Exploring Customer-Centric Energy Ser- vice Innovation & Development A Qualitative Study on the Role of Customer Engagement & Digital Touchpoints in Energy Service Innovation & Develop- ment Master’s thesis in Management and Economics of Innovation and Supply Chain Manage- ment Moritz Berger Melker Lundberg DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS DIVISION OF SUPPLY AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Gothenburg, Sweden 2025 www.chalmers.se www.chalmers.se Exploring Customer-Centric Energy Service Innovation & Development A Qualitative Study on the Role of Customer Engagement & Digital Touchpoints in Energy Service Innovation & Development MORITZ BERGER MELKER LUNDBERG Department of Technology Management and Economics Division of Supply and Operations Management Chalmers University of Technology Gothenburg, Sweden 2025 Exploring Customer-Centric Energy Service Innovation & Development A Qualitative Study on the Role of Customer Engagement & Digital Touchpoints in Energy Service Innovation & Development MORITZ BERGER MELKER LUNDBERG © MORITZ P. BERGER, 2025. © MELKER C.A. LUNDBERG, 2025. Supervisor: Carolin Behrens, Supply and Operations Management Examiner: Árni Halldórsson, Supply and Operations Management Department of Technology Management and Economics Chalmers University of Technology SE-412 96 Gothenburg Telephone +46 31 772 1000 Gothenburg, Sweden 2025 iii Exploring Customer-Centric Energy Service Innovation & Development A Qualitative Study on the Role of Customer Engagement & Digital Touchpoints in Energy Service Innovation & Development MORITZ P. BERGER MELKER C.A. LUNDBERG Department of Technology Management and Economics Chalmers University of Technology Abstract Facing challenges in the context of digitalization in Sweden’s energy sector, tradi- tional firms are moving towards providing services and solutions to their customers, distancing themselves from the traditional utility-driven perspective. This study explores how digitalization enables customer-centric service innovation and devel- opment by viewing the customer as an active participant in the process and by using the benefits derived from digital customer touchpoints. Using a qualitative approach, semi-structured interviews were held with energy service providers and their customers to gather insights into customer engagement, digital interactions, and market actors. The findings show that customers are being increasingly included in the service in- novation and development process, positioning them as active co-creators of value. Respondents discussed that customers engage both explicitly through active touch- points such as online customer panels and webinars, and implicitly through passive touchpoints from which usage data and behavioral patterns can be derived. Ac- cordingly, digital touchpoints were categorized into passive and active based on the degree of provider involvement in interactions. The study also found that digital- ization is changing the actor constellations in the energy sector. These changes pose challenges for traditional energy service providers since they shift the use of digital touchpoints to various degrees, reducing the possibilities for co-creative innovation and development. Despite these challenges, the study highlights that effective man- agement of digital touchpoints and customer co-creation enhance service innovation and development. By matching digital touchpoints to customers based on their behavior, needs, and preferences they can be used more efficiently when includ- ing customers in the process of innovation and development. Therefore the thesis concludes that energy service providers should take a more structured approach re- garding digital customer touchpoints to match these to the needs of the customer. In this the categorization into active and passive digital touchpoints and implicit or explicit customer engagement may prove helpful. Keywords: Digitalization, Service Innovation & Development, Energy Services, En- ergy Sector, Digital Touchpoints, Customer Centricity. iv Acknowledgements First of all, we would like to express our gratitude to our supervisor, Carolin Behrens, for all of the valuable discussions, guidance, and feedback throughout the thesis project. Her knowledge within the area has been invaluable in guiding us. Thank you for your time, effort, patience, and support when we have been confused. A special thanks goes to our supervisors at the case company of the study for their willingness to share their experiences, perspectives, and knowledge within the energy sector. From day one we felt welcome and you were always available for discussions and questions which has been of great help during the project. We would also like to thank all participants of the interview study for their valuable time and insights. Your contributions are the cornerstone of this thesis and for that we are very thankful. Moritz Berger & Melker Lundberg, Gothenburg, June 2025 vi Contents List of Figures x List of Tables xi 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1.1 The Swedish Energy Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2 Aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.4 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Theoretical Framework 5 2.1 Digitalization shaping industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1.1 Digitalization of the Energy Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.2 Digital Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2 Energy services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.1 Categorization of Energy Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3 Digital Customer Touchpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3.1 Managing Digital Touchpoints in a B2B Context . . . . . . . . 10 2.4 Service Innovation and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.4.1 Foundations of Service Innovation and Development . . . . . . 11 2.4.2 Process Frameworks for Service Development . . . . . . . . . 12 2.4.2.1 The New Service Development framework . . . . . . 12 2.4.2.2 Service-Dominant Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.4.2.3 Service Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.4.3 Service Triads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4.3.1 Service Tetrads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.4.4 Customer-centric Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.5 Relation between Theoretical Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3 Methodology 20 3.1 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.2 Sampling Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.3 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.4 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.5 Research Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.5.1 Use of AI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 viii Contents 3.6 Sustainability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4 Empirical Findings 27 4.1 Changing Actor Constellations in the Energy Sector . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.2 Digital Service Innovation and Development Touchpoints . . . . . . . 29 4.2.1 Passive Digital Touchpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.2.2 Active Digital Touchpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.3 Customer Engagement in Service Innovation and Development . . . . 34 4.3.1 Customer Feedback & Insight Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.3.2 Direct Customer Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.3.3 Customer Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5 Analysis & Discussion 39 5.1 Changing Market Dynamics Affecting the Degree of Customer En- gagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 5.1.1 Actor Constellations that Inhibit Customer Engagement . . . 40 5.1.2 Actor Constellations that Support Customer Engagement . . . 43 5.2 Digital Service Innovation and Development Touchpoints in the En- ergy Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5.3 Using Digital Touchpoints for Digital Energy Service Innovation and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.4 Synthesis of Customer Engagement with Digital Touchpoints . . . . . 49 6 Conclusion 52 6.1 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 6.2 Limitations and Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 6.3 Contributions to Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Bibliography 56 A Interview Guides I A.1 Energy Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II A.2 Customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III ix List of Figures 2.1 The relation between digitization, digitalization, and digital transfor- mation. Adapted from Saarikko et al. (2020). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Categories and types of energy services. Inspired by Poblete and Halldòrsson (2023). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3 Basic service triad. Adapted from Wynstra et al. (2014). . . . . . . . 14 2.4 Tetradic archetype. Adapted from Wagner et al. (2018). . . . . . . . 15 2.5 Visualization of the theoretical connections. Own illustration. . . . . 19 5.1 Customer uses digital energy services exclusively from third-party actor. Own Illustration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 5.2 Customer uses digital energy services from third-party actor and tra- ditional provider. Own Illustration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 5.3 Customer uses advanced digital energy services from third-party actor to include end-customers. Own illustration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 5.4 Traditional firm and third-party actor have partnered to deliver value. Own Illustration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5.5 Customer uses digital energy services exclusively provided by tradi- tional firm. Own Illustration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5.6 Matrix synthesizing customer engagement with digital touchpoints. . 49 5.7 Visualization of the matrix in practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 x List of Tables 3.1 Interviews conducted during the study, sorted by type of actor and Interview date. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.2 Examples of coding-process, with quotes, first order codes, second order themes, and third order dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.1 The digital touchpoints identified between energy service providers and their customers, categorized into passive or active. . . . . . . . . 47 xi 1 Introduction This introductory chapter aims at giving a background to the issue handled in this thesis and why the issue at hand is worthy of study. This includes a general back- ground to the issue, a description of the Swedish energy market and its actors, and a short description of energy services. Furthermore, the chapter includes delimitations which are set to state clear boundaries for the thesis, the aim of the project, and the research questions that the thesis sets out to answer. 