The Emerging Smart Event Experience. An Interpretative Phenomenological AnalysisJohn Bustard, Dr Peter Bolan, Dr Adrian Devine, Dr Karise Hutchinson

Abstract

The use of ‘Special Events’ as an attractor for destinations in the Smart Tourism paradigm has been suggested as one element of an effective destination strategy. This study aimed to create new understandings of this potentiality by exploring an event from a participant perspective in Smart Tourism contexts. The authors conducted 5 online focus groups using Facebook secret groups to engage spectators of an international sports event. Discussions focused on the digital event experience with particular reference to the event app. A subsequent Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) facilitated the examination of how people make sense of this digital phenomenon and the impact on the overall event experience. Findings demonstrate an increasing demand for real-time event integrative information, with more immersive and augmented experiences often sought by users. This has significant implications for the management of the digital event experience for all event stakeholders. The study therefore, meets a critical gap in existent literature by providing the first event experience model in a smart tourism context. presenting the interlocking elements through the 4 P’s and the 7 R’s of digital event experience.

1.0 Introduction:

Tourism’s continued growth and diversification has seen destination competitiveness

become the critical focus for many governments and regions (Crouch & Ritchie,

1999; Buhalis 2000; Boes et al., 2015). Increasingly, events are being used as key

attractors for destinations to seek competitive advantage and differentiation from

global and regional competitors (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Getz & Page, 2015). The

importance of integrating event visitors at destination level to increase satisfaction

and enhance experiences is a strategic imperative (Luxford & Dickinson, 2015).

Recently Koo et al. (2016) highlighted ‘special events’ as a core attractor within what

is termed Smart Tourism Destination Competitiveness. These events deliver

extraordinary experiences at scale and are also critical to destination image and

marketing efforts (Getz, 2008). At all stages of the experience journey, the

opportunities of better interoperability of tourism stakeholders through embedded as

well as user integrated ICTs has become the focus of strategies aimed at increasing

satisfaction and enhancing tourist experiences through sustainable advantage

(Buhalis & Amaranggana, 2013).

Discourse in marketing, media, tourism and events literatures highlight co-creation

as the key ingredient in providing these more personalised, unique and memorable

experiences (Vargo et al., 2008; Neuhofer et al., 2013). Getz & Page (2015, p.619)

posit that “consumers are seeking to accumulate more authentic leisure experiences

and events and festivals offer one way to do this, increasingly through co-creation.”

In the Smart Tourism context, these co-creation opportunities around events at

destinations are reliant on the exchange of touristic resources, facilitated by a

plethora of technologies now rapidly integrating into the various stages of what is

coming to be known as the smart experience (Gretzel et al., 2015a). The Internet of

Things (IoT), Near Field Communication (NFC) and now, Artificial Intelligence (AI)

mediated through mobile or wearable technologies are increasing the capacity to

drizzle designed experiences with unique and memorable digital encounters

(Tussyadiah, 2017).

At their most advanced, these experiences often leverage our own socially mediated

data through experience touch points, building on societal immersion in personal

mobile computing, as actors integrating resources in the co-creation of value

(Gretzel et al., 2015a; Neuhofer et al. 2015). This evolving integration via ever more

open, social and intelligent software platforms, is ensuring that tourism and event

experiences are laden with data and real-time insights which has significant potential

to further augment and direct experience encounters at destination, event and

attraction level (Wang et al. 2016).

The research herein focuses on the smart event experience with the purpose to yield

new understanding of Smart Tourism contexts, an area ripe for deeper analysis

(Getz & Page, 2015; Bustard et al. forthcoming, 2017). Specifically, the overall

objective is to develop a model that enables greater understanding of the event

experience linking personalisation, people, processes and places through the use of

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). The structure of the subsequent

discussion of theoretical underpinnings examines the study’s critical themes.

2.0 Theoretical Underpinnings

2.1 Personalisation

For Smart Tourism conceptions to become more impactful in people’s experiences of

tourism and events, it is critical that they support personalisation in what is a

dynamic and competitive marketplace (Neuhofer et al., 2015). Smartphones and

their applications (apps) can often provide the process touch-point for experience

personalisation (Luxford & Dickinson, 2015). Thus, apps become one potential

conduit of connectivity and intelligence where people can engage in technology

mediated co-creation experiences in the smart tourism paradigm (Gretzel et al.,

2015b).

