The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.htm

Superior
Managing online product e-tailing
assortment and order service
experience
fulfillment for superior
e-tailing service experience 1161

An empirical investigation Received 3 May 2018

Revised 15 July 2018
20 October 2018
Pradeep Kautish and Rajesh Sharma 2 November 2018
29 November 2018
Department of Marketing Management, School of Management Studies, 20 December 2018
Mody University of Science and Technology, Sikar, India Accepted 10 March 2019

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to bridge together seemingly disparate yet interconnected
paradigmatic antecedents of e-tailing and servicescape, i.e., product assortment, order fulfillment, shopping
assistance and its consequences for shopping efficiency.
Design/methodology/approach – The proposed conceptual model is well grounded in the extensive
literature from e-tailing as well as retailing domain and to assess the plausibility of the model. Total 246
female online apparel shoppers were surveyed from an Indian university and the data were analyzed using
structural equation modeling through SmartPLS.
Findings – The outcomes of the study indicate that the e-customer may derive a substantial share of shopping
assistance and service interface through product assortment offered by e-tailing sites. Customer-perceived
performance of this e-shopping process – a crucial element of e-tail servicescape – directly affects the shopping
assistance, along with order fulfillment capability of retail scope.
Research limitations/implications – The study used a sample of graduate students at a north-west
university in India, which limits the generalizability of the research to other consumer groups. The paper
links a significant body of literature within a conceptually developed framework and identifies key research
areas in the e-tailing realm.
Practical implications – By better understanding the role of product assortment as a value-added feature
in online value co-creation process, the e-tail managers can leverage the proposed integrated capability to
improve e-tailing performance and customer outcomes in the form of business.
Social implications – With rapid advancements in internet-led communication, we are witnessing the dawn
of a new era of e-tail innovations around us which is expected to change the way people experience shopping.
Originality/value – This research is an attempt to enrich the level of understanding about online shopping
environment in light of relationships among virtual and physical facets of e-tail, i.e., product assortment, order
fulfillment, shopping assistance and shopping efficiency. The authors investigate customer-perceived product
assortment performance in e-tailing and its significances on shopping outcomes.
Keywords Retailing, S-D logic, Order fulfillment, Product assortment, E-tail, E-consumer
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The e-tail segment is expected to grow from 2.5 percent in 2016 to 5 percent by 2020 and the total
organized retail market is likely to grow from 8 percent in 2016 to 25 percent in 2020
(AT Kearney, 2016). In India, consumer spending over the internet is expected to accelerate at
world’s highest annual growth rate of 51 percent and will reach to $120bn by 2020 (ASSOCHAM,
2016). With the rapid internet-enabled technological advancements (Leeflang et al., 2014), e-tailers
got unprecedented opportunities beyond the physical limits of the traditional channels (Amin
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
et al., 2015) and carved a virtually competitive community (Schramm-Klein and Wagner, 2014). and Logistics
The way retail landscape is evolving, in the near future successful retailers will engage their Vol. 31 No. 4, 2019
pp. 1161-1192
customers through omni-channels (Bell et al., 2014; Verhoef et al., 2015), a mashup of digital and © Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-5855
physical experiences (Reinartz, 2016). E-tailers face challenges on account of effective web DOI 10.1108/APJML-05-2018-0167
APJML atmospherics (Floh and Madlberger, 2013), fulfilling orders (Randall et al., 2006), timely delivery
31,4 (Maltz et al., 2004) and inventory management (Agatz et al., 2008; Fernie and McKinnon, 2009).
Other challenges are bargaining power of well-informed, and internet savvy, extremely
demanding and choice-prone e-customers (Hagberg et al., 2016; Immonen and Sintonen, 2015).
Typically, e-tail customers navigate a site servicescape or e-scape (Roggeveen et al., 2015)
and the e-scape leads to a “cognitive evaluation of the online service experience” which
1162 drives customer loyalty and influences patronage behavior (Poncin and Mimoun, 2014;
Savelli et al., 2017). The e-tailers are compelled to differentiate in terms of customer interface
(Kalia, 2015; Renko and Druzijanic, 2014), resource integration (Lusch and Vargo, 2006) and
service processes (Thirumalai and Sinha, 2005, 2011; Trabold et al., 2006). Pascoe et al. (2017)
emphasized that aesthetics in terms of the interface are a critical dimension while generating
positive association toward e-tail brand (Marimon et al., 2010). In other words, e-tailers
can differentiate by rationalizing the interface, convenience and capabilities (Ma, 2017;
Wang et al., 2016; Xing et al., 2010) by managing the online vs offline situational variables
(Chocarro et al., 2013).
The service-dominant (S-D) logic proposes that value is co-created with customers
determine the service experience (Vargo and Lusch, 2008) and retail is no exception in
deploying and integrating resources for value co-creation and patronage behavior
(Karpen et al., 2015; Lusch et al., 2007; Pantano and Timmermans, 2014; Vargo and
Lusch, 2016). Moreover, given the progressively significant role of technology in
facilitating value co-creation, researchers suggest a close examination of customer value
from a technological viewpoint (Breidbach and Maglio, 2016; Ramaswamy and Ozcan,
2018). While the past research studies provide evidences of e-tail technology adoption
(Blázquez, 2014; Breidbach and Maglio, 2016), and its value propositions, there is a need
for systematic research on e-tailing from the customers’ perspective (Roy et al., 2017;
Shobeiri et al., 2015; Vrontis et al., 2016). Thus, this study contributes to the body of
knowledge by developing a parsimonious model for e-tailing combining S-D logic value
co-creation in four distinct areas: product assortment, order fulfillment, shopping
assistance and shopping efficiency from the customers’ perspective (Pantano and
Timmermans, 2014).
Skålén et al. (2015) suggest that innovation can be equated with the creation of new value
propositions by means of developing existing or creating new practices and/or resources, or
by means of integrating practices and resources in new ways. Modern e-tailing offers
functional business opportunities, i.e., product assortment, order fulfillment, logistics,
revenue management and customer experience (Grewal et al., 2017; Griffis et al., 2012).
Based on extant literature, customer experience is defined as the customer’s cognitive and
affective assessment of all direct and indirect encounters with the firm relating to their
purchasing behavior (Klaus and Maklan, 2013). The academic literature fails to embrace the
influence of smart technology usage, combined with behavioural intentions of the customer,
on the dynamics and experience of customers (Foroudi et al., 2018). The future of the
marketing concept will be appraising customer experience management in consumer
industries (Homburg et al., 2017). This study draws on the S-D logic to explore customer
interaction experience and value co-creation with e-tailing in the business-to-consumer (B2C)
context. Furthermore, this research addresses the recent calls for interactive research for e-
tail managers on the retail strategy to enrich customers’ shopping experience by value
creation (Nguyen et al., 2016; Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2018).

