (2017). Omnichannel retail operations

with buy-online-and-pick-up-in-store. Management

Science, 63(8), 2478-2492.

Glass, R. L., & Vessey, I. (1995). Contemporary

application-domain taxonomies. IEEE Software, 12(4),

63-76.

Hammerschmidt, M., Falk, T., & Weijters, B. (2016).

Channels in the mirror: An alignable model for

assessing customer satisfaction in concurrent channel

systems. Journal of Service Research, 19(1), 88-101.

Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic

resource‐based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic

management journal, 24(10), 997-1010.

Henkel, M., Bider, I., & Perjons, E. (2014, June).

Capability-based business model transformation. In

International Conference on Advanced Information

Systems Engineering (pp. 88-99). Springer, Cham.

Hossain, T. M. T., Akter, S., Kattiyapornpong, U., &

Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Multichannel integration

quality: A systematic review and agenda for future

research. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,

49, 154-163.

Hsieh, Y. C., Roan, J., Pant, A., Hsieh, J. K., Chen, W. Y.,

Lee, M., & Chiu, H. C. (2012). All for one but does one

strategy work for all?. Managing Service Quality: An

International Journal.

Iivari, J. (2007). A paradigmatic analysis of Information

Systems as a design science, forthcoming in

Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems. Draft

27p.

Inman, J.J. and Nikolova, H., 2017. Shopper-facing retail

technology: A retailer adoption decision framework

incorporating shopper attitudes and privacy concerns.

Journal of Retailing, 93(1), pp.7-28.

WUDESHI-DR 2020 - Special Session on User Decision Support and Human Interaction in Digital Retail

306

Jara, M., Vyt, D., Mevel, O., Morvan, T., & Morvan, N.

(2018). Measuring customers benefits of click and

collect. Journal of Services Marketing.

Juaneda-Ayensa, E., Mosquera, A., & Sierra Murillo, Y.

(2016). Omnichannel customer behavior: key drivers of

technology acceptance and use and their effects on

purchase intention. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 1117.

Keeling, K., Keeling, D., & McGoldrick, P. (2013). Retail

relationships in a digital age. Journal of Business

research, 66(7), 847-855.

Klaus, P., & Nguyen, B. (2013). Exploring the role of the

online customer experience in firms’ multi-channel

strategy: An empirical analysis of the retail banking

services sector. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 21(5),

429–442.

Krueger, R. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for

applied research. Sage publications.

Lazaris, C., & Vrechopoulos, A. (2014, June). From multi-

channel to “omnichannel” retailing: review of the

literature and calls for research. In 2nd International

Conference on Contemporary Marketing

Issues,(ICCMI) (Vol. 6).

Lee, H. H., & Kim, J. (2010). Investigating dimensionality

of multichannel retailer's cross-channel integration

practices and effectiveness: shopping orientation and

loyalty intention. Journal of Marketing Channels, 17(4),

281-312.

Lee, Z. W., Chan, T. K., Chong, A. Y. L., & Thadani, D. R.

(2019). Customer engagement through omnichannel

retailing: The effects of channel integration quality.

Industrial Marketing Management, 77, 90-101.

Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. J. (2006). A systems approach to

conduct an effective literature review in support of

information systems research. Informing Science, 9.

Lewis, J., Whysall, P., & Foster, C. (2014). Drivers and

technology-related obstacles in moving to multichannel

retailing. International Journal of Electronic

Commerce, 18(4), 43-68.

Li, Y., Liu, H., Lim, E. T. K., Goh, J. M., Yang, F., & Lee,

M. K. O. (2018). Customer’s reaction to cross-channel

integration in omnichannel retailing: The mediating

roles of retailer uncertainty, identity attractiveness, and

switching costs. Decision Support Systems, 109, 50–

60.

Madaleno, R., Wilson, H., & Palmer, R. (2007).

Determinants of customer satisfaction in a multi-

channel B2B environment. Total Quality Management

& Business Excellence, 18(8), 915-925.

Mata, F. J., Fuerst, W. L., & Barney, J. B. (1995).

Information technology and sustained competitive

advantage: A resource-based analysis. MIS quarterly,

487-505.

Mirsch, T., Lehrer, C., & Jung, R. (2016). Channel

integration towards omnichannel management: a

literature review.

Mullarkey, M. T., & Hevner, A. R. (2019). An elaborated

action design research process model. European

Journal of Information Systems, 28(1), 6-20.

Neslin, S. A., Grewal, D., Leghorn, R., Shankar, V.,

Teerling, M. L., Thomas, J. S., & Verhoef, P. C. (2006).

