=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3239/paper17
|storemode=property
|title=AI chatbots sociotechnical research: An overview and future directions
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3239/paper17.pdf
|volume=Vol-3239
|authors=Lorentsa Gkinko,Amany Elbanna
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/stpis/GkinkoE22
}}
==AI chatbots sociotechnical research: An overview and future directions==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3239/paper17.pdf
AI Chatbots sociotechnical research: An overview and Future
Directions
Lorentsa Gkinko 1, Amany Elbanna 2
1
Royal Holloway University of London, TW20 0EX, Egham, UK
2
Royal Holloway University of London, TW20 0EX, Egham, UK
Abstract
AI chatbots present a specific class of AI systems. They are conversational, personalized and
exhibit social presence to users. Their adoption and use in the workplace is increasing. This
study provides a systematic literature review of the state of art publications on the collaboration
of AI chatbots in the workplace and paves the way for potential new areas of research in the IS
field. The review includes not only journals but also conference proceedings. There are three
themes that emerged from our literature review namely value co-creation, ethics and user
experience. Finally, the study provides recommendations for further research in the
increasingly important subject of AI chatbots.
Keywords 1
AI chatbots, Conversational AI, Human-AI Collaboration, Socio-technical system, Systematic
Literature Review, Future Research
1. Introduction
The adoption of AI chatbots, has accelerated during Covid-19 and continues to grow. The global
chatbot market size is expected to reach USD 3.99 billion by 2030 [1]. AI Chatbots allow users to
interact with computer systems using natural language via text or voice [2, 3]. Indeed, AI chatbots are
conversational agents, a class of dialog systems, that imitate human oral and/or written interactions to
support users navigate through different sources of information to find answers to their requests [4] [5].
The characteristics of AI chatbots distinguish them from other software that organisations adopt [6]
[7]. First, the underlying Machine learning technology allows AI Chatbots to continuously evolve and
learn through the data generated from their use [7]. Second, AI Chatbots provide an intuitive
conversational interface using natural language. Third, it holds anthropomorphic features that could
trigger feeling of closeness and connectedness [7]. Fourth, their use could trigger a range of emotions
beyond what users experience with traditional enterprise systems [7] [8]. Fifth, their initial adoption
and implementation is lighter and less complicated than traditional enterprise systems such as ERP for
example [9, 10]. Due to such novel characteristics, the collaboration between humans and AI chatbots
present a distinctive phenomenon that enmeshes the social and the technical aspects [11]. From this
perspective, humans have an active role to play in the continuous improvement of the AI Chatbot while
their design could trigger further attachment and human-like closeness [12]. To understand the role of
humans in the adoption and use of AI Chatbot, it is important to zoom in to a particular context [13].
Hence, this article focuses on the adoption, implementation and use of AI Chatbot in organisations.
This focus excludes the personal use of conversational AI Chatbot such as Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s
Alexa.
Against this background, the aim of this paper is to examine the current research on AI chatbots and
the potential research agenda. It answers the questions of: How AI chatbots have been studied? And
what are the areas that are ripe for future research?
8th International Workshop on Socio-Technical Perspective in IS Development, August 19-21 2022 (STPIS’22)
EMAIL: lorentsa.gkinko.2015@live.rhul.ac.uk (A. 1); amany.elbanna@rhul.ac.uk (A. 2)
ORCID: 0003-4040-7932 (A. 1); 0001-5434-9716 (A. 2)
© 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
Wor
Pr
ks
hop
oceedi
ngs
ht
I
tp:
//
ceur
-
SSN1613-
ws
.or
0073
g
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
173
To do so, we systematically analyse existing literature on AI chatbots in the period of January 2016-
May 2022. The findings show the lack of research on the internal use of AI Chatbot in the workplace,
the lack of qualitative case studies research and that users’ actual experiences of AI Chatbots is under
studied. We hence develop a future research agenda that is committed to the use of the AI chatbot in its
organisational setting.
2. Methodology
The goal of this systematic literature review is to pave the way for future research regarding AI
chatbots in the workplace. We addressed our research question by conducting a systematic literature
review (SLR) according to [14] [15] that follows basic principles during the search process.