Theoretical background
In the retail context, product assortment consists of assorted size, composition, variety, store
attractiveness and key shopping attributes (Kahn and Wansink, 2004; Oppewal and
Koelemeijer, 2005), so directly transfusing customers’ value in the form of order fulfillment
sphere, i.e., availability, time saving and convenience, which can facilitate an easy interface Superior
with the wholesome retail servicescape. In an e-tailing domain, a customer-based viewpoint e-tailing
has been conceptualized about e-tail services (Boyer and Hult, 2006; Hu et al., 2016), for service
instance, e-channels tend to carry a wide-ranging product assortment compared to
physical stores so they are capable of meeting consumer demand (Nguyen et al., 2016). experience
Ample research has presented the number of ways and means to improve on the retail
assortment in most resource-efficient and cost-effective manners to ensure customer 1163
orientation (Broniarczyk, 2008; Chernev, 2003; Mantrala et al., 2009; McIntyre and
Miller, 1999). Relatively few studies have focused on online product assortment and order
fulfillment from a customers’ point of view (Bhatnagar and Syam, 2014; Li et al., 2014;
Talebian et al., 2014), notwithstanding its potential to facilitate e-tailers in differentiating the
customer service experience and providing competitive advantage (Lim et al., 2009). In the
paper, we intend to explore the role of customer-perceived performance of product
assortment in e-tailing evaluation and its conceptualization along with order fulfillment,
which is “the process consists of three phases: order acceptance, order selection, and order
delivery” (Boyer et al., 2009). Cheung et al. (2005) established that order fulfillment is one of
the fundamental factors that have a bearing on consumer behavior; in particular, it may
affect shopping experience and repurchase behavior. Moreover, recent e-tail business
reports indicate the strategic role of order fulfillment processes vis-à-vis consumer
experience management (Citi GPS, 2017; KPMG, 2016). Evanschitzky et al. (2015) reported
that research is needed to study the factors that determine technology in actual customer
use in the form of personal shopping assistant. In e-tailing, the sensory-enabling intelligent
technologies such as 2D views, 3D rotation and virtual try-on evoke positive emotional,
cognitive and conative responses (Demirkan and Spohrer, 2014; Song and Kim, 2012;
Visinescu et al., 2015). Few researchers have used technology acceptance models to identify
the factors and determine the customer acceptance for internet-enabled retail technologies
(Gao and Bai, 2014; Huang and Liao, 2015).

