A Typology of Technology-Enhanced Tourism Experiences

A Typology of Technology-Enhanced Tourism Experiences

BARBARA NEUHOFER*, DIMITRIOS BUHALIS and ADELE LADKIN

Bournemouth University, eTourismLab, Poole, Dorset, UK

ABSTRACT

Experiences constitute the essence of the tourism industry. While the literature has recognized the recent impact of technology on experi-ences, its empirical exploration remains scarce. This study addresses the gap by empirically exploring five leading industry cases to generatea holistic understanding of technology-enhanced tourism experiences. The main contribution of this paper lies in the development of anine-field experience typology matrix based on the increasing intensity of co-creation and technology implementation. The final contribu-tion of this study is the development of an experience hierarchy and discussing its relevance for experience enhancement in tourism researchand practice. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 05 October 2012; Revised 02 April 2013; Accepted 04 June 2013

key words tourism experiences; co-creation; technology; best practice; case study; experience typology

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, consumers have been increasingly insearch of experiences (Pine and Gilmore, 1999). Due toits dynamic nature, the tourism experience is undergoingconstant change characterized by the growing importance ofconsumer involvement, co-creation and the implementationof technology. The strategic adoption of information andcommunication technologies (ICTs) in tourism per se is notnew (Buhalis, 1998). Tourism, as a service-intense industry,has gone for many decades hand in hand with technology andembraced the potential inherent in its latest developments(Buhalis and Law, 2008). However, what has changedsignificantly is that technology has not only become an integralpart of tourism but has also revolutionized the way travel isplanned (Buhalis, 2003), business is conducted (Buhalis andLicata, 2002) and tourism services and experiences are createdand consumed (Stamboulis and Skayannis, 2003). This hasopened new opportunities, challenges and potential in the field(Gretzel, Fesenmaier, Formica and O'Leary, 2006).

The integration of ICTs has particularly benefited thefacilitation of experiences. With new technologies beingdeveloped, new types of tourist activities are emerging thatcan both transform conventional experiences and result in theemergence of new types of tourism experiences. These new ex-periences, manifested as immersive virtual (Guttentag, 2010),augmented-reality (Yovcheva et al., 2013) or technology-medi-ated experiences, are predicted to be richer, more participatoryand facilitated through multiple media (Gretzel and Jamal,2009). In these experiences, technology can function either asa mediator or as the core experience itself (McCarthy andWright, 2004). Thus, Gretzel and Jamal (2009) question theexisting understanding of tourism experiences. It is necessaryto capture the current changes (Huang and Hsu, 2010), whereby

it is not the technological development itself but the integrationof technology into the experiences, which is of interest (Darmerand Sundbo, 2008). The existing literature however appears tohave insufficiently addressed these changes, as scholars stillreport a major gap in understanding the role of technology inexperiences (Beeton et al., 2006; Tussyadiah and Fesenmaier,2007). Many studies to date have discussed the impact of singletypes of technologies, such as the Internet, virtual worlds(Binkhorst and Den Dekker, 2009), blogs and microblogging(Wang and Fesenmaier, 2004) as well as social media andnetworking platforms (Fotis et al., 2011), while failing torecognize multiple technologies in transforming the nature oftourism experiences.

To date, only few studies have attempted to discusstourism experiences and the impact of technology from amore complete perspective. Neuhofer and Buhalis (2012)introduce the concept of technology-enhanced tourism ex-periences and provide a conceptualization for developingan integrated understanding of experiences by combiningthe elements of experiences, co-creation and technology.They argue that there is a major gap in researching, under-standing and managing technology-enhanced experiencesin tourism research and practice alike. Given theinsufficiencies in the literature and these recent claims, thisstudy aims to provide a first empirical exploration of thetechnology-enhanced tourism experience concept bymeans of a case study approach. This paper first providesa theoretical review of tourism experiences, co-creationand ICTs developments, followed by an outline of themethodological approach and the data collection processemployed. In conducting a cross-case analysis, the paperpresents findings in terms of level of co-creation andtechnology, allowing for a two-fold theoretical contribu-tion. It develops an experience typology matrix offering atool for categorisation in which the single cases arepinpointed and discussed. In developing the matrix further,an experience hierarchy is presented as a useful instrumentfor differentiation of four main levels of technology-enhanced tourism experiences.

*Correspondence to: Barbara Neuhofer, Bournemouth University,eTourismLab, Poole, Dorset, UK.E-mail: [email protected].

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

International Journal of Tourism Research, Int. J. Tourism Res., 16: 340–350 (2014)Published online 12 July 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.1958

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Tourism experience theoryExperiences constitute a renowned notion with multiple mean-ings inherent. According to Jennings et al. (2009), the termexperience is not novel for understanding human interactionswith people, space, products, services or cultures. The termexperience was first noted in the 1960s, and since then, therehas been a wide discussion of its meanings and understandingin the literature. The English word ‘experience’ can beunderstood as a neutral, vague and highly ambiguous term,which generally describes all kinds of things that a person hasever undergone (Aho, 2001). With its discussion in differentscientific disciplines, distinct definitions of an experience haveevolved over time (Caru and Cova, 2003). The sociologicaland psychological views coincide by portraying the experienceas a subjective and cognitive activity of an individual humanbeing (Larsen, 2007), in which knowledge and skills areacquired in the involvement in or exposure to a specific eventand the emotions, feelings and sensations triggered during thatexperience (Ismail, 2010). The emphasis on experience in tour-ism and marketing is relatively recent (Jennings et al., 2009).From a marketing perspective, experiences have been definedas a personal occurrence with highly emotional significanceobtained by the consumption of products and services(Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). In the context of tourism,experiences represent a complex construct, which has beenpostulated as distinct from everyday life experiences(MacCannell, 1973; Turner and Ash, 1975; Cohen, 1979).

Experiences have constituted an important concept intourism studies and the industry (Uriely, 2005) since theestablishment of early literature in the 1970s (e.g.MacCannell, 1973; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Cohen, 1979).This is because tourism is determined by a high level of inter-actions of the tourism system, its people and the individualhuman being as the tourist (e.g. Larsen, 2007). These interac-tions lead to the formation of individual tourist experiences(Mossberg, 2003), which are obtained at the moment ofvalue creation when tourism production and consumptionmeet (Andersson, 2007). The current body of literature con-firms the persistent relevance of this topic (Darmer andSundbo, 2008; Cutler and Carmichael, 2010; Morgan et al.,2010; Kim et al., 2011; Tung and Ritchie, 2011). Althougha lot of work has been dedicated to the theoretical advance-ment of experiences, further exploration is still needed(Ritchie and Hudson, 2009). Considering the dynamic natureof the tourism industry, experiences are subject to constantevolvement and change. Two of the most significantadvances in the area of experiences constitute the increasinglevel of co-creation and integration of ICTs.

