IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v26y2024i1p154-166.html

Shared Service Delivery Can Increase Client Engagement: A Study of Shared Medical Appointments

Author

Listed:
  • Ryan W. Buell

    (Technology and Operations Management, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • Kamalini Ramdas

    (Management Science and Operations, London Business School, London NW1 4SA, United Kingdom)

  • Nazlı Sönmez

    (ESMT Berlin, 10178 Berlin, Germany)

  • Kavitha Srinivasan

    (Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry 605007, India)

  • Rengaraj Venkatesh

    (Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry 605007, India)

Abstract

Problem definition : Clients and service providers alike often consider one-on-one service delivery to be ideal, assuming, perhaps unquestioningly, that devoting individualized attention best improves client outcomes. In contrast, in shared service delivery, clients are served in batches and the dynamics of group interaction could lead to increased client engagement, which could improve outcomes. However, the loss of privacy and personal connection might undermine engagement. The engagement dynamics in one-on-one and shared delivery models have not been rigorously studied. To the extent that shared delivery may result in comparable or better engagement than one-on-one delivery, service providers in a broad array of contexts may be able to create more value for clients by delivering service in batches. Methodology/results : We conducted a randomized controlled trial with 1,000 patients who were undergoing glaucoma treatment over a three-year period at a large eye hospital. Using verbatim and behavioral transcripts from more than 20,000 minutes of video recorded during our trial, we examine how shared medical appointments (SMAs), in which patients are served in batches, impact engagement. On average, a patient who experienced SMAs asked 33.3% more questions per minute and made 8.6% more nonquestion comments per minute. Because there were multiple patients in an SMA, this increase in engagement at the individual patient level resulted in patients hearing far more comments in the group setting. Patients in SMAs also exhibited higher levels of nonverbal engagement across a wide array of measures (attentiveness, positivity, head wobbling, or “thalai aattam” in Tamil: a South Indian gesture to signal agreement or understanding, eye contact, and end-of-appointment happiness), relative to patients who attended one-on-one appointments. Managerial implications : These results shed light on the potential for shared service delivery models to increase client engagement and thus enhance service performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryan W. Buell & Kamalini Ramdas & Nazlı Sönmez & Kavitha Srinivasan & Rengaraj Venkatesh, 2024. "Shared Service Delivery Can Increase Client Engagement: A Study of Shared Medical Appointments," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 154-166, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:26:y:2024:i:1:p:154-166
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2021.0012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.2021.0012
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2021.0012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Piia Seppälä & Saija Mauno & Taru Feldt & Jari Hakanen & Ulla Kinnunen & Asko Tolvanen & Wilmar Schaufeli, 2009. "The Construct Validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and Longitudinal Evidence," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 459-481, August.
    2. Arora, Neeraj K., 2003. "Interacting with cancer patients: the significance of physicians' communication behavior," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(5), pages 791-806, September.
    3. Ryan W. Buell & Ethan Porter & Michael I. Norton, 2021. "Surfacing the Submerged State: Operational Transparency Increases Trust in and Engagement with Government," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 781-802, July.
    4. Ruth Beer & Hyun-Soo Ahn & Stephen Leider, 2018. "Can Trustworthiness in a Supply Chain Be Signaled?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 3974-3994, September.
    5. Krishnan S. Anand & M. Faz{i}l Paç & Senthil Veeraraghavan, 2011. "Quality-Speed Conundrum: Trade-offs in Customer-Intensive Services," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 40-56, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nitin Bakshi & Jeunghyun Kim & Ramandeep S. Randhawa, 2025. "Service Operations for Justice-on-Time: A Data-Driven Queueing Approach," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 305-321, January.
    2. Zhiyu Zeng & Nicholas Clyde & Hengchen Dai & Dennis J. Zhang & Zhiwei Xu & Zuo-Jun Max Shen, 2026. "The Impact of Customer Information on Service Supply and Demand: Evidence from a Large Live-Streaming Experiment," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 212-230, January.