One such means of explicitly engaging smart technologies for this purpose is

through intelligent apps which leverage technologies such as the Internet of things

(IoT), near field communications (NFC) and sensors in coordinating real-time

technology enhanced experiences (Neuhofer et al., 2015; Buonincontri & Micera

2016). Caution is urged as applied technology solutions have the ability to create or

destruct value across the multi-phasic tourism event experience (Neuhofer 2016).

In Smart Tourism contexts, experience consumers become central actors who

integrate their resources (operand and/or operant) in seeking to co-create

experience value with other actors (Neuhofer & Buhalis, 2013). By adopting and

adapting technology through what can be termed ‘smartness’ (Buhalis &

Amaranggana, 2013; Gretzel et al., 2015b), this technology use for co-creation in

this paradigm perceives human centred design integrated with non-human actors as

critical to co-creating transformative experience encounters (Wang et al., 2016).

Personalisation is a significant driver within the smart experience (Gretzel et al.,

2015) but how is it impacted – by whom and what?

2.2 People

Given that technology enhanced experiences can impact different people in different

ways, it is pertinent to explore “what makes event-tourism experiences memorable

and transforming?” (Getz & Page 2015, p.610). From the perspective of mediating

experience through smartphone apps, satisfaction relies on smart tourism

implementations being catalysts to providing personalisation through the tenet of

engaging everyone uniquely in their reality (Neuhofer et al., 2015). Smart

technologies facilitate actual and potential experience encounters across the various

stages of tourist experience and thus enlarge the experience process across time

and space (Buonincontri & Micera 2016). Applied to event experiences, smartphone

apps can impact behaviour (conative); emotion (affective) and cognition and require

deeper analysis in event and festival contexts (Nordvall et al. 2014; Van Winkle et

al., 2016). Indeed, the habits formed in using ICTs in other contexts and the impact

of these habits on the rituals of participants in their pre-event discovery, on-site

immersion and post event review are critical areas which require deeper analysis in

the context of technology enhanced experiences (Neuhofer & Buhalis, 2013)

Smart tourism is a social phenomenon (Koo et al., 2016) but how does it extend in

practice?

2.3 Processes

Luxford & Dickinson (2015, p.44) posit that apps “extend opportunities for network

sociality and relational development both within and outside the festival confines

through the creation of personalized networks providing a medium that transcends

spatial boundaries and enhances the sense of connectivity.” These processes are

an obvious opportunity, particularly in the critical ‘real-time’ destination context

offered through smart tourism ecosystems by connecting mobility with surprise –

through integration and value creation (Gretzel et al., 2015b). These special events

from the destination competitiveness perspective must deliver the underlying

transformations anticipated by event goers through renewal and personal growth

(Getz, 2008). Anticipating such value being sought, how are these experiences

embedded and in what way?

2.4 Places

Given the centrality and competitive importance of situating ‘special events’ in

domains and places of ‘smartness’ (Buhalis & Amaranggana, 2013), the

phenomenological study of smart event experiences, although highly warranted, is

still relatively under explored (Getz & Page 2015). In offering a current and thorough

perspective of the experiential paradigm of events, Ziakis & Boukas (2014) posit that

events management is significantly lagging which is unfortunate, and requires focus

given the importance of meaning in varying experience contexts.

Therefore, this paper is a focused pursuit of new understanding of this new relativity

and its impact on participant experience as a means of informing new value

propositions in smart tourism contexts (Koo et al., 2016). There is limited knowledge

of how people personalise their experiences in event places as they engage through

smartphones (Luxford & Dickinson, 2015) and thus research is critical in its

implications to experience design, management, research and future development of

Smart Tourism (Gretzel et al. 2015b). More specifically, the objectives of this study

are to develop a model that enables greater understanding of the event experience,

which links people, processes and personalisation. This study focuses on the smart

event experience in order to yield understanding of its implications for event tourism

providers in Smart Tourism contexts. Figure 1 presents the initial model derived

through IPA and is used as a frame for deeper analysis of the event app experience

through a highly relevant exemplar of the digital event experience phenomenon.

Figure 1. Superordinate Themes Through Analysis of Co-creation and the Digital Event

The use of IPA as a means of researching topics were relatively little is known, is a

fertile ground (Stainton, 2016). The use of IPA in this study is now outlined in the

next section.