1.1 Background Digitalization is reshaping industries across society, and the energy sector is no exception as it now faces a new set of challenges. Energy companies are moving toward a new logic of operation focusing on providing services and solutions whilst distancing themselves from the traditional producer logic (Kindström et al., 2017). The evolving climate in the market, where energy prices and consumption fluctu- ate more aggressively, has made customers more engaged and interested in energy related questions. This requires incumbent energy providers to establish closer re- lationships with their customers (Heinen & Richards, 2020). In turn, this can help energy providers understand market needs and convert them into services and solu- tions that are tailored to their customers’ needs. This is made possible primarily by two groups of technology that have come to redefine the market. Firstly, new digital technology that allow for new ways of interacting with customers and accessing data (Goldbach et al., 2018). Secondly, renewable energy technologies such as solar panels, electric vehicles, and energy storage solutions that redefine who is a customer, who is a producer and introduces concepts like energy prosumers (Goldbach et al., 2018). Considering this, traditional energy companies have come to rethink their customer offerings with an increasing focus on service innovation and development (Kindström et al., 2017). The digitalization has and will have a significant impact on the energy sector, where digital disruptions like Information and Communication Technology (ICT) as well as Internet of Things (IoT) play a big role in realizing digitalization in the en- ergy market (Varela, 2017). The author continues to explain that technologies like these allow utility companies, as in the energy sector, to embrace new and improved processes and new ways to interact with customers. Varela (2017) continues by ex- plaining that B2B-customers have a growing interest in their energy consumption 1 1. Introduction as well as in producing their own energy. Esgalhado and Veillard (2025) mention that the main reasons for the growing interest are decarbonization, energy security, reliability and cost, putting pressure on energy providers to digitalize and provide customers with the digital services needed to optimize their energy consumption. B2B-customers generally have a high consumption of energy and to a larger extent own energy storage and production assets. One solution to support the increasing customer interests is for energy providers to increase their digital service offering and create deeper customer relationships (Kindström et al., 2017). Furthermore, tech- nologies such as smart meters allow energy companies to collect detailed data on energy production and consumption, which, in combination with connected equip- ment that can be controlled remotely, can optimize the balance between energy demand and supply. However, it remains unclear how these digital advances affect the way energy companies create and enhance their digital services, especially in the B2B context. The increased customer interest in relation to energy, combined with the fact that research on digital services and digital service touchpoints in a B2B setting is scarce (Gao et al., 2021), makes this context of special interest. The changes in the market described above, not least the digitalization, also af- fect the structure of the energy sector. According to Varela (2017) the digitalization opens up the energy sector and allows new players to enter a market which has previously been dominated by traditional utility companies. These companies act in-between the traditional energy companies and the customers as intermediaries, offering services such as spot price optimization and frequency markets (Santos & Saraiva, 2024). This again changes the interactions between the traditional energy provider and its customers, whilst simultaneously increasing the competition in the market. Favoretto et al. (2022) argue that a move toward digital services calls for a change in the customer’s role, moving toward a relationship where service providers and customers co-create value. This approach requires engaging customers more closely in service innovation and development processes and is enabled by digital technologies. Additionally, they argue that digitalization enables companies to ex- pand their service offerings and optimize their services to the customers’ needs. The case company for the thesis, being a traditional provider of energy and en- ergy related services, now faces several challenges arising from a shifting operational logic, increased market volatility, technological integration, and changing actor con- stellations in the market. These developments raise issues on, for instance, the customer’s engagement in service innovation and development, changes in how sup- pliers interact with customers, the emergence of new actors on the market, and the effect these changes have on supplier-customer relationships. 1.1.1 The Swedish Energy Market The Swedish energy system relies on a varied mix of energy sources, with a large part being renewable and low-carbon production. Annual electricity production typically lies between 150 and 165 TWh, which exceeds the national consumption of 135 to 145 TWh (Energiföretagen, 2025). Despite this, balancing supply and demand in 2 1. Introduction real time has become more difficult due to the growing share of intermittent sources such as wind and solar. In 2023, renewables made up 63 percent of electricity pro- duction, with hydro and wind being the largest sources. The rest came from nuclear and thermal power (SCB, 2025). This shift has caused more frequent price spikes and grid strain, especially during peak hours or when weather conditions limit re- newable output. Electricity is usually cheapest at night and most expensive during the morning and afternoon (Vattenfall, 2025). These fluctuations have made it more important for businesses to actively manage their energy use. In response, energy providers have started offering a wider range of digital services. Some are simple tools for monitoring usage, while others are more advanced and allow customers to participate in energy markets. For instance, Göteborg Energi’s Energirapporten gives B2B customers an overview of their energy data across multi- ple facilities (Göteborg Energi, 2025). Other services help businesses trade flexibility by shifting or reducing consumption when it makes economic or grid-related sense (Poblete & Halldórsson, 2023). Many of these services are offered in collaboration with energy intermediaries such as agents and aggregators. These actors help busi- nesses make better use of their energy data, optimize usage based on market signals, and pool smaller assets like batteries or solar panels into a bundle that can be traded on wholesale markets (Kerscher & Arobleya, 2022). As digitalization opens the mar- ket to new actors, traditional energy providers are under pressure to rethink how they interact with customers and develop services that meet changing expectations. 1.2 Aim This thesis explores how digital customer touchpoints influence the innovation and development of customer-centric energy services. It examines how digitalization en- ables new ways for energy providers to engage with customers and to optimize their service offerings. By empirically examining digital touchpoints as well as gathering insights of key stakeholders engaged in the innovation and development of energy services, this thesis explores how digitalization influences the service process. With a specific focus on customer engagement, value co-creation, and changing actor roles. 1.3 Delimitations In order to fulfill the aim of the thesis and to effectively answer the stated research questions, a clear set of delimitations is necessary. This section outlines delimita- tions made with the intention to set clear boundaries on the scope of the thesis. This also aims to help the reader understand what the thesis entails. • The study focuses solely on the business-to-business (B2B) segment of the en- ergy market, specifically on real estate companies. Since the B2B segment differs significantly from the business to consumer (B2C) 3 1. Introduction market in terms of energy consumption, behaviors, and needs (Lundin & Kind- ström, 2024), a focus on B2B will allow for deeper insights into digital touchpoints and service development. Furthermore, given the broad scope of the B2B-segment it was chosen to focus on the customer segment of real estate companies to narrow the study down to a reasonable scope. The real estate sector was chosen since its actors have similar needs and behaviors, not only allowing for more depth in the research but also to gain a better understanding of the customer. • The study focuses on the Swedish market. Given that the energy market differs in its characteristics between different countries regarding for instance regulations and infrastructure, the main focus of the study will be on the Swedish energy market (Diamant et al., 2021). The prerequisites in terms of infrastructure and energy mix, combined with regulatory boundaries greatly impact how energy companies operate and what they are allowed to and able to offer their customers. Therefore, a clear geographical delimitation is necessary. 1.4 Research Questions In line with achieving the aim of the study, three research questions have been for- mulated. The questions strive to facilitate the understanding of the energy market and contribute to the academic knowledge regarding the role of digitalization in the sector. The following three research questions will be answered in the report: • RQ1: How do customers engage in the innovation and development of digital energy services? • RQ2: What digital touchpoints that are connected to Service Innovation and Development exist between energy service providers and their customers? • RQ3: How do energy companies use digital touchpoints in the innovation and development of customer-centric services? 4 2 Theoretical Framework This thesis primarily investigates service innovation and development and digital- ization in the energy sector. Therefore, it was necessary to investigate literature on these subjects. To synthesize the theories brought up in this chapter, it ends by synthesizing the presented theories into a model to explain how each part connects to the other. 2.1 Digitalization shaping industries Digitization, Digitalization, and Digital Transformation are three terms that are commonly used interchangeably (Kraus et al., 2021). However, Ross (2019) ex- plains that there are important distinctions to be made between the terms and that one should not confuse them. Saarikko et al. (2020) mention that digitization is a component in digitalization which in turn is part of the concept of digital transfor- mation. This is supported by Verhoef et al. (2021) who established that the three terms are three phases within the digital transformation as illustrated in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1: The relation between digitization, digitalization, and digital transfor- mation. Adapted from Saarikko et al. (2020). Gradillas and Thomas (2023) define digitization as the conversion, representation, and enhancement of analogue information, processes or products/services to a digital format. They further define digitalization as a concept that refers to the adoption, application and utilization of digital tools to capture new business opportunities leading to socioeconomic change. In this sense, digitalization encompasses a broader context than digitization. The concept of digital transformation or becoming digital 5 2. Theoretical Framework is described by Ross (2019) as the rethinking of a company’s value proposition, cre- ating customer value by offering a personalized and seamless customer experience through the use of digital technologies. Heymann et al. (2023) include an additional layer by describing how digitization occurs within a company, digitalization occurs in an economic sector and digital transformation takes place on a cross-sectoral scale. They further explain that a clear definition is fundamental when analyzing the subject. Given the thesis focus on the energy sector the term digitalization will be used to describe the phenomenon that is being studied, in line with the scope of the terms presented by Heymann et al. (2023). This definition will be used when preparing interviewees in order to ensure there is a common understanding of the subject. Furthermore, the definition will be used to analyze current events in the energy sector. 