We started the search process by defining the search scope to guarantee a structured and organized
search. We followed the process according to [15], which contained four steps. In the first step the
process was determined. The following literature review was organized iteratively with an intertwined
proceeding of reading, interpreting, and analyzing the identified literature [15]. Secondly, publications
were specified as the source. In the third step, we applied inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Next, we defined our search technique, which was a keyword search combined with backward
search according to [15]. The literature search was completed in May 2022 in Scopus and the Web of
Science platform, which have been considered as the world’s most trusted publisher-independent global
citation database [16]. In order to identify the literature, we used the following keywords as search
strings:
(('chatbot*' OR 'AI chatbot*' OR 'AI enabled chatbot*' OR 'Conversational agent*' OR
'conversational AI') AND ('workplace' OR 'organisation*' OR 'organisation*' OR 'enterprise*'))
We included articles published only in English in journals and conferences with publication dates
from 2016 until now. We chose to select only this time frame to identify the research gap based on the
latest research and the fact that the publications before this year were scarce. Research on AI chatbots
gained momentum after 2016, which was the tipping point for chatbots and conversational interfaces,
when major companies started to invest in such technologies [3]. Key inclusion criteria are for papers
to: 1) have a sociotechnical perspective; 2) focus on management and use. Hence, articles that are purely
technical, mainly in the computer science field, that deal with code development and technical aspects
of implementation and algorithms were excluded from the analysis.
The search in both databases resulted in 43 articles without duplicates. we further examined the
articles by reading their abstract and methodology. This resulted in excluding 15 articles that had a pure
technical perspective in the development and evaluation of chatbots and articles that considered AI and
Machine learning in general, without a particular focus on Conversational AI. The remaining 28 articles
were deemed relevant and hence were subjected to further analysis. We further performed a backward
search and included additional articles, which resulted into a total of 35 articles included.
3. Findings
3.1. Research methods
In terms of the methods used to study AI Chatbot, our literature review reveals that, conceptual
research accounts for the majority of the articles while empirical research is still nascent. Conceptual
studies examine topics such as ethical challenges [17] [18] [19], benefits of chatbot usage [20] [21],
features and design of chatbots [22] [23].
The few empirical studies adopt either mixed methods or quantitative approaches, as shown in
Figure 2. The review finds that qualitative research and mixed methods are the least adopted
174
approaches. However, qualitative research is particularly useful for exploratory and in-depth
understanding of processes and social action [24] and technology in use. Qualitative research could also
reveal the sociotechnical arrangements that would enhance AI chatbot use and realise its organisational
benefits.
Research Methods
16
14
14
12
10
8
8 7
6
6
4
2
0
Conceptual Mixed Methods Qualitative Quantitative
Figure 1. Research Method
3.2. Type of use
The use of AI chatbot in organisations could be divided into internal or external use. The internal
organisational use of AI Chatbot provides employees with access to corporate information held in
different systems and hence could reduce information overload. The external organisational use of AI
chatbots provides customers with a way to find information and communicate with the organization.
[20]. AI chatbots for internal use are task-oriented and provide in-organisation services to employees
to find information, conduct tasks and navigate in-organisation systems and documents. They are
commonly referred to as virtual enterprise assistants [7]. Externally facing chatbots interact with
consumers and are used in marketing, advertising, customer service, e-commerce, healthcare, education
to provide a wide range of services to consumers from finding information, initiating transactions,
giving advice or guiding learning. Externally-facing chatbots are often referred to as virtual customer
assistants [7]. ‘Social chatbots’ belong to the externally-facing and are primarily built for conversation
and entertainment purposes [25].
Studies that examined the internal use considered mainly its value co-create. They find that for AI
chatbots to generate business value in its internal use, they need to be used by the employees and further
improve [7, 26]. However, employees’ experience of using AI Chatbot has received little attention [27].