3.0 Methodology

For Event studies, the related discipline of Tourism has had a more fruitful

relationship with phenomenology (Ziakas & Boukas 2014), arguably none more so

than the seminal contribution of Cohen’s (1979) study which birthed a

phenomenology of tourist experiences. There are several Leisure and Events works,

with particular relevance to this study in terms of warrant (Getz 2008), impact

(Morgan 2008) and research design (Holst Kjaer 2011; Ziakas & Boukas 2014;

Berridge 2014). At the heart of this research process is the interpretation of the

digital event experience phenomenon as it is ever more impactful in an era of

ubiquitous connectivity (Gretzel, et al. 2015a). The subjectivity of experience

requires nuanced appraisal to assure understanding of the sense making at play

where technology is impacting experience (Tussyadiah, 2014). Interpretive

Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) offers insights on people in given contexts making

sense of a phenomenon. IPA was adopted in the delivery and analysis of the

research findings presented herein.

3.1 Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)

According to Smith et al. (2009, p.3) IPA is a method by which to assure a detailed

examination of an experience phenomenon given as “it wants to know in detail what

the experience for this person is like, what sense this particular person is making of

what is happening to them.” It has been more often used within health and social

sciences to unlock meaning and understanding and has been successfully applied in

assessing sport (Smith 2016) and music (Kelleher 2012), particularly in large scale

events in relation to understanding the opportunities and challenges of varying

participation perspectives. This is significant in the study of tourist event

experiences given that the meanings that are attached to event experiences are

integral to understanding how events are experienced but are also critical

antecedents to behaviour in future event settings. (Getz & Page, 2015).

Online focus groups provide a unique and distinct set of data given that multiple

conversations can be ongoing, politeness and order is less inhibited and as such

silos of individual reflections are created which are repositories of individual

experience. Accessibility is also an important benefit in this study, given the digital

habitus under review. Limitations of participant access or descriptive capability are

somewhat less of an issue given the double hermeneutic process of IPA where the

researcher’s sense making of the participant’s endeavours to unpack their own

experiences, provides more context through the netnographic approach, where

access to additional data and observation of digital selves facilitates thicker

description (Kozinets 2010).

Additionally, the use of NVivo - a computer aided qualitative data analysis system

(CADQAS) which allows for a systematic processing of analysis to be applied,

ensures a rigorous approach and significant audit trail of actions taken, which is

arguably the most important criteria for trustworthiness and plausibility of a study

(Drisko 1998). Below is a table of the steps of IPA taken and how these were

managed through NVivo’s qualitative research tool following Smith et al.’s (2009)

guidelines for data analysis and interpretation.

Analytical focus - IPA (Smith

et al. 2009)

Nvivo Process

1. Reading & Initial Noting Nodes (open codes) created in NVivo – first pass,

iterative process of code and re-code both reflexively

and interrogatively

2. Open Coding Capture summary of overall description and content –

supported/journaled with rich descriptive comments

3. Categorisation of

Codes

Category folder holds copy of open codes for the

participant in-tact. Broader categories from re-ordered

codes through parent and child nodes.

4. Coding on IPA strategically focused to create superordinate

themes for coding clusters and assess linkages or

evolve into emergent themes

5. Data Reduction Consolidate codes and compare/contrast in a matrix to

facilitate cross-case and in-case analysis

6. Analytical Memos Accurately summarise higher level themes through

analytical memos and propose empirical findings

against categories

7. Validation A period of testing, validating and revising memos to

explore data beyond textual quotes to support/expand

stated findings through embedded meaning

8. Synthesis of Analytic

Memos

Synthesis of analytic memos into cohesive, coherent

and supported findings offering descriptive account of

study participants’ views and perceptions

Table 1. Steps in IPA utilising a systematic approach in CADQAS Software

3.2 The Event – The International Northwest 200 Motorcycle Road Race (NW200)

The NW200 is a long standing international tourist event established over 88 years

ago, adjacent to the Giants Causeway World Heritage Site. According to Bullough et

al. (2017), the NW200 event attracted 82,132 unique admissions and had a direct

economic impact of £9.8 million. The event’s fanbase are 17% resident, 78% visiting

and 5% deemed as ‘casual’ visitors (not fans). Fans are quite loyal, with 31%,

highlighting their event awareness came through familiarity and having been

‘attending for years’ (Bullough et al. 2017, p.9)

3.3 Data Collection

Recruitment was through purposive sampling from participants who had completed

an App Event Satisfaction Survey which was carried out post event in 2016. This

had a positive impact and added validity on three counts. Firstly, through prior

knowledge via the sign-up process, participants had a sense of group belonging

(Nordvall et al. 2014). Secondly, having participated in the prior survey, it assured

validity as interviewees had experience of using the event app and could be vetted

as such. Finally, using interviewees who had participated in the survey offered a

further comparative opportunity for study development.