2.1.1 Digitalization of the Energy Sector According to Heymann et al. (2023) the digitalization of the energy sector has gained increased traction, where digital technologies and business models are being used to a larger extent. They further argue that it is driven by various technolog- ical advances leading to an increased availability of data, improved analytics, and interconnection. Crittenden et al. (2019) mention that digitalization and digital technology introduce challenges for traditional firms. They explain that disruptive startups and new actors see opportunities to enter markets and challenge traditional businesses by positioning themselves as intermediaries between customers and tra- ditional firms. These intermediaries are often faster to adopt and adapt to new technology, making it difficult for traditional firms to keep up. The authors argue that this makes it important for traditional firms to use the large amounts of data on customer behavior that they possess. Varela (2017) adds to this when explain- ing that customers in the energy market to a larger degree want to be engaged and therefor expect providers to tend to their specific needs. Varela (2017) confirms that new technologies like IoT and ICT allow new actors to enter and disrupt the energy sector. However, Kindström et al. (2017) mention that some intermediaries are sought after by traditional firms since they may contribute with valuable resources that do not exist internally such as technological expertise. To navigate the process of digitalizing the energy sector, the European Union has implemented an action plan where they claim that digital technologies such as ICT, modern sensors, big data, IOT and AI can play a big role in decarbonizing the energy system (Digitalisation of the Energy Systems, n.d.). The increased access to energy data along with the exchange of data between different actors in the en- ergy value chain is a key enabler for the development and innovation of new digital energy services (Digitalisation and Data Exchange Are Key Enablers for a Modern and Resilient Energy System, 2024). Investments in digital technology such as smart meters and smart connected devices can help visualize energy consumption in real time and allow for personalized advice (Digitalisation of the Energy Systems, n.d.). 6 2. Theoretical Framework 2.1.2 Digital Technology According to Verhoef et al. (2021) a driver of digitalization is the increasing access to a multitude of digital technologies with some examples being: Internet-Of-Things (IoT), Artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, cloud computing etc. Verhoef et al. (2021) explain how the emergence of digital technologies changes the role of actors in the market, where for instance customers become co-producers and competitors become collaborators. Furthermore, these technologies change the competitive land- scape and the customer behavior in markets, making it important for existing firms to adapt in order to stay relevant. By leveraging digital technologies in combination with data analytics companies can utilize existing knowledge to create more value for their customers (Verhoef et al., 2021). Warner and Wäger (2019) found that digital technology can allow firms to make sense of and utilize big data and max- imize customer centricity. They further argue that firms must continuously adapt their strategy and operations to the rapid technological change in order to remain competitive. Lundin and Kindström (2024) mention that B2B firms that rely on digital tech- nology may face challenges with creating and managing valuable customer journeys. They further argue that digitalization can both provide benefits in the form of new ways to interact with and manage customer journeys, but may also make the cus- tomer journeys more complex by adding more touchpoints and more actors that interact with them. Goldbach et al. (2018) further mention that digital technology changes what services energy providers can develop. They continue with saying that digital technology like smart-meters and ICT allow for energy providers to develop digital energy services. However, actors in the energy sector struggle with what digital energy services they should develop, which Goldbach et al. (2018) mention may be because of organizational inertia and risk-aversion. Kindström et al. (2017) mention that there is no clear definition of energy services, they identify this as a reason for why traditional firms struggle in their innovation and development. Hence, the following section aims to explain energy services and how they can be classified. 2.2 Energy services Energy services, according to Haas et al. (2008), refer to the useful outcomes derived from energy consumption rather than the energy itself. While traditional energy providers have focused on the supply of electricity, heat and fuel as a commodities, the concept of energy services shifts attention to the delivery of functional benefits. These benefits could for example be heating, cooling, lighting and industrial pro- cesses (Haas et al., 2008). Instead of viewing energy as a standalone product, this perspective emphasizes the role of efficiency, optimization and customized solutions tailored to the user’s needs. Over time, the scope of energy services has expanded to include a wide range of activities beyond direct energy provision. According to Kindström et al. (2017) 7 2. Theoretical Framework energy services have evolved to include energy efficiency improvements, investment financing and functional contracts. This transition has paved the way for more so- phisticated service models. As described by Poblete and Halldórsson (2023), energy providers now integrate digital tools, real-time energy management and demand-side flexibility to optimize consumption and improve operational performance. 2.2.1 Categorization of Energy Services Poblete and Halldòrsson (2023) present a framework of categorizing energy ser- vices as a relationship based on their level of complexity and customer involvement. The authors classifies energy services into two main categories: basic and advanced energy services as seen in Figure 2.2. Basic energy services include information- oriented and analysis-oriented services, which primarily focus on providing data and insights without direct operational intervention. These services are typically transactional, require minimal collaboration between provider and customer, and involve standardized agreements. In contrast, advanced energy services, includ- ing improvement-oriented and contract-oriented services, require deeper provider engagement. These services often involve long-term partnerships, strategic collabo- ration and in some cases, performance-based contracts to ensure measurable energy savings and efficiency improvements. Figure 2.2: Categories and types of energy services. Inspired by Poblete and Halldòrsson (2023). Information- oriented services represent the most basic type of customer-provider relationship. Poblete and Halldòrsson (2023) explain that typical for this category is minimal interaction between the energy service provider and the customer and the transactions are typically market driven and based on market price. Customers and providers act independently, meaning that no long-term commitment or col- laboration is required. These services typically involve standardized transactions without active provider involvement in optimizing energy use. Since they require little to no investment or operational changes, they are often used by businesses that need basic insight into their energy use but do not require direct energy management. Poblete and Halldòrsson (2023) describe Analysis oriented services as involving a higher level of interactions between the service provider and the customer compared to information-oriented services. While still being transactional in nature, these type of services focus on helping business assess and improve their energy efficiency. Customers typically source these services through competitive biding processes and the contracts are usually short-term and cost-driven. These services go beyond ba- sic transactions by providing expert evaluations to help businesses understand how energy is being used and where improvements can be made. However, these services 8 2. Theoretical Framework do not include direct implementations of energy-saving measures from the provider, they only provide the insights necessary to optimize energy. Improvement-oriented services, unlike the last two categories, according to Poblete and Halldòrsson (2023) involve direct implementation of energy-saving measures, re- quiring providers to take an active role in process optimization and system upgrades. Therefore, these services require a closer provider-customer relationship, often struc- tured as long-term partnerships to ensure sustained energy efficiency improvements. These services typically include technical upgrades, system optimization and direct implementation of energy-saving solutions. Since these services require higher level of engagement and investment, they often involve customers that focus more on long term improvements in energy efficiency. Contract-oriented services described by Poblete and Halldòrsson (2023) represent the most complex and integrated form of energy services, requiring long-term agree- ments and deep collaboration between the provider and the customer. Unlike trans- actional models, where businesses purchase services as needed, contract-based en- ergy services are structured around performance guarantees, shared investments, and measurable efficiency outcomes. By transferring part of the operational or fi- nancial risk to the provider, these agreements ensure that customers achieve specific energy savings or operational improvements over time. Since these services often are tailored for a customers specific need, they require a high level of trust and ongoing cooperation. This is gained by providers taking an active role in managing energy consumption, optimizing processes, and ensuring compliance with regulatory and sustainability goals. Contract-oriented agreements allow companies to focus on their core operations while leveraging the provider’s energy management capabilities to achieve sustained efficiency gains and financial benefits. The theory presented by Poblete and Halldòrsson (2023) will be used to define energy services. It will further help to narrow the study toward information- and analysis-based services, more specifically digital information- and analysis-based ser- vices. For simplicity, the notion of “Energy service” or “Digital Energy Service” will refer to these definitions. 2.3 Digital Customer Touchpoints Customer touchpoints are important parts of customer journeys, described by Lundin and Kindström (2024) as all interactions and engagements between a supplier and its customers. The management of touchpoints is by nature more complex in a B2B context than in B2C since more stakeholders are involved in the customer journey. They mention that in contrast to B2C, B2B customer journeys include more ac- tors since the customer journey with a supplier often overlaps with external actors including competitors. Meaning that the actors included are the customer and sup- plier, but also external actors and intermediaries. They further explain that the complexity of customer journeys increases with digitalization since the number of touchpoints tend to increase in line with the incorporation of digital technology, 9 2. Theoretical Framework which is supported by Kannan and Li (2017). Digitalization opens up new possibil- ities regarding touchpoints, where they go from being purely physical to also being digital and data-driven (Lundin & Kindström, 2024). Digital touchpoints then, are all interactions between supplier and customer that take place in a digital format and therefore provide companies with the ability to create value through customer data, more in line with the customer’s needs (Kannan & Li, 2017; Lundin & Kind- ström, 2024). To manage digital touchpoints effectively, Lundin and Kindström (2024) concep- tualize them using three dimensions, resources, actions, and environments. The first dimension refers to the resources that are exchanged in the digital touchpoint which can be for instance knowledge, data, and time. The second dimension con- stitutes the actions that are taken at a touchpoints, like searching for information on a webpage. The third and last dimension of touchpoints is the environment, which they describe as the context in which the touchpoint is situated. Accord- ing to Lundin and Kindström (2024) it is important to look at these dimensions to understand digital touchpoints and to address each dimension when managing customer touchpoints. 