Co-creation theoryCo-creation, defined as the ‘joint creation of value by thecompany and the customer’ (Prahalad and Ramaswamy,2004a, p.8) has become a key notion in experience creation.With consumers having become more powerful andactively involved, the traditional creation of experienceshas undergone a transformation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy,2004a). Until recently, tourism experiences were mainly

designed, created and staged as suggested by the principlesof the experience economy (Pine and Gilmore, 1999). Theprocess of staging and delivering experiences has widelybeen revised due to its business-oriented, one-directed andsuperficial nature. As consumers are more empowered,particularly since the emergence of the Internet, consumersare recognized in a more active role in the creation ofexperiences. The notion of co-creation builds on thesevery principles.

Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a), two of the first toestablish this concept, claim that experience creation is char-acterized by active consumers who play the primary part inco-creating their experiences. This movement has changedthe traditional roles between companies and consumers.Co-creation advocates the individual human being, ratherthan the company, as the starting point of the experience(Binkhorst and Den Dekker, 2009). Thus, it has become anessential task for companies to recognize consumers andtheir needs to co-create experiences and value together.Recently, this movement has been widely discussed in theliterature indicating the high relevance of co-creation experi-ences in both theory and practice (Vargo and Lusch, 2004;Huang and Hsu, 2010; Prebensen and Foss, 2011;Ramaswamy, 2011). In addition to the amount of studiesdiscussing co-creation experiences, authors have recognizedthe impact of ICTs as a major change of tourism experiences.With experiences being increasingly mediated by technology(Tussyadiah and Fesenmaier, 2007), the recent developmentsof ICTs in the tourism industry and tourism experiences arereviewed in subsequence.

Information and communication technologies: from Web1.0 to Web 2.0 social networksThere exists a great amount of ICTs available to potentiallyinfluence and enhance tourism experiences (Law et al.,2009). ICTs can generally be understood as a wide range oftechnologies including hardware, software, groupware,netware and humanware (Buhalis, 2003). These differentsystems are accumulated under the umbrella of ICTs,although distinctions between hardware equipment and soft-ware often blur (Werthner and Klein, 1999). The synergies ofthese systems build tools for communication and informationand render ICTs an integrated bundle of networked systems(Buhalis and Jun, 2011). Accordingly, Buhalis (2003, p. 7)defines ICTs as

the entire range of electronic tools, which facilitate theoperational and strategic management of organizationsby enabling them to manage their information, functionsand processes as well as to communicate interactivelywith their stakeholders for achieving their mission andobjectives.

The Internet, as the most important innovation since theprinting press (Hoffman, 2000), provides a technology thathas not only changed how individuals interact with eachother but has also altered the role of human beings in the so-ciety (Barwise et al., 2006). As such, it has impacted on thenature of the tourism industry like any other industry(Schmallegger and Carson, 2008) arguably as a determinant

Technology-Enhanced Tourism Experiences 341

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res., 16: 340–350 (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr

for the competitiveness of tourism organizations (Poon,1993; Sheldon, 1997; Buhalis, 1998). The development ofthe tourism industry has gone hand in hand with the progressof ICTs for more than three decades and shown a highinterest in the strategic exploitation of ICTs to manageinformation, enhance process efficiencies and communicatemore effectively (Law et al., 2009). ICTs have become keyelements in all operative, structural, strategic and marketinglevels to enable interactions among suppliers, intermediariesand consumers on a global basis (Buhalis and Law, 2008;Egger and Buhalis, 2008).

With the proliferation of the Internet, new forms of com-munication have appeared (Ramaswamy and Gouillart,2008). The shift from the Web 1.0 to the Web 2.0 and its in-herent social networking has been one of the most significanttechnological developments over the past few years (Sigala,2009; Xiang and Gretzel, 2010; Fotis et al., 2011; Dwivediet al., 2012; Hays et al., 2012). The variety of tools in theWeb 2.0 comprising blogs, videos, wikis, chat rooms orpodcasts have empowered individuals to generate contentand share experiences on an unprecedented scale(Tussyadiah and Fesenmaier, 2009). Encouraged by the in-teractive nature of the Web 2.0, users are enabled to take partin designing services with the company (Sigala, 2009) andinfluence the online reputation as well as branding of organi-zations around the world (Inversini et al., 2010). ICTs havehad enormous effects on the way in which the tourism expe-rience is created (Stamboulis and Skayannis, 2003;Tussyadiah and Fesenmaier, 2007). Although technologycan function in multiple roles as a creator, enhancer ordestroyer of the experience (Stipanuk, 1993), its integral partof many contemporary tourism experiences cannot beignored. In leading to more personalized, meaningful andintense co-creation experiences (Prahalad and Ramaswamy,2004a), the main interest of tourism subsequently lies inexploring the potential of ICTs, and particularly socialnetworking, as strategic instruments to positively enhancetourism experiences.

Enhancement of experiencesIn reviewing the advances in co-creation and technology, it ap-pears that both developments are critical potential contributorsto the enhancement of experiences. With increasing competi-tion in the domain of tourism experiences, the main potentialfor improvement will lie in the exploration of maximizing bothparameters of co-creation and technology. Numerous studieshave confirmed the opportunities in using ICTs to supportexperience co-creation in several different ways (Tussyadiahand Fesenmaier, 2007; Gretzel and Jamal, 2009; Tussyadiahand Fesenmaier, 2009). The latest technological advances,such as online booking tools or virtual tourist communities,mobile devices or virtual life, enable companies andconsumers to enhance experiences together. For instance, byadopting mobile devices on the move, tourists can constructnew experiences by attaching personal meaning to them(Gretzel and Jamal, 2009), whereas the use of social networksallows tourists to engage, communicate and co-create in theonline world. Interactive tourism organization websites andtheir social media presence moreover enable tourists to

personalize services and experiences by giving them the possi-bility to change settings, adapt to personal preferences and de-termine information for their specific needs and requirements.As a result, ICTs empower tourists and facilitate the co-crea-tion (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004a) of richer (Tussyadiahand Fesenmaier, 2007) and more personalized tourism experi-ences (Niininen et al., 2007; Sandström et al., 2008). Hence,technologies are not only altering current experiences but alsolead to new types of tourism experiences (Darmer and Sundbo,2008; Gretzel and Jamal, 2009).