Participants were contacted by email and/or through Facebook and asked to

complete a further online ethical approval stage before being eligible for inclusion.

Of the 182 participants in the App Event survey, a total of 56 prospective

interviewees completed participant consent and were eligible for the Secret

Facebook Focus Groups (SFFG’s). Groups were stratified by gender as this was felt

to reduce any potential dominance of exchange, particularly given the largely male

fan base of the event. 3 male SFFG’s and 2 female SFFG’s were conducted

between October and December 2016, the shortest being 10 days from initiation to

completion (SFFG 4 female) and the longest being 11 days. The inducement

provided for participation was a weekly pass to visit the event which retails at £55.

IPA facilitated the exploration of critical experience outcomes sought through mobile

apps by spectators of international sports events. This research develops on the

event app focus of Luxford & Dickinson (2015) which has been highlighted more

recently as having significance to Smart Tourism related research (Wang et al.

2016). Taking a netnographic approach at the outset (Kozinets 2010) has ensured

immersion and credibility in data procurement techniques that suitably address this

critical research gap. The aim of the following analysis is to unpack the emergent

themes revealed through IPA (presented in Fig. 1) and confirmed as relevant in

smart experience contexts through post-hoc literature review. The 8-step process

outlined helps in understanding smart experience dimensions as perceived and

presented by participants of the 5 online focus groups analysed. Now follows a

narrative of these critical findings.

3.4 Data Analysis

Through this more immersive method, it has been possible to explore the patterns of

personalisation sought by people through process and located in places (Tomkins &

Eatough, 2010). It has led to the re-conceptualising of the earlier model, which

presented 4Ps and is now overlain with 7 Rs’. These 7Rs were categorised during

an earlier phase of IPA and integrate more holistically in Figure 2. The following

sections will clarify these elements and their linkages as a means of re-constituting

the event experience and as a lens for exploring co-creation in practice in smart

contexts (Buonincontri & Micera 2016).

4.0 Findings & Discussion

The processes of IPA has revealed an enhanced model of the digital event

experience - more accessible and memorable in relation to interpreting event

experiences in smart tourism contexts. The model reflects critical touch-points and

experience levers which may offer deeper understanding to the ever-evolving

process of co-creation of experience value in and across the event experience-

scape. Figure 2 below provides a visual representation of these interlocking

elements through the 4 P’s and the 7 R’s of digital event experience.

People, processes, personalisation and places are integrated and interlocked across

spatial and temporal boundaries. The interlocking elements offer a realistic lens

through which to further analyse the digital experience from the perspectives of

event and consumer, providing a holistic reversible frame of reference in exploring

experience value creation, destruction and renewal.

The 7 Rs’ are woven into and presented across linked aspects, with a particular

focus on 4 central premises, which are more critical to the co-creation of value in the

digital event experience.

4.1 Model Derived Through IPA

Figure 2. Superordinate Themes & Categories of Co-creation of the Digital Event

4.1.1 Rituals and the Digital Event Experience

Rituals have their roots of study in social and cultural anthropology and are a

significant factor in terms of experience and meaning for participants of events,

across the spectrum and range of event types. Their impact on affective, conative,

and cognitive experiential outcomes is an area which evidently offers further

opportunities to be explored and contextualised in terms of review but also, with

particular significance to further engagement via digital event components.

SC (male) highlights the potential of this outcome, where the event becomes a

pilgrimage of sorts.

“There's 6 of us that come up from Cornwall for 2 weeks each May. Dad started the trip 15 years ago and I've been going for the past 6. Wouldn't miss it!”

Interconnecting with these emerging stories through the event diaspora through

digital is one of many potential opportunities to deepen experience and extend

relational outcomes and deepen event rituals.

4.1.2 Realms of the Digital Event Experience

Once again, and critical to the meaning ascribed to an event experience, it is

pertinent to assess how individuals and groups are exploring meaning being derived

from an event across a myriad of touch-points (with mind of the cognitive, conative,

and affective realms of that experience).