2.3.1 Managing Digital Touchpoints in a B2B Context The shift toward more digital customer touchpoints requires suppliers to develop new operational capabilities (Lundin & Kindström, 2024). In their article, seven such capabilities are identified, structured by the three dimensions mentioned ear- lier. To manage digital touchpoint resources, they suggest two capabilities being: prepar- ing customer resources and Integrating digital resources. Preparing customer re- sources means that suppliers must be able to increase their customers’ digital readi- ness so that the customers can engage at the digital touchpoints. This can for in- stance entail training or alerting customers of upcoming features or updates (Lundin & Kindström, 2024). They further argue the importance of enabling customers like this since it increases the engagement at the digital touchpoints. The second ca- pability, integrating digital resources, means synthesizing data from various digital touchpoints and combining it with other sources of data to create valuable insights for the customer. They argue that this capability is important to capture the value of available data. The increased availability of data that digital touchpoints provide give suppliers new opportunities for value-creation. Lundin and Kindström (2024) continue by explaining the three capabilities needed to manage digital touchpoint actions. The first capability is enabling collective actions which in the context of digital touchpoints is important since B2B customers usually have multiple roles that interact with the touchpoints. Enabling collective actions then relates to suppliers ensuring that different roles at the customer organization can coordinate actions using shared digital interfaces and consistent information. Secondly, they mention supporting customer actions as a capability when managing 10 2. Theoretical Framework digital touchpoints. This entails providing the customer with support based on what the customer is doing and when they are doing it. This can be achieved by proactive updates and alerts, and by providing the customer with data-driven insights. The third capability they mention is balancing activation levels. Since digital touchpoints allow the suppliers’ resources to be available at any time, customers tend to be more active. This can also lessen the need for suppliers to provide direct input to the cus- tomer’s actions, making it possible to re-allocate resources to complex touchpoints that require more direct interaction (Lundin & Kindström, 2024). Lastly, Lundin and Kindström (2024) bring up two capabilities of importance when managing digital touchpoint environments. The ability to hybridize environments is the first capability. The authors argue that physical environments are still piv- otal within the B2B segment, but can be supported by digital touchpoints and environments, emphasizing the importance of balance between physical and digital interactions. Hybridizing environments is then to find a balance between different environments so that digital touchpoints complement rather than replace essential physical touchpoints. The last capability they mention is merging digital environ- ments. Digital environments should be bundled if there is an overlap in content in order to create a seamless and positive experience for the customer. Additionally, the merging of overlapping environments makes them easier to handle for the sup- plier and easier to interact with for the customer leading to greater satisfaction. This theory will be used to guide the identification of digital customer touchpoints in the B2B energy service context. Lundin and Kindström’s (2024) three dimensions and seven capabilities will be used to analyze and understand how energy service providers currently work with their digital interactions and how they use them to drive customer-centric service innovation and development. 2.4 Service Innovation and Development This section outlines the theoretical foundation for understanding service innovation in B2B digital markets, with a specific focus on the energy sector. The structure follows a progression from defining service development, through frameworks that support customer interaction and system complexity, to a broader view of value co-creation. These theories inform the research design and analytical approach, selected for their relevance to digital service transformation, customer integration, and networked service delivery. 2.4.1 Foundations of Service Innovation and Development Service innovation and development refers to the systematic process of designing, creating and enhancing services to meet customer needs and expectations (Edvards- son et al., 2000). This process encompasses various stages, including ideation, design, implementation and evaluation. The process is influenced by factors such as market trends, technological advancements, and customer feedback. Unlike product devel- opment, service development is characterized by intangibility, co-creation with cus- 11 2. Theoretical Framework tomers, and continuous adaption to market demands (Gallouj & Weinstein, 1997). The structured development is, according to Gustafsson et al. (2012), particularly critical in B2B markets, where service offerings often need to integrate with com- plex client systems while at the same time complying with regulatory frameworks. In these contexts, services are frequently tailored to specific customer processes, making the ability to manage iterative development cycles and sustain long-term partnerships essential. 2.4.2 Process Frameworks for Service Development The development of digital services in the energy sector requires an understanding of how companies plan, create, and deliver value in changing markets. This sec- tion introduces important frameworks that support service development, covering both structured innovation processes and collaboration between different actors. By bringing together insights from New Service Development (NSD), Service-Dominant Logic (S-D Logic), and service ecosystem theory, this chapter builds a foundation for analyzing how energy companies respond to customer needs, use digital technologies, and work within broader service networks. 2.4.2.1 The New Service Development framework The New Service Development (NSD) framework provides a structured approach to service innovation, emphasizing iterative design and thinking (Menor et al., 2002). The NSD framework typically includes stages such as opportunity identification, ser- vice concept development, business analysis, prototype testing, market launch, and continuous improvement (Alam, 2006; Storey & Hull, 2010). Customer requirements are not only explored during the initial stages of NSD but are also continuously re- fined through iterative concept testing and customer feedback loops, particularly during the fuzzy front-end of service innovation (Alam, 2006). Especially in B2B markets such as the energy sector, where client requirements are often complex and context-specific, NSD highlights the importance of cross-functional collabora- tion and internal knowledge sharing to accurately capture and respond to nuanced expectations (Kindström & Kowalkowski, 2014). However, NSD primarily focuses on managing internal service processes and may not fully account for the relational, iterative, and networked nature of value creation in digital contexts. Therefore, it must be complemented by broader theoretical lenses. 2.4.2.2 Service-Dominant Logic Service-Dominant Logic (S-D Logic), introduced by Vargo and Lusch (2004), shifts the focus from designing discrete service outputs to facilitating ongoing value co- creation between actors. In this view, value is not embedded in a service offering, but emerges through interaction, experience, and resource integration. Market de- mands and customer expectations are not fixed inputs but evolve through use and relationships (Chandler & Vargo, 2011). S-D Logic synthesizes its perspective into five foundational axioms, which together 12 2. Theoretical Framework re-frame how value is understood in service systems: (Vargo & Lusch, 2016): 1. Service is the fundamental basis of exchange. 2. Value is co-created by multiple actors, always including the beneficiary. 3. All social and economic actors are resource integrators. 4. Value is always uniquely and contextually determined by the beneficiary. 5. Value co-creation is coordinated through institutions and institutional arrange- ments. These axioms help shift the analytical focus from firm-controlled outputs to net- worked, systematic processes of value emergence. A critical distinction made in this framework is between co-production and co-creation. Co-production refers to the customer’s involvement in the design or configuration of a service offering, whereas co-creation encompasses the broader and ongoing realization of value through service use and contextual application (Lusch & Vargo, 2006). 2.4.2.3 Service Ecosystems Building on S-D Logic, the concept of service ecosystems expands the scope from pairwise interactions to dynamic, multi-actor networks. Service ecosystems are de- fined by Vargo and Lusch (2016) as “relatively self-contained, self-adjusting systems of resource-integrating actors connected by shared institutional arrangements and mutual value creation through service exchange”. In service ecosystems, value co-creation emerges through the interaction between di- verse actors, including service providers, customers, partners, regulators, and digital intermediaries. These actors are, according to Vargo and Lusch (2016), connected and coordinated through institutions, which facilitate the shared norms, rules, and meanings that guide behavior and facilitate collaboration. Simmonds et al. (2021) further explain that institutions play a critical role in shaping how actors interact, what resources are shared, and how innovation unfolds. In the energy sector, for instance regulatory frameworks, technical standards, and market mechanisms both enable and constrain the development of new digital services (Simmonds et al., 2021). Digital technologies play a central role in enabling coordination within service ecosys- tems. They facilitate resource integration, real-time interaction, and data-driven decision-making among diverse actors (Breidbach & Maglio, 2016). Technologies such as IoT, intelligent automation, and digital interfaces enable the liquidation of resources, making them more transferable across contexts and more accessible across time and space (Kowalkowski et al., 2024). They further argue that by supporting seamless information flows and interaction possibilities, digitalization enhances the adaptability and responsiveness of service ecosystems, while simultaneously intro- ducing new complexities related to system integration and relationship management. Together, NSD, S-D Logic and service ecosystem theory offer a comprehensive lens for analyzing how energy firms develop and deliver digital services. NSD informs how firms structure service development activities and integrate customer feedback into 13 2. Theoretical Framework internal processes. S-D Logic brings attention to how value is co-created through interaction, contextual experience, and cross-actor resource integration. The ser- vice ecosystem theory expands the view to include institutional dynamics, resource integration patterns, and broader networks of interacting actors. 2.4.3 Service Triads Because our study examines the service innovation and development in the energy sector, we draw on literature about service triads and tetrads to frame the relation- ships that affect the creation and enhancement of services. Wynstra et al. (2014) describe service triads as the relationship that occurs when a buying firm contracts a supplier to deliver services to the buyer’s end customer. The service triad then con- sists of the supplier, buyer and buyer’s customer and explains the underlying relation between the different actors and the flow of services, information, and transactions between them. The triadic setup differs from the traditional view of linear supply chains since all three actors in the triad are in a way connected to each other which is a critical point of the triadic structure (Wynstra et al., 2014). The buyer-supplier link is usually contractual, the buyer-customer link defines the value-proposition, and the supplier-customer link is the direct delivery of services. The concept of service triads stems in that firms move toward outsourcing activities while keeping a focus on, and specializing in their core activities (Wynstra et al., 2014). The basic service triad described here is illustrated in Figure 2.3 where the arrows represent the flow of services, information, and transactions. Figure 2.3: Basic service triad. Adapted from Wynstra et al. (2014). The buyer in this case acts as an intermediary since the service delivery to the customer is conducted by the supplier. Although this increases the overall value proposed to the customer, it also poses challenges since it makes the relationships more complex (Wynstra et al., 2014). The buyer is in this case still responsible for the satisfaction of the customer, even though the service is delivered by a supplier, meaning that the reputation of the buyer lies in the hands of the supplier. This calls 14 2. Theoretical Framework for coordination, quality control, and management of relationships when managing a service triad (Wynstra et al., 2014). 