Studies that examined external customers mainly considered users’ experience as summarised in Table
1. It is observed that ethics has received less attention in both types of use.
175
Table 1
Summary of SLR
Application Publications Concept
Area
Ethical Value User Other
considerations co- experience
creation
Employees Okuda and Shoda X Enterprise chatbots,
(internal [22] business
use) applications
Lee and Shin [19] X
Johannsen, Schaller X
[20]
Patel, Chiu [28] X
von Wolff, Hobert X
[29]
Stoeckli, Dremel [30] X
Brachten, Kissmer X Employees’
[31] acceptance
Gkinko and Elbanna X Emotions,
[7] employees;
perspective
Flanagan and Walker X
[32]
Brachten, Brunker X
[33]
Terblanche [23] X Design
Nguyen, Sidorova X Business processes,
[34] sociotechnical
Asatiani, Malo [35] X sociotechnical
Customers X Evaluation of
(external Bibault, Chaix [36] chatbots in health
use) care
Parviainen and X COVID-19 pandemic
Rantala [18]
Williams, Hopkins X Design
[37]
Barna, Melnyk [38] X tourism
Cai, Li [39] X Intention to use
Jones and Jones [40] X Reconfiguration of
work practices
Ford and Hutchinson X
[41]
Majumder and X HR
Mondal [21]
Canhoto and Clear X Value destruction
[42]
176
Kushwaha, Kumar X
[43]
Khoa [44] X Customer
experience
Selamat and X Design
Windasari [45]
Krchova and X Covid-19
Hoesova [46]
Murtarelli, Gregory X
[17]
Diederich, Brendel X Design
[47]
Baird and Maruping X delegation
[48] mechanisms,
collaboration
Seeger, Pfeiffer [49] X Design,
Anthropomorphism
Rai, Constantinides X collaboration
[50]
Lacity, Scheepers X
[51]
3.3. Challenges of adoption and use of AI chatbots in organisations
Few studies examined the challenges of adopting and using AI chatbot in organisations. Patel et al.
[28] provide an overview of strategic applications of AI chatbots that expand from serving the
fundamental need of business operations, to include information processing and business process
management. They emphasise on the value co-creation through enhanced collaborative efforts as well
as ensuring rich customer experience. They argue that the value generated was inherently tied to the
type of routine capability they enabled and the contexts in which the AI chatbot was used. Furthermore,
they suggest that organisations need to consider four types of implementation challenges: technology-
related challenges, user-related challenges, technology-related enablers, and project management
enablers.
Lee and Shin [19] take a different approach and highlight four technical and managerial challenges
including the ethical challenge, the shortage of machine-learning engineers, the data-quality challenge
in terms of potential biases in the training data, and the cost-benefit challenge [19]. Another study
focused on the internal business practice of innovation management by identifying value propositions
of AI chatbots with the human-in-the-loop to support this process, including the support of employees
during training, increase employee motivation and the high accuracy of results [20].
The use of AI chatbots to manage online interactions with consumers poses additional ethical
challenges linked to the use of AI applications and opens up new ethical avenues for investigation.
Another study discussed conceptually the ethical implications related to chatbots within the marketplace
with regards to the progressive automation of online conversational processes and their integration.
Combined with predictive analytics, AI chatbots have the capacity to generate significant information
asymmetry, a feature that frequently characterises human - machine interactions and is based on the
information disparities characterising those who join online interactions and that could have potential
damaging consequences.
Some other ethical challenges include anthropomorphising AI chatbots and managing online
security. As mediation mechanisms to the ethical challenges, they propose solving information
asymmetry to mediate the risk of the asymmetrical distribution of informative power, increase users’
credibility and reducing users’ perception of risks and enhance their privacy as mediation mechanisms
177
accordingly. They also argue that attention should move from a focus on enhancing performance to
embrace considerations that concern chatbot governance [17]. In addition, wrong AI chatbot design
might not meet users’ expectations and might be discontinued due to their design flaws [47]. While,
Nguyen et al., [34] argue for a shift from the technical side to a socio-technical continuum to focus on
the integration of AI with people and processes and their role in organisations and business processes.
In particular, Asatiani et al., [35] introduced the concept of sociotechnical envelopment to encapsulate
the interaction of social and technical factors that lead to a successful AI organisational envelopment.