There is certainly great scope for further personalisation of experience through the

digital context as social media and ICT realms continue to provide the most

interactive and personalised experiences in a cost-effective manner. There are

some challenges, which the following comment from JM (male) brings to light is one

of the critical fears of unfiltered content sharing which is impacting many of digital

channels and content strategies.

“You mentioned pictures in your reply. I hadn't considered that. Sharing live pics from around the course would be good. As long as they weren't grim. I suppose that's where administrators would come in to play.”

These opportunities, challenges (realities) require strategic oversight in order to

mitigate some risk without losing the opportunity to further develop the event

experience. Where processes and personalisation overlap, is where the various

experiences that people have and seek come to light and as such, in a digital sense,

consider care and thought to ensure a more positive outcome for those who are

digitally engaging. Could the self-auditing practices of periscope through the crowd

adopted as an event communication standard ensure safer digital realms?

4.1.3 Realities of the Digital Event Experience

As evidenced in the multiplicity of experience outcomes sought, people experience

their reality in differing ways and with differing desires. In examining these realities,

consideration is given to the overlap of people and personalisation as, particularly in

a digital context, there is evidence of very different experience outcomes being

sought and received. Although evidence was gathered purely from a qualitative

perspective, innovative thought, ideas and iterations of suggested digital event

experience outcomes, were not particularly gender, age or background specific,

which is not such a surprise given its tendency to emerge from attitudinal roots and

is often more about being inquisitive and engaged. The types of innovation through

suggested iterations, or at times new experience elements, were rich with both

operand and operant resource integration, perceived to support event experience.

CB’s satisfaction with the app post event measured low in the Likert type survey

question at only 2 out of 5. In the same survey, he also had this to say about the

app.

“It serves no purpose on the day. I would happily pay for the app instead of buying a programme to get each grid & rider number on my device. furthermore, it should provide real time lap times and positions and maybe a facility where you can punch in rider positions as they go bubbly this could also be done live. - the event commentary could be streamed on the app for when you are out of speaker range.”

Taking CB as an initial example of where online engagement and involvement in

experience design and experience co-creation can have a profound positive effect,

further analysis of his journey and renewal are related below. Of course, this is a

temporary state of being and in other circumstances or around differing contexts, a

state which could have remained negative or worsened in impact. Whilst this is a

distinct possibility, this case is worthy of further exploration.

4.1.4 Renewal of the event experience

It was most interesting to explore the potential of online co-creation through social

media to reconnect and re-invigorate people like CB. There is evident potential,

indeed this is most clearly related through the ‘pure gold’ co-created by CB and a

fellow participant relating to the question of the most important factor of their digital

event experience. Using visuals, dialogue and constructing a picture from across a

range of perspectives, JM (male) and CB (male) provide some of the most critical

evidence as to how impactful online co-creation can be. Although the outcome of his

experience of co-creation within the event is not straight forward to measure in

qualitative terms, one would take the following quote as an indication of the personal

‘sense making’ of exploring the event experience.

“..what a unique experience which I thoroughly enjoyed being part of - thanks for involving me and best thoughts to you for wherever these findings take you regarding the final product.”

4.1.5 Reviewing the event experience

As with CB, the experience of 'reviewing' the event’s digital dimension was of critical

experience value – where participants 'felt listened to' and assessing the preferred

outcomes of an event experience with a 'passionate' community increased

satisfaction and was not unique to CB.

Review is a foundational aspect of this process, where time is provided to discover

core issues, opportunities and challenges presented by event fans and as such, is a

staging post to ‘renewal’ – whether of event or of participant experience. Review

assures that the central premise of improving the event experience is in focus and

that the various and myriad relationships across the super-ordinate themes of

people, processes, personalisation and places is examined holistically by giving

voice to individual contexts.

Of critical importance to the success of review is the affordance of time and

resources to ensure familiarity with the phases, contexts and outcomes sought is

provided. A framework of engagement and an understanding of what is achievable

and what is not (budgetary, timeframe, resources etc.) is also of fundamental

importance to ensure adequate insights can be provided to a discerning event fan

base. Where possible, a means of continuing the review dialogue post event would

also ensure that a feedback loop was existent to mitigate the risks of someone (like

DB in the following example) feeling disconnected from the event.

“..they are scared of a change I would hear stuff in the meeting with the club some of it is **** they just drive ppl away”

It is noteworthy to highlight that other participants were somewhat at odds with DB

on his viewpoint and although not tacitly stated there were clearly frustrations with

this member’s general negativity. This leads on to our exploration of the ‘relational’

elements of the digital event experience and how time and thought around such

issues can be mitigated.