2.4.3.1 Service Tetrads Not all triadic relationships look the same, Wagner et al. (2018) define five tri- adic relationship constellations all of which differ in what links between actors are present in the relationship. Wagner et al. (2018) further extends on the triadic archetypes and additionally identify the tetradic archetypes which involve four ac- tors. The tetradic archetype builds on the same relationship as the triadic archetype but includes an additional actor, the competitor/intermediary. The base case of the tetradic archetype can be seen in Figure 2.4. However, Wagner et al. (2018) iden- tify 11 additional constellations that could be observed and used to describe the relationship between the four actors. Figure 2.4: Tetradic archetype. Adapted from Wagner et al. (2018). The constellation of the tetradic archetype depends, just as described by Wynstra et al. (2014), on the content of the links between the actors (Wagner et al., 2018). By studying a tetradic archetypes one can gain insight into how additional actors such as competitors or intermediaries affect the service delivery network (Wagner et al., 2018). The concepts of service triads and tetrads are used in this thesis to describe the structure of the energy market and how different actor constellations influence ser- vice development. They also informed the interview guide, particularly on questions related to market roles and relationships. However, while these models help explain inter-organizational structures, they do not fully capture how customers influence service innovation, especially in digital contexts. For that reason, the next section shifts the focus to customer-centric perspectives. 2.4.4 Customer-centric Perspectives To emphasize the importance of the customer in the process of service innovation and development, this part of the chapter focuses on the role of the customer as 15 2. Theoretical Framework an increasingly central actor in service innovation and development. As digitaliza- tion continues to reshape service delivery in B2B energy markets, customers are no longer viewed as passive recipients of value, but rather as active participants in its creation. This shift places the customer at the center of service development, shap- ing how services are designed, delivered, and improved. The following theoretical perspectives are used to explore this role in greater depth: customer proximity, the customer’s role, co-creation, customer segmentation and customer engagement. To- gether, these concepts form a coherent framework for understanding how customers interact with and contribute to digital energy services. Customer proximity refers to the perceived closeness between the customer and the service provider and includes dimensions of spatial, temporal, social, and hypo- thetical proximity (Dalla Pozza, 2022). Spatial proximity relates to the accessibility of the service, temporal to the speed and synchronicity of interactions, social to perceived empathy and personal contact, and hypothetical proximity to how well the service meets expectations. Dalla Pozza (2022) explains this framework as a help to understand omni-channel service delivery, where a customer may interact with a firm through multiple digital and human interfaces. The author continues by saying that while digitalization brings efficient communication, it also risks creating psychological distance. Poor design, unresponsiveness, or impersonal services can weaken proximity, while personalization, speed, and a good tone can help reinforce it. Beyond proximity, the customer’s role in service innovation has undergone a fun- damental shift. Traditionally viewed as passive recipients, customers are now in- creasingly framed as active participants who contribute knowledge, preferences, and feedback that shape service design and delivery (Gustafsson et al., 2012). Draw- ing on service-dominant logic, value is understood as something co-created through interaction between providers and customers, rather than being embedded in the offering itself (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). In B2B services, this may include requests for feature development, modifications to how usage data is presented, or suggestions for improved usability in digital interfaces. This perspective positions the customer not only as a user but as a resource in the innovation process, capable of influencing service development through ongoing input. This leads naturally to the concept of co-creation. According to Payne et al. (2008) co-creation involves a series of interconnected processes through which customers and firms jointly create value. These processes include customer value-creating ac- tivities, provider activities and the interactive "encounter processes" that link them. Payne et al. (2008) mention that in digital service innovation and development, co- creation is increasingly facilitated through interactive tools such as online feedback forms, embedded communication features, and real-time data tracking. These mech- anisms enable service providers to collect customer suggestions, preferences, and complaints, which can be integrated into iterative development processes. Lemon and Verhoef (2016) emphasize that such interactions occur throughout the entire customer journey, highlighting that co-creation can take place before, during, and after the formal service exchange. 16 2. Theoretical Framework While co-creation offers valuable opportunities for service innovation, it is impor- tant to recognize that customers vary in their ability and motivation to participate. Research on customer segmentation highlights that customer heterogeneity, partic- ularly in terms of organizational size, internal capabilities, and strategic orientation, influences how and to what extent customers can engage in service development (Cossío-Silva et al., 2016). For example, segmentation research emphasizes that firms differ significantly in terms of internal capabilities, structure, and strategic priorities, which in turn affect their ability to participate in collaborative innovation (Mora Cortez et al., 2021). Larger organizations may be better positioned to engage in structured development efforts due to more formalized processes or dedicated per- sonnel, while smaller firms may face resource constraints or have less defined roles. Terho et al. (2012) argue that value-based selling in business markets depends on the supplier’s ability to understand and adapt to the customer’s specific context and business needs, which naturally differ across segments. This makes customer segmentation not only a commercial consideration but also a strategic approach for identifying which customers are best positioned to participate in co-development (Terho et al., 2012). Continuing with saying that by prioritizing customer groups with greater innovation potential, service providers can allocate development re- sources more effectively and increase the impact of co-creation initiatives. The concept of customer engagement further expands the understanding of how cus- tomers participate in service innovation and development. Van Doorn et al. (2010) define engagement as behaviors that go beyond purchase and usage, motivated by factors such as emotional connection, satisfaction, or social influence. These behav- iors may include giving feedback, joining user communities, recommending services to others, or sharing insights with the provider. Brodie et al. (2011) describe en- gagement as involving emotional, cognitive, and behavioral elements that emerge through ongoing interaction between the customer and the firm. In the context of B2B energy services, customer engagement may take the form of regular interaction with digital interfaces, the use of advanced features, or ongoing communication with provider support teams (Brodie et al., 2011). These types of interactions reflect the customer’s willingness to invest time and effort in the service relationship. Gao et al. (2021) emphasize that engagement is shaped by how customers experience and respond to service touchpoints across the customer journey, particularly in digital B2B settings. To sum up, this section has outlined how customer proximity, role, co-creation, segmentation, and engagement shape customer involvement in digital energy ser- vice innovation. These perspectives show the different ways customers interact with providers and influence service development. They also highlight how varying levels of participation depend on available resources, motivation, and strategic fit. This framework will support the upcoming analysis by guiding how digital interactions and customer contributions are interpreted. 17 2. Theoretical Framework 2.5 Relation between Theoretical Concepts This section synthesizes the theoretical framework that will be followed in this thesis. The framework can be seen in Figure 2.5, including the different theoretical lenses that have been presented and how they connect theoretically. The provided model il- lustrates how service innovation and development, digital customer touchpoints and digital energy services relate and how they are centered around customer-centricity with data as the foundation. In this thesis, digital customer touchpoints are understood as the specific points of digital interaction between energy service providers and their customers mak- ing them directly relevant for the innovation and development of services. Digital touchpoints allow for customer engagement, feedback collection, and usage monitor- ing, which in turn generates valuable data and customer insights that feed into the innovation and development process. The solid arrow from digital touchpoints to service innovation and development represents how the touchpoints inform the inno- vation and development process. Service innovation and development represents the process of creating new or enhancing current services based on customer needs and expectations. The goal of the service innovation and development process is to create new or enhance current services, these services in turn contain digital touchpoints making the process a reinforcing loop. Digital energy services and touchpoints drive customer-centricity which is illustrated by the dotted arrows. Data acts as the foundation of customer-centric service innovation and development, having a critical role by generating and capturing valuable insights into customer be- havior and needs. Since digital energy services and touchpoints generate data which feeds back into the development and innovation process there are arrows in both directions. The dotted frame around all this represents the boundary between en- ergy companies’ internal operations and their external environment. Digitalization plays a crucial role, reshaping the way traditional energy service providers innovate and develop their services. Furthermore, digitalization influences the constellations of actors involved in the energy sector, leading to new actor roles, collaboration opportunities, and increased competition shaping what services traditional energy service providers can develop and how they develop them. This framing is important to consider since it illustrates the interplay between internal capabilities and exter- nal pressure and opportunities. While service triads and tetrads are not explicitly mentioned in Figure 2.5, they are an essential part in explaining the external pres- sure/opportunities meaning the changing actor constellations and hence the effects of digitalization on traditional energy service providers. 