3.4. Enablers of AI chatbots use in Organisations
In the context of digital workplaces, von Wolff et al. [29] identified three usage scenarios or
functions of a chatbot: information gathering, process execution, and information provision. However,
they argue that chatbots are mostly utilized for information provision along with the execution of
corresponding processes. They investigated the implications of an AI chatbot in the workplace and
summarise those into the reduction of time efforts, employee’s workload, and costs. AI chatbots have
been also proposed as a way to reduce and augment the cognitive load of the employees and can increase
their performance [33]. Another study compared chatbots with traditional enterprise systems in terms
of their action possibilities (i.e., affordances) and argued that chatbots augment social information
systems of organisations with affordances of traditional enterprise systems. Hence, chatbots can be seen
as valuable to cross the chasm between traditional enterprise systems and social information systems
[30]. Accordingly, AI chatbots should be treated as lifelong learners and subject matter experts
continually engaged in managing the information [51].
Therefore, AI chatbots hold great potential for enterprises as they can increase productivity and are
cost-efficient by automating processes. Another study [48] focused on the interactions between humans
and AI and the delegation mechanisms to autonomous agents in a variety of ways such as reflexive,
supervisory, anticipatory and prescriptive agents, as an effort of human and AI collaboration, creating
hybrid human AI assemblages [50].
While these studies focus on the value creation and the opportunities that chatbots provide in
enterprises, [31] focused on the acceptance and adoption of chatbots by its employees. They name such
chatbots Enterprise Bots and highlight that employees need to be convinced of the usefulness of a tool
themselves in order to incorporate them in their working practices. They show that intrinsic motivation
of the employees has a strong positive influence on the intention to use Enterprise Bots whereas external
influences showed smaller effects [31]. Gkinko and Elbanna [7] adopted a different perspective and
studied employees’ emotions from the chatbot’s actual use in the workplace. They find that AI chatbot
characteristics influence users’ emotions in the workplace and trigger mixed emotions that differentiate
the use of AI chatbot in the workplace from conventional enterprise systems. They show that the
existence of multiple emotions can encourage continued use of an AI chatbot [7].
Terblanche [23] focused on the chatbot design practices for organisational coaching to support
strong coach-coachee relationships and note the significance of managing expectations of the AI’s
capabilities and limitations, as it could jeopardise the trust relationship. In addition, users should be
made aware that as the AI chatbot evolves and learns from usage, it could change its behaviour and
therefore their interactions with it [23]. Flanagan & Walker [32] study the distribution of power within
workplaces. They argue that chatbots offer distinctive potential affordances to unions in enhancing their
resources and capabilities as 'orchestrators' of worker power. AI chatbots could be viewed as an
infrastructural resource that enable otherwise marginal workers to receive basic information that
reinforces union narratives of power and worker solidarity [32].
3.5. Application Areas
Canhoto & Clear [42] studied AI chatbots in a customer service context and argue that the inability
to identify and manage the risks can lead some managers to delay the adoption of AI chatbots and thus
may hinder value creation or even result in value destruction. Therefore, managers need to quantify the
178
potential for value destruction associated with each of the components of the AI solution. For instance,
chatbots might lead to value destruction if they provide limited responsiveness, as highlighted in the
context of HR and lead to lengthy interactions, but specifically in customer service, by producing a
response that is not aligned with the brand image of the company [42].
Additionally, brand trustworthiness, mitigates the uncertainty of customers' perception of using
chatbots at service touchpoints. Customer experience by using chatbots is influenced by the overall
system design, customers' ability to use technology, and customer trust towards brand and system [43]
. Furthermore, using innovative communication marketing tools, such as chatbots had a significant
impact on the companies' innovation, as well as in the communication with customers. Krchova &
Hoesova [46] argue that modern online marketing tools is the way to attract new market possibilities
and they attribute the change from traditional to modern online communication tools to the change in
customer behavior caused by the pandemic [46].