4.1.6 Relational elements of the Digital Event Experience

It is clear from the participants that engaging with the event and sharing views and

opinions is a positive catalyst for connection. The challenge as always is

maintaining connection and seeking to support a positive and motivating dynamic

beyond the initial interaction. A major challenge of managing this complicated

network of individuals is revealed in the comment of AR (male) relating to event

communications

“As previously said, an event that's well run and planned with communication between organisers and fans, if that's through the app or whatever then that's important to me. Being there in person is the thrill of it all, live streaming will and has killed off some spectators as they just sit on their sofa's instead of supporting the event.”

A communications strategy is one clear necessity in facilitating better outcomes and

understanding of event fans and their various event expectations. Do

communications aim to celebrate and connect to the ‘being there’ essence through

fans networks, content and accounts at the risk of some negative outcomes dues to

weather, scheduling delays or poor performances or do they focus solely on

‘pushing’ event content and not give voice to any negativity? These are challenges

which event teams must answer as they are fundamental to the relational impact of

the overall experience – a form of cultural presentation.

4.1.7 Resourcing the Digital Event Experience

Finally, resourcing of the digital event experience, is fundamental to the overall

shaping and experience dimensions as it is through objective assessment of the

resource based view that the practicalities and realities of an experience outcome

can be understood. Evidence of connectivity challenges were abundant throughout

the data collected and the impact of this operand resource on the digital event

experience of present ICTs and social media cannot be understated. RC highlights

his more positive recent experience of coverage in this excerpt

“I agree - it's a good base and found it much improved in the second year, had no problems with connection as there is a good 4g signal which I believe is boosted when big events are on, I had no problems with FB live during races.”

Evidently, this is not the case across networks with CV (female) relating the following

“..as for network signal to text people it becomes very difficult to contact people due to the vast amount attending the event and 3G can be quite hard to connect to.”

That said, there is significant evidence to suggest that the ubiquitous connectivity

promised by many providers is closer to reality than previously. Apart from FB live in

the earlier example, MH (male) also demonstrates the potential of an ever more

engaged and dynamic digitally enhanced event experience with the following

comment

“I have no issues with mobile phone connectivity. I was able to stream to periscope at the event last year.”

5.0 Implications for Theory and Practice

Smart Tourism as a construct is multi-layered and the collection, exchange and

processing of real-time data seeks context from which to build more personalised

experience opportunities, often as a means of leveraging destination

competitiveness (Koo et al., 2016). This knowledge is best gained through

contextualising individual experience and as such our model provides a mirror

through which consumer ‘smart experiences’ (Gretzel et al. 2015a) can be unpacked

in relation to smartness contexts (Boes et al. 2015) and within the new

conceptualisation of the ‘smart event experience’ (Bustard et al., forthcoming).

In explaining this ‘Special Event’ app experience, the model builds new knowledge

and supports new knowledge relating events as smart tourism destination

competitiveness attractors (Koo et al., 2016). The model offers deeper exploration

and a more holistic engagement with smart technology, to improve experience

outcomes for consumers in digitally mediated contexts (Buonincontri & Micera,

2016). The model derived from the research carried out, presents the 7

interconnected aspects of event experience, with a particular focus on the 4

overlapping contexts of People, Places, Processes and Personalisation, all critical to

the co-creation of value through interconnected info-structures comprising the digital

event experience in a Smart Tourism destination context (Buhalis & Amaranggana,

2013).

This emerging era of ubiquity in computing intelligence, provides the potential of the

interconnectedness of experience through multiple stakeholders, driven through the

provision of ‘always on’ service encounters. Undoubtedly an area of potential

competitive advantage and opportunity (McCabe et al., 2012). Given that Tourism

Events are often considered as mini destinations (Ziakas & Boukas 2013), their

openness within such an ecosystem of smart tourism providers could significantly

scale in terms of sharing optimized ‘real-time’, informed and transformed consumer

experiences (Gretzel, et al. 2015a; Wang et al.,2016).