18 2. Theoretical Framework Figure 2.5: Visualization of the theoretical connections. Own illustration. 19 3 Methodology This chapter will introduce the methodology that was followed during the study, explaining the research strategy, sampling process, data collection methods, and analytical approach. The purpose of the chapter is to ensure that the study is transparent and replicable, and to validate the methodology. By detailing the steps taken and the reasoning behind them, the chapter provides a foundation for evalu- ating the quality and relevance of the study’s findings. 3.1 Research Design This study adopts a qualitative research approach due to its exploratory nature and the need for deep and nuanced insights into what role digital touchpoints play in service development and innovation in the energy market. According to Bell et al. (2022), qualitative research emphasizes words and illustrations in its data collection rather than numerical measurement, which aligns well with the study’s aim to gain a deeper understanding of how digitalization influences customer interaction and service development in the energy sector. Given the complexity and ongoing evolution of digitalization within the energy sec- tor, an area still relatively unexplored, this thesis does not begin with a set of predefined hypotheses. Instead, it aims to explore patterns and themes on the sub- ject, in line with Jaeger and Halliday’s (1998) explanation of exploratory research which is used when there is little prior research and the goal is to generate rather than test a hypothesis. Hence, there has been no predefined hypothesis in this thesis but rather an exploration of the subject. A pre-study was conducted in the starting phase of the project to refine the research focus and to identify key stakeholders relevant to the main study. The questions for the interview guide were formulated during the pre-study to verify their clarity and relevance. The pre-study contained: 2 interviews with staff of the case com- pany to refine the research focus and to test the interview guides. Furthermore, a preliminary review of relevant documents and literature was conducted to identify existing knowledge on digitalization, digital touchpoints, and service innovation and development in the B2B context. In addition, an exploratory scan of the energy market was carried out to identify companies and actors for potential interviews. 20 3. Methodology 3.2 Sampling Process The sampling process for the thesis was designed to ensure a selection of relevant and diverse respondents to achieve depth in the perspectives on how digitaliza- tion influences service development in the energy sector. Given the qualitative and exploratory nature of the thesis our sampling process contained a combination of purposive sampling and snowball sampling to identify actors that were of interest to provide insights into energy companies’ service innovation and development and the effect of digitalization on this. The snowball sampling complemented the purposive sampling to get deeper insights into what actors were relevant for the interviews in the study (Bell et al., 2022). Initially insights were gathered from individuals to which we had easy access such as employees at the case company. According to Bell et al. (2022) this provides a good starting point in the early stages of data collection. Interviews at the case com- pany resulted in 6 interviews, including different departments and within different subsidiaries of the company. These interviews provided valuable insights into the energy sector and the company’s operations. Simultaneously, purposive sampling was applied to identify relevant companies and organizations other than the case company, both suppliers and customers, in the energy market. To further diversify the sampling population, snowball sampling was conducted by ending each interview with asking the respondent to suggest additional participants who could contribute valuable perspectives to the research. This approach helped ensure a broader range of perspectives and allowed the study to capture insights from actors that might not have been initially identified but are highly relevant to the research topic. The snowball sampling complemented the purposive sampling by providing insights from the initial respondents to include respondents that we did not think of ourselves. All in all, the result of the sampling process can be seen in table 3.1. 3.3 Data Collection Interviews were used as the main source of primary data in combination with lit- erature (and case study/benchmarking) as secondary data. This data was then compiled, interpreted and analyzed in order to answer the research questions men- tioned previously. In total 20 participants were interviewed on 15 occasions, with two interviews being group-interviews. This process continued throughout the du- ration of the thesis project. The interviews conducted during the study were semi-structured and held with help of an interview guide while still allowing for flexibility in the interview process (Bell et al., 2022). The flexibility in the semi-structured interviews allowed respondents to elaborate in order to open up aspects of the issue that had yet to be considered (Bell et al., 2022). The interview guide was structured into priority 1 and priority 21 3. Methodology Table 3.1: Interviews conducted during the study, sorted by type of actor and Interview date. Respondent Type of Actor Interview Date Duration ESP1 Energy Service Provider 2025-02-25 75 min ESP2 Energy Service Provider 2025-03-06 60 min ESP3 Energy Service Provider 2025-03-07 75 min ESP4 Energy Service Provider 2025-03-11 60 min ESP5 Energy Service Provider 2025-03-13 50 min ESP6 Energy Service Provider 2025-03-13 50 min ESP7 Energy Service Provider 2025-03-13 50 min ESP8 Energy Service Provider 2025-03-19 50 min ESP9 Energy Service Provider 2025-03-25 80 min ESP10 Energy Service Provider 2025-03-25 80 min ESP11 Energy Service Provider 2025-03-25 80 min ESP12 Energy Service Provider 2025-03-25 80 min ESP13 Energy Service Provider 2025-03-26 60 min ESP14 Energy Service Provider 2025-03-26 60 min C1 Customer 2025-03-14 60 min C2 Customer 2025-03-24 30 min C3 Customer 2025-04-03 45 min C4 Customer 2025-04-28 50 min 2 questions to allow for flexibility in time due to differences in the comprehensive- ness of the answers. The questions were developed based on the study’s research questions and the theoretical framework, focusing on key themes such as digital touchpoints, customer roles in service development, and the influence of digitaliza- tion on customer interaction. This ensured that the interviews remained focused on collecting data relevant to the conceptual areas explored in the thesis, while also allowing space for unexpected insights to emerge. The goal of the semi-structured interviews was to gain an understanding of the customer needs but also to understand how companies other than the case com- pany have dealt with the increasing digitalization of the energy market and how it affects their service innovation and development process. Furthermore, the in- terviews aimed at understanding in what ways a energy company can develop and innovate digital services with the customers’ needs in the center. To achieve this, the interviews were split into different topics: the customer’s role in service devel- opment, digital touchpoints in energy services, and market dynamics. This ensured a structured yet comprehensive exploration of the research questions. The thematic division helped align the interviews with the focus areas of the study, making it easier to get relevant data across different respondents while also facilitating com- parison and analysis across interviews (Bell et al., 2022). To gain insights from different perspectives, interviews were held with energy ser- 22 3. Methodology vice providers and customers. The interviewed companies can be seen in table 3.1, showing the type of actor and the date of the interview. The interviewees have been anonymized and given generic labels where ESP# stands for Energy Service Provider and C# for Energy Customer. For the interviews, two different inter- view guides were used due to the difference in characteristics between energy service providers and customers. The interview guides used in the study can be found in Appendix A. All interviews were held in Swedish and the aim was to keep each interview around 45 minutes. However, the majority of the interviews took longer than expected and lasted for approximately 60-80 minutes, while some were shorter. In total all inter- views lasted between 30 and 80 minutes. All interviews were recorded using Teams when the interview was held online and using the recording-function of a smartphone in case of physical interviews. A rough transcription was taken using the automatic transcription feature in Teams, which was then reviewed and adjusted afterwards for improved accuracy to then be used in the analysis of the retrieved data. The quotes included in the thesis were translated to english by the authors, taking care to maintain the meaning and capture the context of the quote in question. 3.4 Data Analysis To analyze the empirical data gathered during the study and to create a data struc- ture, we opted to use the Gioia Method where the aggregated results from the in- terviews are rooted in the informants own words to provide qualitative rigor (Gioia, 2021). Meaning that the method enabled us to organize and interpret our respon- dents perspectives while still connecting to their original language and meanings (Gioia, 2021). Our initial coding of the interviews began by thoroughly reading each transcript and marking statements that were meaningful for the thesis. Each marked state- ment was assigned a first-order In Vivo code that closely reflected the respondents’ own language and perspective on the subject (Gioia, 2021; Miles et al., 2020). An example of this process is where the quote: “The customers is engaged through the development process, but with emphasis in the beginning when we test.” was coded with “Customers are engaged in development” as seen in Table 3.2. The first-order In Vivo coding was done using Nvivo, a software that is specifically made for qual- itative data analysis. This process lead to a gathering of quotes that had concise codes assigned to them while staying close to the original data to preserve the re- spondents view and interpretation. Once the first-order codes were established, we proceeded the analysis by compar- ing the codes and grouping them to identify patterns and similarities (Gioia, 2021). Similar codes were then clustered into categories making up abstracted second-order themes to capture underlying concepts. To follow the previous example, the code “Customers are engaged in development” was clustered into the theme “Direct cus- tomer influence”. We initially employed NVivo software for coding. However, to 23 3. Methodology facilitate team collaboration we continued the coding process in Excel. Finally, the second-order themes were synthesized into aggregate dimensions to cap- ture the essence of our findings (Gioia, 2021). These aggregate dimensions link the qualitative data to broader theoretical insights. With the given example of a second order theme being aggregated into the third order dimension “Degree of Customer Influence on Service Innovation & Development”. Further examples of coding can be seen in Table 3.2 below. Table 3.2: Examples of coding-process, with quotes, first order codes, second order themes, and third order dimensions. 