    3. Michelle A. Kinch & Ryan W. Buell, 2025. "Mitigating the Negative Effects of Customer Anxiety by Facilitating Access to Human Contact," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(11), pages 9710-9729, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Philipp Afèche & Mojtaba Araghi & Opher Baron, 2017. "Customer Acquisition, Retention, and Service Access Quality: Optimal Advertising, Capacity Level, and Capacity Allocation," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 674-691, October.
    2. Dongyuan Zhan & Amy R. Ward, 2019. "Staffing, Routing, and Payment to Trade off Speed and Quality in Large Service Systems," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 1738-1751, November.
    3. Tinglong Dai & Xiaofang Wang & Chao-Wei Hwang, 2022. "Clinical Ambiguity and Conflicts of Interest in Interventional Cardiology Decision Making," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 864-882, March.
    4. Wonjeong Chae & Dong-Woo Choi & Eun-Cheol Park & Sung-In Jang, 2021. "Improved Inpatient Care through Greater Patient–Doctor Contact under the Hospitalist Management Approach: A Real-Time Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-12, May.
    5. Yaroslav Rosokha & Chen Wei, 2024. "Cooperation in Queueing Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(11), pages 7597-7616, November.
    6. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.
    7. Vasiliki Kostami & Sampath Rajagopalan, 2014. "Speed–Quality Trade-Offs in a Dynamic Model," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 104-118, February.
    8. Jussi Tanskanen & Liisa Mäkelä & Riitta Viitala, 2019. "Linking Managerial Coaching and Leader–Member Exchange on Work Engagement and Performance," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1217-1240, April.
    9. Ryan W. Buell & Michael I. Norton, 2011. "The Labor Illusion: How Operational Transparency Increases Perceived Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(9), pages 1564-1579, February.
    10. Yuxi Tang & Weiguang He, 2022. "Emotion Regulation and Psychological Capital of Chinese University Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Serial Mediation Effect of Learning Satisfaction and Learning Engagement," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-15, October.
    11. Wayne Fu & Guangzhi Shang & Xun Tong, 2025. "Budget Disclosure in Crowdfunding: Information Asymmetry and Cost Transparency," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 659-678, March.
    12. Jalili Marand, Ata & Tang, Ou & Li, Hongyan, 2019. "Quandary of service logistics: Fast or reliable?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 983-996.
    13. Ma, Xin & Talluri, Srinivas & Ferguson, Mark & Tiwari, Sunil, 2022. "Strategic production and responsible sourcing decisions under an emissions trading scheme," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(3), pages 1429-1443.
    14. Naomi Grosze Nipper & Jessica van Wingerden & Rob Poell, 2018. "The Motivational Potential of Human Resource Development: Relationships Between Perceived Opportunities for Professional Development, Job Crafting and Work Engagement," International Journal of Learning and Development, Macrothink Institute, vol. 8(2), pages 27-42, June.
    15. Xiaofang Wang & Laurens G. Debo & Alan Scheller‐Wolf & Stephen F. Smith, 2012. "Service design at diagnostic service centers," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(8), pages 613-628, December.
    16. Tom Fangyun Tan & Serguei Netessine, 2014. "When Does the Devil Make Work? An Empirical Study of the Impact of Workload on Worker Productivity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(6), pages 1574-1593, June.
    17. Ruth Beer & Anyan Qi & Ignacio Rios, 2026. "Behavioral Externalities of Process Automation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 72(1), pages 575-593, January.
    18. Pagare, Dewang & Biswas, Indranil & Agrahari, Amit & Ghosh, Sriparna, 2023. "A small farmer’s market choice in the presence of multiple markets: The Indian case," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 311(2), pages 739-753.
    19. Piia Seppälä & Lotta Harju & Jari J. Hakanen, 2020. "Interactions of Approach and Avoidance Job Crafting and Work Engagement: A Comparison between Employees Affected and Not Affected by Organizational Changes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-20, December.
    20. Konrad Kulikowski & Magdalena Madej, 2014. "Zaangazowanie w prace – problemy z pomiarem (The measurement of work engagement – problems and issues)," Problemy Zarzadzania, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 12(45), pages 99-112.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:26:y:2024:i:1:p:154-166. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.