While, Khoa [44] focus on consumers’ purchase intentions and propose managerial implications for
an online business to enhance the chatbot functions to consumer behaviours. They show that the
perceived usefulness and ease of use of chatbots positively affect the attitude of online consumers to
the integrated marketing communication (IMC) activities of businesses. Simultaneously, IMC leads to
impulse buying as well as the repurchase intention behavior of customers. As a result, the use of
chatbots as a communication tool enhances consumer shopping behavior, including impulse purchase
behavior and repurchase behavior [44]
In heathcare, studies focus on the evaluation of the chatbots to assist patients and the ethical
challenges posed by chatbots from the perspective of healthcare professional ethics. One of the first
studies that assessed an artificial conversational agent used to inform patients with breast cancer and
found that their therapy management are at least as satisfying as answers given by a multidisciplinary
medical committee and may save patients with minor health concerns from a visit to the doctor. This
could allow clinicians to spend more time to treat patients who need a consultation the most [36].
Chatbots are also used for psychological support that could lead to significant improvements in well-
being and stress [37]. However, there are many ethical challenges that lie in this context. While there
was a significant increase in the utilisation of health-oriented chatbots to answer questions, recommend
care options, check symptoms and complete tasks such as booking appointments due to the COVID-19
pandemic [18] argue that in terms of trust, patients may increase distrust in healthcare consultation
chatbots due to their perceived ability [18].
In journalism, chatbots are used to reconfigure working practices and infrastructure, posing new
editorial and technical challenges, and redefining relationships with audiences [40]. Others are using
news chatbots, that function as disseminators of news, to reach new audiences by experimenting with a
more informal, intimate relationship with citizen users [41].
Furthermore, СOVID-19 has significantly accelerated the technological process of digitalisation of
marketing activity in the field of tourism. Due to the opportunities chatbots provide in the travel
industry, including 27/7 quick answers to customers’ queries regardless of staff availability, they
maximize the needs of modern consumers of tourism services [38]. In addition, in terms of the design,
anthropomorphizing chatbots can facilitate effective customer interaction. Cai et al. [39] suggest that
social presence cues and emotional message cues are major anthropomorphic cues are essential in
shaping customer’s usage intentions, trustworthiness, intelligence, and enjoyment [39]. Furthermore,
Seeger et al., [52] developed a theoretical framework for designing anthropomorphic CAs and revealed
that not all combinations of anthropomorphic technology design cues increase perceived
anthropomorphism and highlight that nonverbal cues increase the positive effects of anthropomorphism
when complemented with verbal of human identity cues.
Majumder & Mondal [21] argue for a focus on the limitations of implementing AI chatbots in the
context of human resources in the recent years to increase the robustness and improve them. They
highlight some of the limitations that the employees and applicants might get frustrated with the limited
responsiveness from the chatbot in case it is not trained enough. They emphasize that HR chatbots
require ongoing review, maintenance, and optimisation in terms of their knowledge base and the way
they are supposed to communicate with your end user on a daily basis [21].
Terblanche [23] studied chatbots in the context of coaching. They propose design practices to
support strong coach-coachee relationships. Their practices intertwine in managing users’ expectations
in terms of the chatbot’s continuous evolvement, identity and the level of anthropomorphism in the
179
chatbot, that could lead to social presence. Moreover, during the chatbot’s learning path from the usage,
it might change its behaviour and as a result the interaction with humans [23].
4. Future Research Directions
Based on the literature review, three future research directions related to human-AI collaboration in
the workplace are suggested as follows.
4.1. Qualitative Research
Our results indicate that there are limitations and biases in terms of the methodologies used. As
shown, qualitative research is nascent. Qualitative research is particularly relevant for new phenomena
such as AI chatbots to generate and theorise about knowledge and themes instead of testing and
confirming, especially in the emerging era of AI chatbots. Furthermore, there is an imbalance between
the conceptual and empirical research, where users’ experience could provide valuable insights from
their actual collaborative use of AI chatbots.
Research is dominated by views that AI chatbots can be transferred across contexts and their use
does not have to be bound to a specific application [28]. Therefore, each of the identified application
areas faces similar challenges in terms of value co-creation, ethical considerations and user experience.
However, we argue that understanding the specificity of context could reveal in-depth details on human
collaboration with AI chatbot and how a new human-AI Chatbot system could be optimised in practice.