The literature confirms the significance of ICTs in thetourism experience (Cho et al., 2002; Green, 2002;Mossberg, 2003; Gretzel, Fesenmaier and O'Leary, 2006;Huang et al., 2010). Yet, the majority of the existing workhas merely emphasized the impact or role of technologies(e.g. Binkhorst and Den Dekker, 2009), while theoreticaland empirical investigations remain scarce. This is exempli-fied by studies naming technologies influencing the tourismexperience, such as the Internet, virtual communities orSecond Life (Binkhorst and Den Dekker, 2009), socialnetworking platforms, blogs or microblogging such asTwitter (Wang and Fesenmaier, 2004), Facebook, YouTubeor Wikipedia (Ramaswamy, 2009) or virtual worlds and so-cial networking sites (Shaw et al., 2011). Empirical work todate has predominantly focused on the examination of spe-cific technologies in tourism experiences, such as media(Gretzel et al., 2011), mobile guides (Tussyadiah andFesenmaier, 2007), videos (Tussyadiah and Fesenmaier,2009) or smartphones (Wang et al., 2012). An explorationof experiences through the combination of co-creation andtechnology is however missing. Only recently, the concep-tual work by Neuhofer and Buhalis (2012) has raised theneed not only to recognize single technologies influencingthe tourism experience but also to develop a more holisticunderstanding. By unifying the three elements of the tour-ism experience, experience co-creation and multiple ICTs,technology-enhanced tourism experiences can emerge as anew framework for tourism research (Figure 1). This studytherefore aims to investigate this concept empirically andadopt a holistic perspective that seeks to understand thefollowing: (i) what types of technologies are used in theexperience; (ii) how does the increasing intensity oftechnology and co-creation determine the experience; (iii)what constitutes a technology-enhanced tourism experi-ence; and (iv) what levels of technology-enhanced tourismexperiences can be differentiated, by adopting a casestudy methodology.

METHODOLOGY

To understand how to create successful experiences, tourismproviders currently rely on best practice examples of theindustry (Binkhorst and Den Dekker, 2009). Although theconcept of best practice is generally vaguely defined, it hasbecome a popular term in business to describe leading indus-try cases as role models to increase success (Hallencreutz andTurner, 2011). Accordingly, best practice is understood asbusiness excellence in a particular benchmark, award

342 B. Neuhofer, D. Buhalis and A. Ladkin


DOI: 10.1002/jtr

winning, the most popular or widespread practice or anevidence for a success story (Todaro, 2002). Given the dearthof businesses creating technology-enhanced experiences inpractice, this study investigates outstanding tourism bestpractice companies to develop an empirically grounded un-derstanding of technology-enhanced tourism experiences.For this purpose, a case study approach is adopted, whichis particularly useful when exploring a contemporaryphenomenon within its real-life context for which multiplesources of evidence are needed (Yin, 2003b). The rationalefor using case studies moreover lies in its suitability as anideal methodology in both tourism (Gray and Campbell,2007) and field of information systems when technology isdynamic, changing and newly implemented (Pare, 2001).

To address this enquiry, the study favoured multiple oversingle case studies to examine the full complexity of the phe-nomenon and enhancing the generalizability of the theory topropose (Yin, 2003b). Purposive sampling was employed,which proved to be particularly suitable, as the goal was togain an in-depth understanding of what is taking place inthe particular context of tourism experiences. The main focusthereby lay on the ‘process rather than outcomes, in contextrather than a specific variable, in discovery rather than confir-mation’ (Merriam, 1998, p. 19). In terms of the number ofcases, the study followed Yin (2003a) who argues that thesample size represents a matter of judgmental choice.Whereas traditional sampling logic aims to yield representa-tiveness across the population, in case study logic, it is not alarge sample size but the number of cases determined by the-oretical saturation, which is critical (Yin, 2003a). For thecase selection, companies meeting a set of pre-definedcriteria were eligible to be included in the study, such asthe following: (i) to represent the context of the tourism

and hospitality industry and (ii) to represent a best practiceexample in showing evidence of successful current realiza-tion of technology-enhanced tourism experiences. In linewith Flyvbjerg (2011) who suggests a maximum variationof cases, organizations reflecting a distinct mix of character-istics were identified to allow for diverse perspectives and inturn increased generalizability of the results. Organizationswere researched online and identified on the basis of the pre-requisites for a total period of two months in autumn 2011. Inthis process, 17 suitable companies were contacted via emailand invited to participate in a workshop on the research topic.Due to geographical distance and unavailability on thespecific time or date, the recruitment process resulted in atotal number of five companies agreeing to participate in ahalf-day workshop in London, UK.

The selected cases encompass various industry sectors,including destination, restaurant and hospitality businessesand an online tourism platform. Each company wasrepresented by its top management, including founders,CEOs, general managers and departmental managers whoall showcased their respective approach to experience crea-tion to an expert audience of 25 people. The workshopstarted with an introductory presentation to set the scene forthe subject, followed by 30-minute company presentationsand an interactive discussion with the present audience.Informal interviews with the representatives followed toelicit key information about the company's background, rolein experience creation, rationale for ICTs use, specific ICTsuse in different travel stages, and potential customer valueas well as future plans for experience creation. As the majorstrength of case study research, multiple sources wereintegrated (Yin, 2003b) including documentary information,informal interviews and participant observation. Documentary

Figure 1. Framework technology-enhanced tourism experiences.



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

information, comprising company reports, business plans, pressreleases and conference presentations, fulfilled the purpose tounderstand the companies' efforts of experience enhancement.Informational interviews with the representatives allowed foran in-depth understanding of leading real-life cases, whereasdirect observations through visits to the case study sites and on-line spaces allowed getting a technology- enhanced experiencefirsthand. Through the use of multiple sources of evidence, richdata were obtained, and the construct validity could beenhanced significantly. In the analysis process, data weretriangulated, allowing for a convergence of evidence and across-case analysis by means of a qualitative template analysis(Miles and Huberman, 1994) to categorize findings on the basisof the conceptual framework presented above (Figure 1).Table 1 below summarizes the best practice companies, theirrespective industry sector and the rationale for the choice.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Having undertaken five case studies, this section presents thefindings of the study, offering two main contributions, anexperience typology matrix and an experience hierarchy. Morespecifically, the case studies uncover the role of technology inthe experience in terms of the following: (i) which types oftechnologies come into use; (ii) the intensity of technology inthe experience; and (iii) the intensity of technology for co-creation. On the basis of the five cases analyzed, types of tech-nology-enhanced tourism experiences are differentiated, and anine-field experience typology matrix is developed to graphi-cally pinpoint the respective experience types. This work takesthe discussion further and proposes an experience hierarchywithfour overall levels of experiences to provide a succinctunderstanding of technology-enhanced tourism experiences.