24 3. Methodology 3.5 Research Quality Although there are different ways of judging the quality of qualitative research, Korstjens and Moser (2017) explain that the most well-known criteria for trust- worthiness in qualitative research are: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. Credibility refers to the accuracy and truthfulness of the findings (Korstjens & Moser, 2017). In this thesis, credibility was enhanced through a transparent data collection process and systematic data analysis. The interview guide was tested and adjusted during the pre-study to ensure its relevance, and respondents were selected based on their expertise within the research topic. Additionally, all insights were continually reflected upon and discussed to avoid misinterpretation. Transferability refers to the extent to which the findings can be applied to other contexts (Korstjens & Moser, 2017). As researchers, we cannot assess the relevance of our findings to every possible setting; therefore Korstjens and Moser (2017) argue that it is ultimately the reader’s responsibility to determine whether and how the results apply to their specific setting. To allow readers to make a fair assessment on the transferability of this thesis a clear description of the participants and the research process has been provided. Dependability is described by Korstjens and Moser (2017) as the consistency of the research process. To ensure dependability in this study, we have maintained clear and structured records throughout the research process, including the develop- ment and iterations of the interview guide, the sampling process, and the different stages of analysis. Additionally, weekly supervisions with both academic and com- pany supervisors have been maintained to discuss and reflect on the progress and our interpretations. Lastly, confirmability refers to the neutrality of the research process, meaning the extent to which bias has been minimized (Korstjens & Moser, 2017). The main effort to improve the confirmability in the thesis was the use of the Gioia method where the codes were based on the informants own language and expressions. This approach was used to ensure that findings were grounded in the respondents’ per- spectives, and to minimize the influence of external assumptions and bias on our part during the analysis. 3.5.1 Use of AI In this thesis, AI (OpenAI’s Large Language Model GPT-4.5) has been used for translations, language improvements, and writing support. At all instances where AI has been used, the results have been checked for accuracy to ensure that there is no incorrect or misleading information included in the report. We as authors ensure that the ideas and thoughts in this paper are our own original work. In line with Gatrell et al. (2024), who mention that the use of AI in research is acceptable as 25 3. Methodology long as it is transparently declared in the paper and as long as the ideas presented are researchers’ original thoughts, this subsection declares how AI has been used throughout the project. 3.6 Sustainability Considerations Throughout the study, ethical, societal and environmental aspects have been con- sidered and acknowledged. These considerations have been made in relation to the process and to the subject itself. Ethically, all respondents were informed of the nature and purpose of the study prior to their involvement and gave their informed consent to participate (Miles et al., 2020). All participants were informed that the interviews were to be recorded before the recording started, with the purpose of the recordings being to transcribe and facilitate analysis. Additionally, it was clearly stated that the recordings would solely be available to us and that they would be deleted at the end of the project. To ensure truthful answers and to protect the identities of the respondents, anonymity was guaranteed and communicated before the start of the interviews (Miles et al., 2020). As for the study subject on digital energy services, an ethical concern is data privacy. Adams (2021) stresses the need for strong consumer protection in handling energy consumption data to ensure that the company’s services comply with GDPR and cyber-security standards. Socially, digital energy services can improve energy and cost efficiency but may exclude vulnerable groups such as elderly or those with low digital maturity (Díaz et al., 2021). Ensuring inclusive design and public trust through transparent com- munication are critical. Environmentally, digital energy services support smarter energy use with the poten- tial to lower greenhouse gas emissions (Díaz et al., 2021). However, they also bring challenges like increased energy demand from digital infrastructure and materials for connected hardware (Krumm et al., 2022; Adams, 2021). These issues should be addressed by energy providers by promoting sustainable sourcing, recyclability, and energy-efficient systems. 26 4 Empirical Findings This chapter presents the result from the interviews conducted with energy service providers and their B2B customers during the study. The chapter is divided into three sections where the first one presents impacts that traditional energy service providers face with digitalization, following are the current digital customer touch- points that exist between energy suppliers and their customers will be presented. Finally, a section is about the customer’s influence on service innovation and devel- opment. 4.1 Changing Actor Constellations in the Energy Sector As digitalization shifts the traditional operations and interactions within the energy market, companies have come to encounter several challenges. In the interviews, sev- eral of these challenges were mentioned, including for instance regulatory challenges, operational challenges, strategical challenges and changes in market structure and actor relationships. These challenges affect how incumbent energy service providers operate and what is possible for them to accomplish. One of the most mentioned challenges in the interviews was the change in actor relationships and roles. During the interviews it was revealed that the digitalization has significant effects on actor roles and relationships. Interviewees discussed that new actors enter the market which has traditionally been very stable as to what actors are present. They also discussed the implications that this has on incumbent energy service provider’s role. One interviewee discussed the difficulties incumbent firms face when new ac- tors become part of the value chain and said: And then they [external actors] came with various offers, and we needed to understand"is this a partner we want to work with? What is their role in the value chain? How can we ultimately create customer value together?" Because when business models change, many actors want to take over different parts of the value chain, and perhaps also claim part of the value themselves. (ESP14) This quote implicates that new actors in the market redefine the roles of incumbent actors in the market, forcing them to rethink their offering and what role they shall take in the value chain. The same interviewee went on with describing why new 27 4. Empirical Findings actors make it difficult for incumbent firms, saying: We are too slow to adjust the skills we need. I think other companies view the energy industry as lucrative, and with their agile capabilities, they can enter and take over certain layers of the business that we consider part of our value chain, simply because they’re more efficient, faster, and better in the digital domain. (ESP14) Implying that incumbent firms currently fall behind in the digital aspect since the new actors are quicker in their development of digital services. ESP8 mentioned that the fact that incumbent energy service providers fall behind may lie in the history they have, saying “Many energy companies are structured around a rather rigid legacy of being infrastructure providers. [...] And because of that, perhaps they haven’t always viewed themselves as particularly sales-driven or customer-driven organizations.” With multiple respondents mentioning that one of the biggest chal- lenges currently is to figure out what role incumbent energy companies should take in the market. Three of the interviewed customers mention they use digital energy services pro- vided by third-party actors (i.e. actors apart from the traditional energy service providers) for things like data visualization, data integration, and real time data. One customer mentioned “We have something called Elvaco [digital energy service provider] [...]. You’re probably familiar with Metry as well, right? They are another provider we’ve used somewhat for quality assurance; they’ve collected data values and then forwarded them to us in a similar way.” (C1). A interviewee explained the third-party actor Metry when saying “We noticed that some bots were being used against us. This primarily involved the Gothenburg-based company Metry, which takes a user’s ID, logs into a customer interface, extracts the data values, and then forwards them.” (ESP3). The same respondent mentioned “we don’t receive any data from third-party actors. Usually, the third-party actors are the ones who want data from us. It’s a balancing act in some way, of course, we’d rather maintain direct customer relationships ourselves, but there are certain specialized services where we simply can’t match their offering.” Suggesting that this is an issue for incumbent energy service providers since this removes the control of the customer interface, es- sentially making them loose valuable touchpoints with the customer and control of the customer relationship. However, another customer mentioned that the increased complexity in their operations and their customers’ demand requires them to make use of third-party actor’s services, C4 said: We used to have a service from our energy provider for a very long time. We don’t have it now, but we had it in the beginning [...] But as the companies grow and the needs of our customers, that is, tenants, in- crease, meaning they are interested in more data, and as we ourselves also need to work with the data, not just the energy we purchase but also how we then distribute it, we need something more. [...] So we use a complement to that, and we use Mestro, which is a system provider 28 4. Empirical Findings specifically for media monitoring [...] and then we input measurement data and map it out, so it’s a bit of a double system. But at the same time, that’s how we do it in order to be able to monitor our energy use. (C4) Meaning that the increased complexity in the energy system, as well as the increased interest for data on energy consumption can not be satisfied by the traditional en- ergy service provider. The interviewee continued by saying “It creates increased complexity to have multiple providers at the same time, so we want to consolidate. We want to bring more actors into the same platform. [...] It should be uniform, it should be the same.” Implying that they need it to work in the same way when looking at facilities across different energy service provider areas. In summary, the shift towards digitalization in the energy market presents mul- tiple challenges for incumbent energy service providers. The entrance of new ac- tors reshapes traditional roles, making incumbents reassess their positions within the value chain. New actors, more advanced in digital service development, out- pace traditional firms, causing established energy service providers to struggle with maintaining their competitive edge. Customers increasingly turn to third-party dig- ital services for functionalities like data visualization, which diminishes incumbents’ control over customer relationships, affecting their influence and engagement with customers. 4.2 Digital Service Innovation and Development Touchpoints During the interviews the respondents identified and discussed a variety of digi- tal customer touchpoints through which energy service providers interact with B2B customers. Digital touchpoints are any point of interaction between company and customer that occurs by digital means rather than in person or through analog com- munication. Although our empirical findings made it apparent that the digitalization has been happening at a considerably lower pace in the B2B context compared to the B2C context, it also revealed that a growing effort to increase the digital inter- face towards business customers is being made in the energy market. In the context of energy services for business customers (e.g. real estate companies), from the empirical findings the most common digital touchpoints were categorized into two main categories in accordance with the second order themes established using the Gioia method. The identified categories are: Passive Digital Touchpoints and Active Digital Touchpoints. Active digital touchpoints being touchpoints where direct in- stances of communication or interaction occur, whereas passive digital touchpoints are touchpoints that enable indirect or one-way communication, where either party can access or observe information without direct engagement. The passiveness or activeness refers to the energy service providers state in the interaction. Together, they form the basis of the digital infrastructure that energy companies currently have in place to manage customer interaction, feedback, and data to support ser- 29 4. Empirical Findings vice innovation and development. This section maps out the digital touchpoints as described by the interviewees structured by the identified categories, including their purpose for service innovation and development, beginning with Passive Digital Touchpoints. 