4.2. Actual User Experience
While conceptual articles focus on the value creation and benefit realisation of AI chatbots, empirical
studies investigating users’ actual experience is limited. Understanding users’ actual experience from
AI chatbots not only can provide valuable insight for the IS literature but also inform the design aspects.
Based on the SLR, we conclude that there is lack of research for internal use of AI chatbots. Only few
studies focus on this aspect, while most of them review the implications in a customer service context
and their purchase behaviour. Future research on chatbot user experience needs to evolve from the
intended use of AI chatbots to their actual use and users’ experiences [7]. Further empirical research
could focus on the users’ actual collaborative experience, that could be a valuable source for their
continuous use, as well as the changing nature of their collaboration with the AI chatbot that sometimes
replaces the notion of a colleague, where employees might find easier to ask the AI chatbot instead of
their colleague sitting next to them.
4.3. Negative Consequences
AI chatbots are modifying how people create value through human-machine collaboration [53].
However, there is limited literature on the negative consequences of use, misuse or even non-use. In
addition, ethical considerations are concentrated in the health care context and more sparsely in
organisations for internal processes and decision making. It has been argued that transparency, which
is at the core of ethical considerations, can act as a foundation of trust and help in understanding
technology [54]. As a result, ethical and trust considerations could be further explored in different
context, for example the employees. Another way of value co-creation is to avoid biases with regards
to the AI chatbot scope and goals and enhance the fair and unbiased training of the data [55]. Future
research could move away from the challenges and explore the negative consequences from the users’
actual experience and propose mitigation strategies. Such studies could inform not only the design of
180
the chatbots but also potential measures that organisations need to take in order to increase transparency
and eliminate risks from users’ use, non-use and misuse, since AI chatbots constantly learn from their
users’ input.
5. Conclusion and Limitations
This paper contributes to the AI chatbot use in the workplace by conducting a systematic literature
review. It identified the research gaps and methodological biases and highlighted the state-of-the art
research topics. We categorised the current research into three streams, namely value co-creation,
ethical considerations and user experience. The proposed future research directions are intended as a
response to the current lack of coherence in the emerging field of chatbot research.
However, this research has some limitations. The search was limited in English keywords in journal
and conference articles from two major databases. Future research could perform such SLR in
additional database sources. Because of the restriction of the analysis to journal and conference
publications in the workplace context, a few publications containing interesting material were
potentially excluded from this review.
6. References
[1] Grandviewresearch. Chatbot Market Growth & Trends. 2022 [cited 2022 14 June]; Available
from: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/press-release/global-chatbot-market.
[2] Dale, R., The return of the chatbots. Natural Language Engineering, 2016. 22(5): p. 811-817.
[3] McTear, M.F. The rise of the conversational interface: A new kid on the block? in International
workshop on future and emerging trends in language technology. 2016. Springer.
[4] Følstad, A. and P.B. Brandtzæg, Chatbots and the new world of HCI. interactions, 2017. 24(4): p.
38-42.
[5] Radziwill, N.M. and M.C. Benton, Evaluating quality of chatbots and intelligent conversational
agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04579, 2017.
[6] Seeger, A.-M., J. Pfeiffer, and A. Heinzl. When do we need a human? Anthropomorphic design
and trustworthiness of conversational agents. in Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Pre-ICIS
Workshop on HCI Research in MIS, AISeL, Seoul, Korea. 2017.
[7] Gkinko, L. and A. Elbanna, Hope, tolerance and empathy: employees' emotions when using an AI-
enabled chatbot in a digitalised workplace. Information Technology & People, 2022: p. 30.
[8] Gkinko, L.E., Amany, Chatbots at Work: A Taxonomy of the Use of Chatbots in the workplace, in
Responsible AI and Analytics for an Ethical and Inclusive Digitized Society. 20th IFIP WG 6.11
Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e- Society, I3E 2021, , A.G. D. Dennehy, N. Pouloudi,
Y. K. Dwivedi, I. Pappas, & M. Mäntymäki (Eds.), Editor. 2021: Galway, Ireland, September 1–
3, 2021.
[9] Elbanna, A.R., Implementing an integrated system in a socially dis‐integrated enterprise: a critical
view of ERP enabled integration. Information Technology & People, 2007.