Technology in the experienceThe analysis of the technology utilized, as the instrumenttransforming a conventional tourism experience into a technol-ogy-enhanced experience, is critical. Despite a plethora oftechnologies mentioned in the literature, such as the Web 2.0,blogs, videos and social networking sites (Tussyadiah andFesenmaier, 2009), it was essential to explore what types ofICTs and how these are used by leading companies to enhanceexperiences in practice. Technologies range from interactivewebsites, interactive ordering systems (eTable technology) tointeractive mobile platforms (iPads), diverse social mediachannels (Facebook and Twitter) and mobile applications

(Destination Apps). The findings from the case studies hencereveal that different technologies come into use, indicating amultiplicity of possible technologies and varying technologicalintensity for experience enhancement.

Technology – intensity in the experienceThe findings from the cross-case analysis indicate the need todistinguish between two main types of technologies for expe-rience enhancement. In the first scenario, technology has thesupplementary role to support the tourism experience, whereasin the second scenario, technology constitutes the integral partof the experience in becoming the experience itself.

In the case of PixMeAway, the company takes the role of aninteractive online platform. PixMeAway is a picture-basedsearch engine that provides a new kind of travel inspiration,as consumers select appealing pictures, define their personaltravel type and receive destination suggestions matching theircriteria. In providing for a high interactivity, pictures and tripsuggestions, the platform provides an innovative way to en-hance the early stages of travel inspiration and planning andbecomes the experience itself. Similarly, the Inamo Restau-rant provides an example in which the technology is a corepart of the experience. The Inamo Restaurant has pioneeredin introducing a fully digitalized dining experience and inter-active ordering system. This system, developed by E-Table™,uses a combination of table touchpads and overhead projec-tion to allow customers to see the food and drinks menuprojected onto the table surface. The system further allowscustomers to change table clothes to the current mood andpreferences, watch their food being prepared in the kitchenthrough a webcam in real time, manage the waiter and bills,explore the local neighbourhood for activities afterwards ororder a cab home. By doing so, the restaurant providesthe physical technology (interactive tables) without whichthe unique dining experience could not occur, rendering thetechnology the central element of the experience creation.

Contrastingly, the three other best practice cases show apredominant focus on the core tourism experience. Technol-ogy takes on a complementary role, which can be used butdoes not constitute an integral part of the experience.VisitBritain, Sol Meliá and Hotel Lugano Dante representexamples in which the destination, the hotel product, serviceand experience offered remain the core function. If the touristchooses to, technology can become part of the experiencethrough active involvement, social media engagement pre/during/post travel, provision of personalized information oruse of mobile applications on-site. The extent to which

Table 1. Case study outline

Case Nr. Company Industry sector Rationale choice

1 PixMeAway Web 2.0 Picture-based search and recommendation engine for travel inspiration2 Inamo Restaurant Hospitality Interactive ordering system for a digital dining experience3 VisitBritain Destination Engagement and experience co-creation through social networking

and mobile applications4 Hotel Lugano Dante Hospitality Mobile Happy Guest Relationship Management tool for experience

personalization5 Sol Meliá Hotels Hospitality Engagement and one-to-one co-creation through social networking



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

technology is used to engage and co-create with the companyis defined by the tourist at discretion. The more engagementtourists have with the technologies and platforms, the richertheir physical experience can be. As a result of the differenceto the above mentioned examples with technology being thecentre of the experience, in these cases, the experience variesfrom a lightly technology-assisted to a strongly technology-empowered experience in the pre-travel, during travel andpost-travel stages. This means that it is not sufficient torecognize technology as a generic facilitator of the experience.Rather, there is a clear need to differentiate technology in termsof core or supplementary element of the experience. In additionto examining the intensity of different types of technologies,it is equally important to shed light on the intensity oftechnology-facilitated co-creation in the experience.

Technology – intensity of co-creationThe case studies reveal that all technologies identified sharethe characteristic of a high level of interactivity. InteractiveICTs adopted allow tourists to interact, engage and act withthe different stakeholders, such as the company, membersof staff, other consumers, destination resources or the overallexperience space. Interactivity and social engagement on dif-ferent levels appear to be a key requirement of technologiesused for the enhancement of experiences. For instance, thewebsite of PixMeAway allows consumers to interact withthe interface, select appealing travel motifs, the traveller typeand define their travel personality, on the basis of whichrelevant destinations are suggested.

The case of the hospitality context shows that mobileplatforms can come into play to facilitate and enhance thelevel of interaction between the company and the guestthroughout the entire hotel experience. Hotel Lugano Dantehas developed a unique concept called HGRM, Happy GuestRelationship Management. This system, which is accessible toall staff through a mobile platform, enables the company toamalgamate all interactions of staff and guests on one levelthroughout the whole guest's journey, before, during andafter the stay. Guests provide personal information and pref-erences, such as room temperature, favourite beverages,preferred newspapers and so on, whereas members of staffretrieve this specific information. By accessing the platformon a mobile device, the hotel and guests co-create throughexchanging information in real time, which are used tofacilitate encounters on multiple touch points. This leadsto more personalized interactions, more valuable serviceencounters and on overall enhanced experience for theguest. In a similar vein, the case of Inamo Restaurant con-firms that technology constitutes an important instrumentto allow for customer-centric co-creation of the experience.The eTable technology enables guests to adapt the colourscheme of the electronic table cloths, control the diningexperience, manage the ordering process, waiters and billsand discover the local area. These examples demonstrate thattechnology constitutes an essential part of a co-created experiencebetween the restaurant, hotel and its guests.

Besides using technology for enhancing co-creationbetween companies and customers, the findings from thecase studies indicate that technology is also used to facilitate

customer-to-customer co-creation. In the cases of Sol Meliáand VisitBritain, technology in the form of social mediacomes into play. For instance, VisitBritain engages a largenumber of tourists, fans and followers from all around theworld throughout all stages, pre-travel, during travel andpost-travel. By doing so, they build relationships betweenoverseas tourists and UK visitor attractions as well as allowtourists to engage among themselves to commonly co-createa digital global guest book on social media. Moreover, themobile application Top 50 UK Places is a best practiceexample of customer-to-customer co-creation. According toVisitBritain, customer involvement has become paramount,and the mobile application 50 UK Places reflects this trendby ranking popular attractions purely on tourists' check-insin Facebook places. Tourists are also encouraged to generatecontent in terms of photography and videos and share themwith others through the LoveUK Flickr and Facebook plat-forms. This enables the organization to show the destinationthrough the eye of the real customer. In this way VisitBritainsteps back in its role as the dominant experience provider, itplaces the control in the hands of the consumers, who areencouraged to co-create the experience among each other.