Challenges and opportunities in multichannel customer

management. Journal of service research, 9(2), 95-112.

Nickerson, R. C., Varshney, U., & Muntermann, J. (2013).

A method for taxonomy development and its

application in information systems. European Journal

of Information Systems, 22(3), 336-359.

Oh, L. B., Teo, H. H., & Sambamurthy, V. (2012). The

effects of retail channel integration through the use of

information technologies on firm performance. Journal

of operations management, 30(5), 368-381.

Pantano, E., & Viassone, M. (2015). Engaging consumers

on new integrated multichannel retail settings:

Challenges for retailers. Journal of Retailing and

Consumer Services, 25, 106-114.

Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation

methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage

publications.

Payne, E. M., Peltier, J. W., & Barger, V. A. (2017). Omni-

channel marketing, integrated marketing

communications and consumer engagement. Journal of

Research in Interactive Marketing.

Picot-Coupey, K., Huré, E., Piveteau, L., Towers, N., &

Kotzab, H. (2016). Channel design to enrich customers’

shopping experiences: synchronizing clicks with bricks

in an omni-channel perspective-the Direct Optic case.

International Journal of Retail & Distribution

Management.

Piotrowicz, W., & Cuthbertson, R. (2014). Introduction to

the Special Issue Information Technology in Retail:

Toward Omnichannel Retailing. International Journal

of Electronic Commerce, 18(4), 5–16.

Reinhartz-Berger, I., Soffer, P., & Sturm, A. (2010).

Extending the adaptability of reference models. IEEE

Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part

A: Systems and Humans, 40(5), 1045-1056.

Rigby, D. (2011). The future of shopping. Harvard business

review, 89(12), 65-76.

RSR (2013). Omni-channel 2013: The long road to

adoption

Saghiri, S., Wilding, R., Mena, C., & Bourlakis, M. (2017).

Toward a three-dimensional framework for omni-

channel. Journal of Business Research, 77, 53-67.

Seck, A. M., & Philippe, J. (2013). Service encounter in

multi-channel distribution context: virtual and face-to-

face interactions and consumer satisfaction. The

Service Industries Journal, 33(6), 565-579.

Shen, X. L., Li, Y. J., Sun, Y., & Wang, N. (2018). Channel

integration quality, perceived fluency and omnichannel

service usage: The moderating roles of internal and

external usage experience. Decision Support Systems,

109, 61-73.

Smirnov, S., Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., & Weske, M.

(2012). Action patterns in business process model

repositories. Computers in Industry, 63(2), 98-111.

Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2006). Service quality in

multichannel services employing virtual channels.

Journal of service research, 8(4), 356-371.

Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2014). Focus groups:

Theory and practice (Vol. 20). Sage publications.

Towards a Taxonomy for Buy Online Pick up in Store Service

307

Tremblay, M. C., Hevner, A. R., & Berndt, D. J. (2010).

Focus groups for artifact refinement and evaluation in

design research. Communications of the association for

information systems, 26(1), 27.

Trenz, M. (2015). The blurring line between electronic and

physical channels: Reconceptualising multichannel

commerce.

van der Aalst, W. M., Dumas, M., Gottschalk, F., Ter

Hofstede, A. H., La Rosa, M., & Mendling, J. (2010).

Preserving correctness during business process model

configuration. Formal Aspects of Computing, 22(3-4),

459-482.

Verhoef, P. C., Kannan, P. K., & Inman, J. J. (2015). From

multi-channel retailing to omni-channel retailing:

introduction to the special issue on multi-channel

retailing. Journal of retailing, 91(2), 174-181.

Weber, A., & Maier, E. (2020). Reducing Competitive

Research Shopping With Cross-Channel Delivery.

International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 24(1),

78-106.

White, R. C., Joseph-Mathews, S., & Voorhees, C. M.

(2013). The effects of service on multichannel retailers'

brand equity. Journal of Services Marketing.

Wu, J. F., & Chang, Y. P. (2016). Multichannel integration

quality, online perceived value and online purchase

intention. Internet Research.

Yong-zhi, Q. (2014). Empirical study on multi-channel

service quality and customer loyalty of retailers.

Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations

(JECO), 12(4), 1-12.

Yu, U. J., Niehm, L. S., & Russell, D. W. (2011). Exploring

perceived channel price, quality, and value as

antecedents of channel choice and usage in

multichannel shopping. Journal of Marketing Channels,

18(2), 79-102.

WUDESHI-DR 2020 - Special Session on User Decision Support and Human Interaction in Digital Retail

308