[10] Elbanna, A., Rethinking IS project boundaries in practice: A multiple-projects perspective. The
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2010. 19(1): p. 39-51.
[11] Sarker, S., et al., The sociotechnical axis of cohesion for the IS discipline: Its historical legacy and
its continued relevance. Mis Quarterly, 2019. 43(3): p. 695-720.
[12] Rajanen, M. and D. Rajanen. Usability: A Core Concept in Socio-Technical Systems Development.
in STPIS@ ECIS. 2019.
[13] Elbanna, A., et al., The search for smartness in working, living and organising: beyond the
‘Technomagic’. Information Systems Frontiers, 2020. 22(2): p. 275-280.
[14] Webster, J. and R.T. Watson, Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature
review. MIS quarterly, 2002: p. xiii-xxiii.
181
[15] Vom Brocke, J., et al., Standing on the shoulders of giants: Challenges and recommendations of
literature search in information systems research. Communications of the association for
information systems, 2015. 37(1): p. 9.
[16] Clarivate. Clarivate Web of Science. [cited 2022 May 2022]; Available from:
https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science/.
[17] Murtarelli, G., A. Gregory, and S. Romenti, A conversation-based perspective for shaping ethical
human-machine interactions: The particular challenge of chatbots. Journal of Business Research,
2021. 129: p. 927-935.
[18] Parviainen, J. and J. Rantala, Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend
of automated consultations in health care. Medicine Health Care and Philosophy, 2022. 25(1): p.
61-71.
[19] Lee, I. and Y.J. Shin, Machine learning for enterprises: Applications, algorithm selection, and
challenges. Business Horizons, 2020. 63(2): p. 157-170.
[20] Johannsen, F., D. Schaller, and M.F. Klus, Value propositions of chatbots to support innovation
management processes. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 2021. 19(1): p. 205-
246.
[21] Majumder, S. and A. Mondal, Are chatbots really useful for human resource management?
International Journal of Speech Technology, 2021. 24(4): p. 969-977.
[22] Okuda, T. and S. Shoda, AI-based Chatbot Service for Financial Industry. Fujitsu Scientific &
Technical Journal, 2018. 54(2): p. 4-8.
[23] Terblanche, N., A design framework to create Artificial Intelligence Coaches. International Journal
of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 2020. 18(2): p. 152-165.
[24] Flick, U., An introduction to qualitative research. 2018: sage.
[25] Makhalova, T., D. Ilvovsky, and B. Galitsky. Information retrieval chatbots based on conceptual
models. in International conference on conceptual structures. 2019. Springer.
[26] Jarrahi, M.H., Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational
decision making. Business horizons, 2018. 61(4): p. 577-586.
[27] Gkinko, L. and A. Elbanna, The Appropriation of Conversational AI in the Workplace: A
Taxonomy of AI Chatbot Users. Accepted and forthcoming in International Journal of Information
Management, 2022.
[28] Patel, S., et al., Conversational Agents in Organisations: Strategic Applications and
Implementation Considerations. Journal of Global Information Management, 2021. 29(6): p. 1-25.
[29] von Wolff, R.M., et al., Chatbots at Digital Workplaces - A Grounded-Theory Approach for
Surveying Application Areas and Objectives. Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 2020. 12(2): p. 64-102.
[30] Stoeckli, E., et al., How affordances of chatbots cross the chasm between social and traditional
enterprise systems. Electronic Markets, 2020. 30(2): p. 369-403.
[31] Brachten, F., T. Kissmer, and S. Stieglitz, The acceptance of chatbots in an enterprise context - A
survey study. International Journal of Information Management, 2021. 60: p. 15.
[32] Flanagan, F. and M. Walker, How can unions use Artificial Intelligence to build power? The use
of AI chatbots for labour organising in the US and Australia. New Technology Work and
Employment, 2021. 36(2): p. 159-176.
[33] Brachten, F., et al., On the ability of virtual agents to decrease cognitive load: an experimental
study. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 2020. 18(2): p. 187-207.