Furthermore, the case of Sol Meliá reveals how to use the in-creasing power of theWeb 2.0 and social media to create activeconversations with and among customers. By exploiting the fullpotential of the collective space of theWeb 2.0 and social media(Sigala, 2009), Sol Meliá can be considered as an industryleader in guest engagement by developing a system calledME Ecosystem. Unlike most examples advocating the needfor company-to-customer or customer-to-customer co-creation,this system extends co-creation to a one-to-one basis on alllevels. The ME Ecosystem allows for a person-to-personengagement through encouraging a circle of wide-ranging inter-actions between single members of staff of Sol Meliá, includingmanagers, employees, guests and twitter followers who are allinterconnected and conjointly co-creating the tourism experi-ence. Through the use of diverse social media and mobileapplications, such as Facebook, Twitter and location-basedservices, they advocate that interaction must take place not onlybetween consumers and the company as an entity but rather ona personal level where all people related to Sol Meliá areinterconnected and encouraged to co-create among themselves.In the destination and hospitality context, this unifies peoplewho advocate, have already visited, are planning to or arecurrently visiting the respective destination, hotel or attraction.

The cross-analysis of the different cases leads to thesuggestion that technology is revolutionizing experiencecreation by offering a high level of interactivity, personaliza-tion and social engagement. This is in line with literature, suchas Gretzel, Fesenmaier and O'Leary (2006) who argue thatconsumers today expect marketers to provide personalizedand customized experiences by meeting the latest technologi-cal standards. In this context, social media, such as Facebook,YouTube, Twitter or Flickr, play a central role in empoweringfor enhanced levels of interactions among multiple parties.Fotis et al. (2011) confirm the importance of social mediathroughout the entire journey as a platform for tourismproviders and tourist consumers to engage, interact and shareexperiences (Dwivedi et al., 2012).



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Experience typology matrixThe findings from the five cases indicate varying intensitiesof technology and co-creation in experiences, leading tovarying types of technology-enhanced tourism experiences.The cases have revealed that technology unquestionably repre-sents a central element in the enhancement of experiences.However, what differs is the intensity of technology and co-creation, which determines the nature of a particular experience.On the basis of the peculiarities of the experiences analyzed, thiswork highlights that there is not one single technology-enhancedtourism experience but the need to take a more differentiatedview. In drawing from the literature and analysing the cases, thisstudy establishes an experience typology matrix, classifyingnine major types of experiences, shown in Figure 2. The matrixcontains two axes, namely intensification of co-creation (verticalaxis) and intensification of technology (horizontal axis). Thevertical axis recognizes three levels of co-creation includingcompany-centric staging, company–consumer co-creation andmultiplier co-creation. The horizontal axis comprises threelevels of technology, including low technology use, technologyuse to enhance the experience and technology as the core of theexperience. Consequently, these varying intensities lead to thecombination of a nine-field experience typology matrix.

In analysing the characteristics of the five case studies, itwas found that all cases can be located in the four upper rightfields (5, 6, 8, 9) reflecting a high intensity of technology andco-creation, respectively. This work, in attempting to offer aholistic perspective, also embraces the lower ends of the axesand discusses nine fields to provide for a complete under-standing of traditional (light grey fields) and new enhanced(dark grey fields) tourism experiences.

1–4, 7: Traditional Tourism Experience: These experi-ences, found on the lower end of the continuum, arecharacterized by limited levels of technology and co-creation. Examining the horizontal axis, these includestaged experiences, as prevalent in the experience economy(Pine and Gilmore, 1998), which are determined by acompany-centric experience delivery with technology facil-itation to different extents (see fields 1, 4, 7). The verticalaxis represents co-creation experiences, as proposed byPrahalad and Ramaswamy (2004b), reflecting an increasinglevel of co-creation between companies and consumers aswell as among consumer communities, whereas technologyplays a minor role in facilitating these processes.

5: Technology-Enhanced Co-creation Experience.Hotel Lugano Dante can be associated with this typeof experience as the HGRM platform is used as animportant instrument to enhance the core hotelexperience. Enhanced co-creation thereby predomi-nantly occurs on a company–consumer level. Byallowing for a high level of guest involvement, it isdistinct from a technology-enhanced staged experience(4) in which a company uses technology to assist thedelivery of staged experiences.

6: Technology-Enhanced Multiplier Co-creation Experi-ence. Sol Meliá represents this type of experience due toits use of social networking technologies to facilitateco-creation with multiple stakeholders, including thetourist consumer, the hotel, single members of staff andother guests as well as followers and fans online. By

Figure 2. Experience typology matrix: linking technology and co-creation.



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

doing so, a multiplier effect of co-creation throughtechnology is achieved, making it distinct from atechnology-enhanced co-creation experience (5).

8: Co-created Technology Experience. Inamo Restaurantand PixMeAway facilitate this type of experiencecreation. Technology constitutes the core element of theexperience, whereas co-creation is provided throughpersonalization and interaction with the company. Thismakes it distinct from a staged technology experience(7), in which technology is merely functional and lacksin the characteristic co-creation elements, such as tradi-tional booking platforms or reservation systems.

9: Technology-Empowered Multiplier Experience. Thisexperience type requires technology as the core part ofthe experience while allowing for a multiplier level ofco-creation. VisitBritain represents a highly intense expe-rience on both levels of technology and co-creation.Although technology itself is not the core part of the expe-rience, the pervasive implementation of different socialengagement channels and mobile applications throughoutall three stages of travel renders VisitBritain close to afully technology-empowered multiplier experience.

Experience hierarchyThe experience typology matrix provides a useful tool fortourism practice to analyse and identify both the type ofexperience they currently provide and they plan to providein the future. Most importantly, it allows them to understandwhich specific parameters need to be improved to enhancethe experience further and in turn create higher value forthe tourist. It is necessary to obtain a complete view andcapture experience types on both the lower and the higherend of the experience continuum. Although the analyzed bestpractice cases represent the highest level of experiences, themajority of tourism organizations, whether hotels, destina-tions or airlines, yet have to achieve the full potential ofco-creation (Binkhorst and Den Dekker, 2009) and ICTs ap-plication (Buhalis and Wagner, 2013). In seeking to developthe matrix further and make it more valuable for tourism the-ory and practice, this work develops an experience hierarchy(Figure 3). This hierarchy, like with any technology adoptionhierarchy, provides a major theoretical contribution in that itdepicts four overarching levels of experiences in terms oftechnology and respective increase of co-creation. Theselevels include the following:

• Conventional experience (1)• Technology-assisted experience (2)• Technology-enhanced experience (3)• Technology-empowered experience (4)

(1) Conventional experience

The first experience level represents the conventionaltourism experience, which is widely known in tourismresearch and practice, as experience mainly associated with

the experience economy (Pine and Gilmore, 1998). This typeof experience is characterized by a mostly one-directionalcreation and delivery of the experience by the company.Accordingly, the consumer's level of involvement in thecreation of the experience remains low and only occurs atthe consumption limit of the experience. The adoption andintegration of technology at this level is non-existentor restricted. As such, experiences lacking technologyfacilitation provide tourists with the basic value propositionalthough much potential for connecting, engaging and co-creating the experience is still to be exploited. Given thelimited realization of technology and co-creation of experi-ences in the tourism industry (Binkhorst and Den Dekker,2009), this experience level still represents one of the mostcommon types of tourism experiences in practice.