Therefore, the exploration of ‘smart experience’ thinking (Gretzel et al. 2015a) is vital

in relation to applying and integrating smart tourism potentialities and thus is critical

in gaining perspective and understanding (McCabe et al. 2012). As Buhalis &

Amaranggana (2013) posit, the potential to integrate stakeholder objectives within an

interoperable and open platform creating value, enriching experiences is an

opportunity for all involved. Critically, this model brings the event participant as co-

creator of experience, back into the center of the smart tourism phenomenon (Koo et

al. 2016).

5.1 Implications for Tourism & Event Practitioners

The findings of this paper contribute new knowledge in the research of events as

strategic integrations in smart tourism destination competitiveness (Koo et al., 2016).

Firstly, connecting and contributing are clearly two areas where digital event

experiences are being improved upon and were demand for such integration is

escalating (Getz & Page, 2015). Positioning people as tourist-centric Operant

resource - integrating and sharing entertaining and participatory content, in a more

connected and empowered manner, is the new norm in co-creating elements of their

destination experience (Wang et al., 2016).

Given this expanding propensity toward co-creation, integration of Artificial

Intelligence (AI), particularly the inclusion of chatbots to mediate these

communications, can be seen as a significant catalyst in speeding up and multiplying

co-creation and experience opportunities (Boes et al., 2015). The emerging ‘smart

event experience’ (Bustard et al. forthcoming, 2017) and the potential it offers in the

re-imagining of event and tourism experience connectivity has significant

implications for practice and the study of digital ecosystems (Gretzel et al., 2015a).

5.2 Implications for Research

The research presented in this paper provides a sound theoretical and empirically

tested model of the Smart event experience. Yet as Benckendorff & Pearce (2012)

explain, events are large laboratories where experience-scapes can offer new and

significant pathways of study and discovery. Adapting this viewpoint to the smart

event experience, ensures a suitable and focused approach to carrying out further

studies, given the nature and subjectivity of the event experience phenomenon (Getz

& Page 2015). With the emerging integration of AI such as chatbots as part of the

event experience – it is possible to imagine contexts where ‘real-time’ co-creation

with event fans will become a central competitive advantage for destinations,

attractions and events, throughout the experience journey (Neuhofer et al., 2012).

5.3 Limitations and Avenues for Future Research

This study is limited in its analysis of the smart event experience due to the use of a

purposive sample from the International NW200 Event in Northern Ireland, which

may limit the generalizability of research findings. Future research should therefore

investigate participant experiences through phenomenological means at other

destinations, events or attractions where differing experience outcomes are sought.

Additionally, analysis of how ‘special event’ practitioners are employing technology to

provide enhanced smart event experiences through the Internet of Things is

advisable. For example, the use of beacon technology, RFID and other emerging

platforms as actors integrating value (Gretzel et al. 2015a) into smart experiences.

These co-created offerings, for example leveraging location as a service (LaaS) in

‘real-time’ offer significant and memorable experience enhancing opportunities but

are critically under-examined in varying Smart Tourism contexts such as events (Koo

et al., 2016).

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the 2016 Innovation

Fund of the International Federation for IT in Travel and Tourism (IFITT).

6.0 References

Benckendorff, P. & Pearce, P.L. (2012). The psychology of events. The Routledge

Handbook of events, (2012), pp.165–185.

Berridge, G. (2014). Event experiences : Design, Management and Impact.

University of West London.

Boes, K., Buhalis, D. & Inversini, A. (2015). Conceptualising Smart Tourism

Destination Dimensions. Information & Communication Technologies in Tourism

2015, p.391.

Buhalis, D. and Amaranggana, A. (2013). Smart tourism destinations. in Information

and Communication TechNologies in Tourism 2014 Springer, 553-564

Bullough, S., Ramchandani, R. & Coleman, R. (2017). NW200 Economic Impact,

available at:

https://www.causewaycoastandglens.gov.uk/uploads/minutes/ITEM_12_-

_170808_-_NW200_Economic_Impact.pdf (accessed 25 August 2017).

Bustard J., Bolan, P., Devine A., Hutchinson K. (2017) Improving the app

experience: collaboratively co-creating through social media. The Journal of

Tourism and Development, forthcoming.

Buonincontri, P. & Micera, R. (2016). The experience co-creation in smart tourism

destinations : a multiple case analysis of European destinations. Information

Technology & Tourism, 16(3), pp.285–315.

Cohen, E. (1979). A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology, 13(2),

pp.179–201.

Drisko, J. (1998). Using qualitative data analysis software. Computers in Human

Services, 15(1), pp.1–19.

Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tourism

Management, 29(3), pp.403–428.