4.2.1 Passive Digital Touchpoints The most commonly mentioned digital customer touchpoint in all interviews that existed between energy service providers and their customers was web-based cus- tomer portals, often referred to as "Mina Sidor" ("My Pages" in English). This touchpoint serves as a self-service platform with a gathering of digital touchpoints where customers can log in to access their data, handle invoices, perform basic en- ergy analysis, and in some cases buy additional premium services without the need for the supplier to be present in the interaction. Passive touchpoints like this then allow customers to carry out actions and achieve intended goals without the help of the supplier. Another digital touchpoint similar to My Pages is the app, which was also mentioned by all interviewees. However, according to the interviews the app is targeted at small business customers with very few facilities, customers with multiple facilities are referred to My Pages. Although all energy service providers in the study offered such a service to their customers, the quality and content of it varied. ESP3 mentioned that they have a mature customer portal for business customers that has been in operation and developed for over a decade. The respondent, re- sponsible for the development of the portal since its beginning explained its purpose as: It’s our web portal for business customers, we’ve had it for 12 years [...] the idea is to take the data we have on the customer (and other data sources) and deliver customer value in a digital format. We haven’t just put out data like “here are your meter values, here are your invoices”, we’ve combined it. We have both extra services in combination with the data, and what we call premium services. So we actually sell digital services to business customers [through the portal]. (ESP3) In other words, the customer portal provides account information and usage data, but also additional analytical tools and premium services. Making it a digital touch- point which is not merely informative but also a portal for delivering digital energy services and increased customer value. In a similar manner, another energy service provider described their digital customer portal as an environment where “Customers find all their invoices, they find sum- maries, reports, and basically all the data they want” (ESP2). The respondent then went on to say that the portal and e-invoices are their key digital touchpoints: “The digital touchpoints we have with the customer are essentially the invoice [...] and our ‘My Pages’ solution.” (ESP2). Suggesting that some energy service providers still 30 4. Empirical Findings rely heavily on physical communication and meetings in the B2B context, further strengthened when he said “The larger the customer and the larger the contract, the more physical and personal contact is necessary to build trust.” continuing by saying “In the digitalized world, it’s like if you invite customers to a physical event, people think it’s lavish and honest. They like that.”. One of the key benefits these passive digital touchpoints, mentioned both by providers and customers, is the easy access to and centralization of data without the need for supplier involvement. A interviewed customer said “We use it, we like it and think it’s good precisely because they’ve gathered water, electricity, and district heating [data] in one place.” (C2). Another customer emphasized the ease of access to data and mentioned: “At some energy companies we need to ask for it [data] because we cannot find it ourselves, whilst we can easily get it ourselves at other companies. (C1)” building on this by saying one of the most important things for them as cus- tomers is “That it is easy for us to get it [data] on our own as a customer”. An energy provider continued in this line and argued that this is beneficial also for the providing company by saying: We need to make sure that it is easy to access and use this [data] [...] We need to assume that the customer shall have the ability to do as much as possible themselves since this frees up time on our end. Essentially meaning these kinds of digital touchpoints can potentially lead to inter- nal efficiency and that they can to save time so that energy companies can focus on more complex issues. The target customers for these digital portals was brought up by multiple respon- dents to be small to medium sized customers. ESP13 mentioned that “Small- and medium-sized companies are the target-group for My Pages. [...] Large customers that are operational across different grids have no use for such a service”. Another respondent strengthened this by saying “The behavior and needs of small companies are similar to private customers, so these we recommend to use My Pages” (ESP3), further agreed upon by ESP14 who said “We want to handle small [business] cus- tomers like private customers, with automatic flows and self-service so that we can put effort on the larger customers with complex needs”. All interviewed energy service providers mentioned they have or are currently im- plementing APIs for their larger customers, where they can gain access to their data and integrate it into their own systems or third-party services. ESP2 mentioned that “All major customers, so to speak, or not all, but everyone who follows up on it [their energy consumption] somehow, retrieve [their data] via API.”. Followed by ESP3 who said “We could also say we don’t want to share the data, but instead we’ve cre- ated a service called Energy Data API. Here, we sell [data], charging for the service, allowing third parties to go in and retrieve the data.”. On the notion of APIs ESP8 explains this behavior: “We see that business customers have different needs. Not everyone wants to log into a portal to view data; some prefer to work with their own 31 4. Empirical Findings measurement values in their own systems [...] to create a consolidated overview.”. Showing the importance to cater to the differing needs and preferences of customers. Additionally, websites and social media were mentioned in the interviews as ways to inform customers, with the website being important in the B2B context since it is often the first encounter between provider and customer. ESP8 mentioned “our website generates extremely much traffic and is important through the entire customer journey, from generating interest to the customer making a decision and acting on it”. There were also notions on some additional passive digital touchpoints such as FAQs that were often integrated in websites, educational content also available on web- sites, and other types of guides that can help customers. These were usually located on the external website, meaning that it is available for everyone to see, not nec- essarily requiring users to log in. One interviewee mentioned that these types of touchpoints do not provide suppliers with any usable data since there is no way to know who has interacted with it. In summary, passive digital touchpoints are an important part of energy companies’ digital interaction with B2B customers. The findings show that they are widely im- plemented across different companies, whilst differing in its functionality and quality. To engage customers and increase the usage of such touchpoints, efficient commu- nication is of importance. Energy service providers also acknowledge the differing preferences of their customers, where large customer may prefer to access their data and work with it in their own or third-party systems. 4.2.2 Active Digital Touchpoints In addition to passive digital touchpoints, energy companies use various active dig- ital touchpoints to communicate and engage directly with B2B customers. Active digital touchpoints include for instance emails, live-chats, chat-bots, AI chat-bots, webinars, and electronic invoices, to mention the most recurring ones. Beyond facil- itating communication, these digital touchpoints also play a role in the development and innovation of digital energy services. The interviews provided insight into how these are used and the purpose of them. One fundamental active digital touchpoint is email through which for instance newsletters are communicated to customers or through which customers can directly reach out in case they have any issues. Similar to email, interviewees also brought up web-based contact-forms as a digital touchpoint. One interviewee brought up marketing automation as a tool they use for communication saying: It’s like a dialog that is triggered by specific interactions. When a cus- tomer does X or Y, it triggers a flow of automated customer dialog. It can be for instance when a contract is expiring it triggers a flow of infor- mation with the aim to bring the customer to action through for instance emails or push-notifications. 32 4. Empirical Findings Emphasizing the importance of active digital touchpoints and that the communica- tion with customers needs to be tailored which can be achieved by triggering flows of information through certain points of data connected to the customer. Another active digital touchpoint brought up in the interviews as being important was the invoice. ESP2 mentioned in the interview that “One of the most important digital touchpoints we have is the invoice, which in 99 cases of 100 is digital”. Why this touchpoint is of importance was brought up by ESP13 saying “The invoice is the only point of interaction with customers who do not use any of our other chan- nels”. The same interviewee went on by mentioning that “This makes the invoice important to activate the customer and to bring them to use our other channels by including information on the invoice itself”. Further important active digital touchpoints brought up by multiple respondents were webinars and online events. ESP2 mentioned “we host webinars four times a year for current and potential customers.” Highlighting the importance of the channel to reach out to many customers simultaneously. Providing an important channel for informative communication and to discuss with and engage customers. Another one of the touchpoints that was brought up during interviews was live-chat solutions, on which there were different approaches on how to implement it. The differences in opinion were to as if the live-chats should be manned by staff or if AI was viable. ESP8 is one of the actors that has opted for an AI solution in its live-chat saying that “It’s a generative AI chat-bot which can speak hundreds of languages, ensuring that we can maintain a dialog with all customers regardless of background.” Emphasizing the benefit of AI’s adaptability to the customer background. On the other hand ESP11 said that “Each time we tried to implement a chat-bot, customer satisfaction got worse. And each time we put humans on the chat satisfaction rose significantly.” continuing by saying “With AI you [Energy service providers] can achieve a human tone and feeling, but if there is not enough transparency there is a significant risk that it backfires and make the experience catastrophic.”. These examples highlight the need to thoroughly evaluate the consequences new digital services and changes to existing digital services have on customer experience. Furthermore, digital customer panels/forums were mention as digital touchpoints that do not only provide the supplier with feedback on new features but also provides the customers with information proactively. Instead of waiting for the customer to reach out with questions, complaints, or suggestions, the supplier asks its customers by pushing out questions periodically creating an active dialogue between supplier and customer. This gives the supplier the possibility to reach spec