(2) Technology-assisted experienceTechnology-assisted experiences need to be understood

as experiences with increasing implementation of technol-ogy. At this level, technologies mainly provide a facilitat-ing role of the tourism experience in assisting theconsumer to access websites and booking systems anduse mail and technologies for communication. This experi-ence is characterized by Web 1.0 technologies, such asnon-interactive websites, distribution systems and reserva-tions systems among many technological applications(Buhalis and Jun, 2011), which are useful in assisting thetourism experience while however not allowing for touriststo interact or to co-create their experiences. With customerengagement and co-creation remaining relatively low, thisexperience has mostly been prevalent prior to the adventof the Web 2.0 and social media.

(3) Technology-enhanced experienceTechnology-enhanced experiences succeed the technol-

ogy-assisted experience in taking advantage of technologiesavailable in the Web 2.0 to make consumers actively partic-ipate and shape the creation of their experiences. Consumersuse social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr orTripAdvisor, to interact with organizations, use reviewsites, comment and use media to share their experiences(Tussyadiah and Fesenmaier, 2009). Characterized by theinteractivity of Web 2.0 technologies, the level of customerinvolvement in the experience is high, rendering theexperience creation a dynamic process between the com-pany, the tourist consumer and other consumers. Consideringthe potential of social networking tools to enhance co-creation, the levels of co-creation can be intensified inmultiple spaces and between multiple parties resulting in ahigher value for the tourist.

(4) Technology-empowered experienceIn considering both the literature and the findings

highlighted in this work, it is evident that successful experi-ences incorporate high levels of technology and co-creation.In contrast to technology-assisted and technology-enhancedexperiences, in which technology plays a supporting role,the fourth level of experience is characterized by a strongcombination of both elements of technology empowering



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

and being an integral part of the experience. At this level,technology needs to exist for the experience to happen. Themain difference to other experiences is that technology ispervasive throughout all stages of travel, service encountersand touch points in the physical tourism destination or onlinespace with multiple stakeholders. In taking full advantage ofthe plethora of different ICTs available, technology becomesthe key element and epitome of an innovative contemporarytourism experience.

Given that staged experiences generate high value for con-sumers (Pine and Gilmore, 1999) and co-creation yields highervalue for consumers (Binkhorst and Den Dekker, 2009), theconsumer value through technology empowerment can bemaximized. This argument is substantiated in the literature thatthe implementation of ICTs enhances experiences (Arnold andGeser, 2008), as it allows for active participation (Prahalad andRamaswamy, 2004a), customization and personalization of theexperience (Niininen et al., 2007), provides more satisfactiondue to access and availability of services (Law et al., 2009)and creates more meaningful interrelations between theconsumer and the experience environment (Binkhorst andDen Dekker, 2009). This work thus highlights the technol-ogy-empowered experience as the most distinct and valuableexperience, which can be achieved by integrating immersivetechnological solutions to allow the tourist to become highlyinvolved, actively participate and co-create with multiplestakeholders throughout all stages of travel.

This classification suggests that the integration of ICTsleads to enhanced experiences and an increase of value.Considering the difficulty to create the highest levels of expe-riences and their limited evidence in practice to date, it can beargued that the numbers of companies realizing high-levelexperiences are still low. However, with technologicaldevelopments and the penetration of ICTs to everyday life,especially for young generations, it is evident that tourismorganizations will be progressing through the different levelsin the hierarchy and gradually integrate technology to allaspects of their business for the enhancement of experiences.As the constant increase of value for the tourist is the utmostpriority in experience creation, it is crucial for tourismorganizations to evaluate their current experience and value

created in seeking to progress to the next level. In thisprocess, ICTs will play the key role. Emerging technologicaldevelopments, such as near field communications, SoLoMo,augmented reality and gaming will provide a range of inno-vative technologies that will drive more adoption of technol-ogy for the creation of fully technology-empoweredexperiences. The contribution of this hierarchy is that itprovides a valuable instrument for company experiencesand competitiveness, as to understand the current and futureexperience levels and value propositions alike.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Technology is significantly changing the tourism experience.The notion of technology enhancing the tourism experienceis not new; however, a holistic understanding on both a con-ceptual and empirical level represents a major gap. In con-ceptually building on the framework of technology-enhancedtourism experiences by Neuhofer and Buhalis (2012), this isthe first study to take an integrated approach of convergingtechnology and co-creation in experiences and exploring thisconcept empirically. The findings from the case studies revealthat technology and co-creation are both key parameters toallow for the development of enhanced experiences.Depending on the relative intensity of these elements, thework has concluded not only to recognize one single technol-ogy-enhanced experience but also to differentiate betweenseveral types of technology-enhanced experiences. In this,the work makes two main contributions. This study has devel-oped an experience typology matrix, which by recognizing thedifferentiation between nine types of experiences, provides foran understanding of co-creation and technology and how theintensification of these two lead to technology-enhanced expe-riences. By advancing the matrix conceptually, the secondmain contribution is an experience typology hierarchy, whichdistinguishes four main levels of experiences to provide auseful instrument for companies to understand their currentexperience position and prospective experience levels to beachieved.

Figure 3. Experience hierarchy.



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

This study is novel in having undertaken a first empiricalexploration of technology-enhanced tourism experiencesleading to critical implications for both tourism theory andpractice. Theoretically, it provides four main contributionsto our current understanding of experiences. It has (i) pro-vided a first empirical investigation into technology-en-hanced tourism experiences, (ii) analyzed leading cases tounderstand different types of experiences, (iii) developed anexperience typology matrix and an experience typology hier-archy and (iv) empirically as well as conceptually developedthe highly needed understanding of technology-enhanced ex-periences in the context of tourism. From a managerial per-spective, a number of implications emerge from this studyfor the creation and enhancement of tourism experiencesthrough invaluable insights into leading best practice exam-ples of the tourism industry. This provides a critical practicalunderstanding of how experience leaders are realizing tech-nology-enhanced experiences. For tourism companies, thisknowledge is crucial as to (i) understand leading examplesand understand why these create enhanced and high-valueexperiences, (ii) assess the own experience proposition bymeans of the matrix, (iii) understand unexploited potentialand (iv) maximize the experience enhancement through theintensification of technology and co-creation. This allowscompanies that are not yet fully embracing technology-en-hanced tourism experiences to evaluate their own positionand advance their competitive advantage.