[34] Nguyen, Q.N., A. Sidorova, and R. Torres, Artificial Intelligence in Business: A Literature Review
and Research Agenda. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2022. 50(1):
p. 7.
[35] Asatiani, A., et al., Sociotechnical envelopment of artificial intelligence: An approach to
organizational deployment of inscrutable artificial intelligence systems. Journal of the Association
for Information Systems, 2021. 22(2): p. 8.
[36] Bibault, J.E., et al., A Chatbot Versus Physicians to Provide Information for Patients With Breast
Cancer: Blind, Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research,
2019. 21(11): p. 7.
[37] Williams, R., et al., 21-Day Stress Detox: Open Trial of a Universal Well-Being Chatbot for Young
Adults. Social Sciences-Basel, 2021. 10(11): p. 18.
182
[38] Barna, M., I. Melnyk, and R. Baran, Factors of digitalization of the marketing activity of tourist
enterprises of Ukraine in the conditions of global digitalization. Baltic Journal of Economic
Studies, 2021. 7(3): p. 29-36.
[39] Cai, D.T., H.Y. Li, and R. Law, Anthropomorphism and OTA chatbot adoption: a mixed methods
study. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 2022. 39(2): p. 228-255.
[40] Jones, B. and R. Jones, Public Service Chatbots: Automating Conversation with BBC News. Digital
Journalism, 2019. 7(8): p. 1032-1053.
[41] Ford, H. and J. Hutchinson, Newsbots That Mediate Journalist and Audience Relationships. Digital
Journalism, 2019. 7(8): p. 1013-1031.
[42] Canhoto, A.I. and F. Clear, Artificial intelligence and machine learning as business tools: A
framework for diagnosing value destruction potential. Business Horizons, 2020. 63(2): p. 183-
193.
[43] Kushwaha, A.K., P. Kumar, and A.K. Kar, What impacts customer experience for B2B enterprises
on using AI-enabled chatbots? Insights from Big data analytics. Industrial Marketing
Management, 2021. 98: p. 207-221.
[44] Khoa, B.T., The Impact of Chatbots on the Relationship between Integrated Marketing
Communication and Online Purchasing Behavior in The Frontier Market. Jurnal the Messenger,
2021. 13(1): p. 19-32.
[45] Selamat, M.A. and N.A. Windasari, Chatbot for SMEs: Integrating customer and business owner
perspectives. Technology in Society, 2021. 66: p. 12.
[46] Krchova, H. and K.S. Hoesova, The impact of modern communication marketing tools to increase
the innovativeness of business. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2021(3): p. 117-126.
[47] Diederich, S., et al., On the design of and interaction with conversational agents: An organizing
and assessing review of human-computer interaction research. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 2022. 23(1): p. 96-138.
[48] Baird, A. and L.M. Maruping, The Next Generation of Research on IS Use: A Theoretical
Framework of Delegation to and from Agentic IS Artifacts. MIS quarterly, 2021. 45(1).
[49] Seeger, A.-M., J. Pfeiffer, and A. Heinzl, Texting with humanlike conversational agents: designing
for anthropomorphism. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2021. 22(4): p. 8.
[50] Rai, A., P. Constantinides, and S. Sarker, Next generation digital platforms:: Toward human-ai
hybrids. Mis Quarterly, 2019. 43(1): p. iii-ix.
[51] Lacity, M.C., R. Scheepers, and L.P. Willcocks, Cognitive Automation as Part of Deakin
University's Digital Strategy. MIS Quarterly Executive, 2018. 17(2): p. 4.
[52] Seeger, A.M., J. Pfeiffer, and A. Heinzl, Texting with Humanlike Conversational Agents:
Designing for Anthropomorphism. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2021.
22(4): p. 931-967.
[53] Barile, S., et al., Empowering value co-creation in the digital age. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing: p. 14.
[54] Chubb, J., et al., Interactive storytelling for children: A case-study of design and development
considerations for ethical conversational AI. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction,
2022. 32: p. 100403.
[55] Hofeditz, L., et al. Ethics Guidelines for Using AI-based Algorithms in Recruiting: Learnings from
a Systematic Literature Review. in HICSS. 2022.
183