Getz, D. & Page, S.J. (2015). Progress and prospects for event tourism research.

Tourism Management, 52, pp.593–631.

Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z., Koo, C. (2015a). Smart tourism: foundations and

developments. Electronic Markets, 25(3), pp.179–188.

Gretzel, U., Werthner, H., Koo, C., Lamsfus, C. (2015b). Conceptual foundations for

understanding smart tourism ecosystems. Computers in Human Behavior, 50,

pp.558–563

Holst Kjaer, S., (2011). Meaningful Experience Creation and Event Management.

Culture Unbound, 3, pp.243–267.

Kelleher, C. (2012). Interpreting the score : participant experiences of value

cocreation in a collaborative consumption context. , (October 2012), pp.2012–

2013.

Koo, C., Shin, S., Gretzel, U., Hunter, W.C. & Chung, N. (2016). Conceptualization of

smart tourism destination competitiveness. Asia Pacific Journal of Information

Systems, 26(4), pp.561-576.

Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Sage

publications.

Luxford, A. & Dickinson, E.J., (2015). The Role of Mobile Applications in the

Consumer Experience at Music Festivals. Event Management, 19(1), pp.33–46.

McCabe, S., Sharples, M. & Foster, C., (2012). Stakeholder engagement in the

design of scenarios of technology-enhanced tourism services. Tourism

Management Perspectives, 4, pp.36–44.

Morgan, M., (2008). What, makes a good festival? Understanding the event

experience. Event Management, 12(2), pp.81–93.

Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D. & Ladkin, A., (2012). Conceptualising technology enhanced

destination experiences. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management,

1(1–2), pp.36–46.

Neuhofer, B. & Buhalis, D., (2013). Experience , Co-Creation and Technology:

Issues , Challenges and Trends for Technology Enhanced Tourism

Experiences. Handbook of Tourism Marketing Book, (2013), pp.124–139.

Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D. & Ladkin, A., (2015). Smart technologies for personalized

experiences: a case study in the hospitality domain. Electronic Markets, 25(3),

pp.243–254.

Neuhofer, B., (2016). Value Co-creation and Co-destruction in Connected Tourist

Experiences. In A. Inversini & R. Schegg, eds. Information and Communication

Technologies in Tourism 2016: Proceedings of the International Conference in

Bilbao, Spain, February 2-5, 2016. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp.

779–792.

Nordvall, A., Pettersson, R., Svensson, B. & Brown, S. (2014). Designing events for

social interaction. Event Management, 18(2), pp.127-140.

Smith, J.A. (2016). Getting at experience. In Routledge Handbook of Qualitative

Research in Sport and Exercise. Routledge, p. p.219.

Smith, J.A., Flowers, P. & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological

analysis: theory, method and research,

Stainton, H. (2016). Current Issues in Tourism The “Blogosphere” as a platform for

interpretative phenomenological analysis: the case of TEFL tourism. Current

Issues in Tourism, 0(0), pp.1–10.

Tomkins, L. & Eatough, V. (2010) Reflecting on the Use of IPA with Focus Groups:

Pitfalls and Potentials. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7(3), pp.244–262.

Tussyadiah, I.P. (2014). Toward a Theoretical Foundation for Experience Design in

Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 53(5), pp.543–564.

Tussyadiah, I.P. (2017). Technology and Behavioral Design in Tourism. In D. R.

Fesenmaier & Z. Xiang, eds. Design Science in Tourism. Springer International

Publishing., pp. 173–191.

Van Winkle, C. Cairns, A., MacKay K., Halpenny, E. (2016). Mobile device use

during festivals: opportunities for value creation Introduction. International

Journal of Event and Festival Management, 7(3).

Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P. & Akaka, M.A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A

service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal,

26(3), pp.145–152.

Wang, X., Li, X., (Robert) Zhen, F., Zhang, J. (2016). How smart is your tourist

attraction? Measuring tourist preferences of smart tourism attractions via a

FCEM-AHP and IPA approach. Tourism Management, 54, pp.309–320.

Ziakas, V. & Boukas, N. (2013). Extracting meanings of event tourist experiences: A

phenomenological exploration of Limassol carnival. Journal of Destination

Marketing and Management, 2(2), pp.94–107.

Ziakas, V. & Boukas, N. (2014). Contextualizing phenomenology in event

management research: Deciphering the meaning of event experiences.

International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 5(1), pp.56–73.