In presenting a first empirical exploration of the technology-enhanced tourism experiences concept, this work hopes tostimulate further research in the area. In advocating a holisticapproach, it is suggested that further research is needed tocomplement this study with a consumer perspective. Thiscould provide further implications for companies through thisknowledge to facilitate technology-enhanced experiences.Further research is needed to (i) expand on the theoreticalcontributions of this research and apply both the experiencematrix and hierarchy, (ii) strengthen and validate the findingswith further studies and (iii) extend the scientific discourseemerging in this area both conceptually and empirically.

REFERENCES

Aho SK. 2001. Towards a general theory of touristic experiences:modelling experience process in tourism. Tourism Review 56(3/4): 33–37.

Andersson TD. 2007. The tourist in the experience economy.Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 7(1): 46–58.

Arnold DB, Geser G. 2008. The EPOCH research agenda for theapplications of ICTs to cultural heritage Excellence in Process-ing Open Cultural Heritage. In: Archaeolingua, Budapest,

Barwise P, Elberse A, Hammond K. 2006. Marketing and theInternet. In Weitz B, Wensley R (eds). Handbook of Marketing.Sage Publications Inc: Thousand Oaks, CA; 527–557.

Beeton S, Bowen HE, Santos CA. 2006. State of knowledge: massmedia and its relationship to perceptions of quality. In JenningsG, Nickerson NP (eds). Quality Tourism Experiences. ElsevierButterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.

Binkhorst E, Den Dekker T. 2009. Agenda for co-creation tourismexperience research. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Man-agement 18(2/3): 311–327.

Buhalis D. 1998. Strategic use of information technologies in thetourism industry. Tourism Management 19(5): 409–421.

Buhalis D. 2003. eTourism: Information Technology for StrategicTourism Management. Prentice Hall: Harlow, UK.

Buhalis D, Jun SH. 2011. E-tourism. Contemporary Tourism Reviews[Online]. Available from: http://www.goodfellowpublishers.com/free_files/fileEtourism.pdf [Accessed 10 October 2012].

Buhalis D, Law R. 2008. Progress in information technology andtourism management. 20 years on and 10 years after the internet.The state of eTourism research. Tourism Management 29(4):609–623.

Buhalis D, Licata MC. 2002. The future eTourism intermediaries.Tourism Management 23(3): 207–220.

Buhalis D, Wagner R. 2013. E-destinations: global best practice intourism technologies and application. In Cantoni L, Xiang Z(eds). Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism2012. Springer Verlag: Austria; 119–130.

Caru A, Cova B. 2003. Revisiting consumption experience.Market-ing Theory 3(2): 267–286.

Cho Y-H, Wang Y, Fesenmaier DR. 2002. The Web-based virtualtouri in tourism marketing. Journal of Travel & TourismMarketing 12(4): 1–17.

Cohen E. 1979. A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology13(2): 179–201.

Csikszentmihalyi M. 1975. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: The Ex-perience of Play in Work and Games. Jossey-Bass Publishers:San Francisco.

Cutler SQ, Carmichael B. 2010. The dimensions of the tourist expe-rience. In Morgan M, Lugosi P, Ritchie JRB (eds). The Tourismand Leisure Experience: Consumer and Managerial Perspec-tives. Channel View Publications: Bristol; 3–26.

Darmer P, Sundbo J. 2008. Introduction to experience creation. InSundbo J, Darmer P (eds). Creating Experiences in theExperience Economy. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham; 1–12.

Dwivedi M, Yadav A, Venkatesh U. 2012. Use of social media bynational tourism organizations: a preliminary analysis. Informa-tion Technology and Tourism 13(2): 93–103.

Egger R, Buhalis D. 2008. eTourism Case Studies: Managementand Marketing Issues. Elsevier Ltd: Burlington.

Flyvbjerg B. 2011. Case study. In Norman K, Denzin N, Lincoln Y(eds). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, (4th edn).Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA; 301–316.

Fotis J, Buhalis D, Rossides N. 2011. Social media impact onholiday travel planning: the case of the Russian and the FSUmarkets. International Journal of Online Marketing 1(4): 1–19.

Gray NJ, Campbell LM. 2007. A decommodified experience? Explor-ing aesthetic, economic and ethical values for volunteer ecotourismin Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(5): 463–482.

Green N. 2002. On the Move: technology, mobility, and the medi-ation of social time and space. The Information Society 18(4):281–292.

Gretzel U, Jamal T. 2009. Conceptualizing the creative tourist class:technology, mobility, and tourism experiences. Tourism Analy-sis 14(4): 471–481.

Gretzel U, Fesenmaier DR, Formica S, O'Leary JT. 2006. Searchingfor the future: challenges faced by destination marketing organi-zations. Journal of Travel Research 45(2): 116–126.

Gretzel U, Fesenmaier DR, O'Leary JT. 2006. The transformation ofconsumer behaviour. In Buhalis D, Costa C (eds). TourismBusiness Frontiers: Consumers, Products and Industry. Elsevier:Oxford; 9–18.

Gretzel U, Fesenmaier DR, Lee Y-J, Tussyadiah I. 2011. Narratingtravel experiences: the role of new media. In Sharpley R, Stone P(eds). Tourist Experiences: Contemporary Perspectives.Routledge: New York; 171–182.

Guttentag D. 2010. Virtual reality: applications and implication fortourism. Tourism Management 31(5): 637–651.

Hallencreutz J, Turner DM. 2011. Exploring organizational changebest practice: Are there any clear-cut models and definitions? In-ternational Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 3(1): 60–68.



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

http://www.goodfellowpublishers.com/free_files/fileEtourism.pdf

http://www.goodfellowpublishers.com/free_files/fileEtourism.pdf

Hays S, Page SJ, Buhalis D. 2012. Social media as a destinationmarketing tool: its use by national tourism organisations.Current Issues in Tourism 16(3): 211–239.

Hoffman D. 2000. The revolution will not be televised: introductionto the special issue on marketing science and the Internet. Mar-keting Science 19(10): 1–3.

Holbrook MB, Hirschman EC. 1982. The experiential aspects ofconsumption - consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journalof Consumer Research 9(2): 132–140.

Huang J, Hsu CHC. 2010. The impact of customer-to-customerinteraction on cruise experience and vacation satisfaction.Journal of Travel Research 49(1): 79–92.

Huang Y-C, Backman SJ, Backman KF. 2010. The impacts ofvirtual experiences on people's travel intentions. In Gretzel U,Law R, Fuchs M (eds). ENTER 2010. Springer-Verlag: Lugano,Switzerland.

Inversini A, Cantoni L, Buhalis D. 2010. Destinations informationcompetitors and Web reputation. Information Technology andTourism 11: 221–234.

Ismail AR. 2010. Investigating British customers’ Experience toMaximize Brand Loyalty Within the Context of Tourism inEgypt: Netnography & Structural Modelling Approach. Doctorof Philosophy in Marketing: Brunel University.

Jennings G, Lee YS, Ayling A, Lunny B, Cater C, Ollenburg C. 2009.Quality tourism experiences: reviews, reflections, research agendas.Journal of Hospitality Marketing&Management 18(2-3): 294–310.

Kim JH, Ritchie JRB, McCormick B. 2011. Development of a scaleto measure memorable tourism experiences. Journal of TravelResearch 51(1): 12–25.

Larsen S. 2007. Aspects of a psychology of the tourist experience.Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 7(1): 7–18.

LawR, Leung R, Buhalis D. 2009. Information technology applicationsin hospitality and tourism: a review of publications from 2005 to2007. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 26(5-6): 559–623.

MacCannell D. 1973. Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space intourist settings. The American Journal of Sociology 79(3): 589–603.

McCarthy JC, Wright PC. 2004. Technology as Experience. MITPress: Cambridge, MA.

Merriam SB. 1998. Qualitative research and case study applicationsin education. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco.

Miles MB, Huberman AM. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: AnExpanded Sourcebook. (2nd edn). Sage Publications: London.

Morgan M, Lugosi P, Ritchie JRB. 2010. The Tourism and LeisureExperience: Consumer and Managerial Perspectives. ChannelView: Bristol.

Mossberg L. 2003. Att skapa upplevelser: från OK till WOW.Studentliteratur: Lund.

Neuhofer B, Buhalis D. 2012. Understanding andmanaging technology-enabled enhanced tourist experiences. In: The 2nd Advances inHospitality and Tourism Marketing & Management, June, Corfu.

Niininen O, Buhalis D, March R. 2007. Customer empowerment intourism through consumer centric marketing (CCM). QualitativeMarket Research: An International Journal 10(3): 265–281.

Pare G. 2001. Using a positivist case study methodology to buildand test theories in information systems: illustrations from fourexemplary studies. Available from: http://www2.hec.ca/gresi/documents/cahier0109.pdf.

Pine JB, Gilmore JH. 1998. Welcome to the experience economy.Harvard Business Review 76(4): 97.

Pine JB, Gilmore JH. 1999. The Experience Economy: Work is aTheatre and Every Business a Stage. Harvard Business School:Cambridge.

Poon A. 1993. Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies.CAB International: Wallingford, UK.

Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V. 2004a. Co-creation experiences: thenext practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing18(3): 5–14.

Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V. 2004b. The Future of Competition:Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers. Harvard BusinessSchool Press: Boston.

Prebensen NK, Foss L. 2011. Coping and co-creating in touristexperiences. International Journal of Tourism Research 13:54–67.

Ramaswamy V. 2009. Co-creation of value – towards an expandedparadigm of value creation. Marketing Review St. Gallen 26(6):11–17.

Ramaswamy V. 2011. It's about human experiences…..and beyond,to co-creation. Industrial Marketing Management 40(2):195–196.

Ramaswamy V, Gouillart F. 2008. Co-Creating Strategy with Expe-rience Co-Creation.

Ritchie JRB, Hudson S. 2009. Understanding and meeting the chal-lenges of customer/tourist experience research. InternationalJournal of Tourism Research 11: 111–126.

Sandström S, Edvardsson B, Kristensson P, Magnusson P. 2008.Value in use through service experience. Managing ServiceQuality 18(2): 112–126.

Schmallegger D, Carson D. 2008. Blogs in tourism: changingapproaches to information exchange. Journal of VacationMarketing 14(2): 99–110.

Shaw G, Bailey A, Williams AM. 2011. Service dominant logic andits implications for tourism management: the co-production ofinnovation in the hotel industry. Tourism Management 32(2):207–214.

Sheldon P. 1997. Tourism Information Technologies. CAB:Oxford.

Sigala M. 2009. E-service quality and Web 2.0: expanding qualitymodels to include customer participation and inter-customersupport. Service Industries Journal 29(10): 1341–1358.

Stamboulis Y, Skayannis P. 2003. Innovation strategies and tech-nology for experience-based tourism. Tourism Management 24(1): 35–43.

Stipanuk DM. 1993. Tourism and technology: interactions andimplications. Tourism Management 14(4): 267–278.

Todaro JB. 2002. Change for the right reason: What is a bestpractice? Community & Junior College Libraries 11(1): 27–36.

Tung VWS, Ritchie JRB. 2011. Exploring the essence of memora-ble tourism experiences. Annals of Tourism Research 38(4):1367–1386.

Turner L, Ash J. 1975. The Golden Hordes. Constable: London.Tussyadiah IP, Fesenmaier DR. 2007. Interpreting Tourist Experi-

ences from First-Person Stories: A Foundation for MobileGuides. In: 15th European Conference on Information Systems,St. Gallen, Switzerland.

Tussyadiah I P, Fesenmaier DR. 2009. Mediating the tourist experi-ences access to places via shared videos. Annals of TourismResearch 36(1): 24-40.

Uriely N. 2005. The tourist experience: conceptual developments.Annals of Tourism Research 32(1): 199–216.

Vargo SL, Lusch RF. 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic formarketing. Journal of Marketing 68(January): 1–17.

Wang Y, Fesenmaier DR. 2004. Towards understanding mem-bers' general participation in and active contribution to anonline travel community. Tourism Management 25(6):709–722.

Wang D, Park S, Fesenmaier DR. 2012. The role of smartphones inmediating the touristic experience. Journal of Travel Research51(4): 371–387.

Werthner H, Klein S. 1999. Information Technology and Tourism:A Challenging Relationship. Springer: Vienna.

Xiang Z, Gretzel U. 2010. Role of social media in online travelinformation search. Tourism Management 31(2): 179–188.

Yin RK. 2003a. Applications of Case Study Research, (2nd edn).Sage Publications: London.

Yin RK. 2003b. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, (3rdedn). Sage Publications: London.

Yovcheva Z, Buhalis D, Gatzidis C. 2013. Engineering augmentedtourism experiences. In Cantoni L, Xiang Z (eds). Informationand Communication Technologies in Tourism 2012. SpringerVerlag: Austria; 24–35.



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

http://www2.hec.ca/gresi/documents/cahier0109.pdf

http://www2.hec.ca/gresi/documents/cahier0109.pdf

Documents

A Typology of Technology-Enhanced Tourism Experiences