Conceptual framework and research hypotheses

Figure 1 depicts the conceptual framework of the study. While the products and services are
increasingly becoming commoditized, the customer experiences are considered so unique
that it creates the next level of differentiation and the new field for competitive battles too
(Bolton et al., 2014). The customer experience is a strategic element in co-creating value and

E-tail antecedent E-tail operation E-tail consequence

Communication Transaction Convenience
(Input) (Process) (Output)

Product Shopping
H3a
Assortment (PA) Assistance (SA)

H3b H2 H1

H3c

Shopping Figure 1.
Order Efficiency (SE) Hypothesized
Fulfillment (OF) research model
APJML generating value perceptions (Grewal et al., 2009; Kautish, 2011). Following it, customer
31,4 experience with e-tail reflected in terms of shopping assistance (Evanschitzky et al., 2015),
e-retailers’ physical service operations in the form of order fulfillment, e-service quality and
product assortment (Alptekinoglu et al., 2009; Bourlakis et al., 2011) play a significant role in
the customer–service interactions (Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2018; Wang et al., 2010).
The insights from Mishra’s (2018) study suggest that fulfillment and efficiency are
1164 essential deliverables for e-tailers’ service quality. The order fulfillment constructs is quite
under-researched phenomena in e-tailing as it focuses on rethinking traditional supplier
relationships and information-driven fulfillment logistics (Ricker and Kalakota, 1999;
Gallino and Moreno, 2014). We posit order fulfillment as a dominant construct that mediates
the stimulus on product assortment performance and consumer insights on e-tail service
responses (Hübner et al., 2016). In the online milieu, the customer enters the details about
product type and quantity along with the payment information (i.e. debit card, credit card or
internet banking), and the online channel is therefore befitting as a self-service channel
(Boyer, 2001; Wang et al., 2010). Thus, online firms restructure the entire order fulfillment
process to treat each order important at the same time make the process smoother and
efficient for the customers (Gallino and Moreno, 2014).

Shopping assistance and shopping efficiency

In an e-tailing context, usually customers appraise the subjectivity-oriented online service
experiences in several distinct ways in terms of four core dimensions, i.e., the physical,
ideological, pragmatic and social (Dennis et al., 2009; Lemke et al., 2011; Trevinal and Stenger,
2014). Rose et al. (2012) posit that online shoppers encounter incoming sensory data from a
range of stimuli on the e-tailers’ website, such as text-based information, visual imagery, video
or audio delivery and customer interprets these data from a cognitive and affective perspective
creating impression formation of the e-tailers website (Izogo and Jayawardhena, 2018).
Intelligent customization techniques which are designed to provide customers with adaptive
and customized shopping assistance can greatly improve the accessibility and consumer
benefits of e-shopping by creating a personalized (and thus more efficient) marketplace
(Menczer et al., 2002). Roy et al. (2017) assert that smart technologies have the potential to
improve the retail experience by providing superior and personalized retail services and
shopping effectiveness. The linkage between shopping assistance and shopping efficiency has
been broadly deliberated in the literature with varied e-tailing contexts (Alba et al., 1997; Dang
and Pham, 2018; Hüseyinoğlu et al., 2018). Postma and Brokke (2002) suggest that accurate and
timely information to customers often generates additional sales. Hence, it is confirmed that
online shopping reduces the costs associated with information search and allows customers to
find the best product within the price range (Chen and Hung, 2015). The study on customer
acceptance and resistance to smart technologies in the retail sector indicates that the retail
stores should focus on smart technologies that are simple, yet offer enhanced customer value
through improved shopping efficiency (Roy et al., 2018). Verhagen et al. (2016) emphasize that a
possible way to overcome the intangibility constraint of the online shopping channel lies in the
product presentation. Intelligent customization or smart shopping agents learn users’ personal
preferences, assist the consumers in shopping and autonomously shop on the customer’s behalf
whereas protecting privacy concerns (Maes, 1999). Overmars and Poels’s (2015) study indicates
that in the context of online stores, simulated tactile sensations in the form of visual stimuli is
an important factor in online product understanding. One other area has emerged in consumer
research on information sources that provides personalized and impersonal information which
influences consumers’ decision making (Ansari et al., 2000; Häubl and Trifts, 2000). In light of
the above discussion, we posit that:
H1. Shopping assistance is positively and directly related to shopping efficiency.
Order fulfillment Superior
Order fulfillment is one major area of e-tailers operations which may significantly influence e-tailing
value co-creation by extending superior customers’ shopping experiences ( Jain et al., 2015; service
2017; Koufteros et al., 2014) and it is a critical link between pre-sale and post-sale
e-satisfaction for repurchase intentions (Posset and Gerstner, 2005). Thus, the order experience
fulfillment is vital constituent for e-tailing that involves hassle-free coordination of e-tailing
operational activities, i.e., e-fulfillment – a key conjunction between e-tailers and customers 1165
(Rao, Griffis and Goldsby, 2011; Yang et al., 2014). Order fulfillment in pure e-tail context is
demarcated as the purchasing, warehousing, delivery and sales stages of the supply chain
(Agatz et al., 2008; Lummus and Vokurka, 2002; Pentina et al., 2011) which directly assist
customers in getting the product. In other words, order fulfillment in e-tailing encompasses
confirmation of orders, delivery options and clear return policies and physical distribution
service quality (PDSQ) (Bart et al., 2005; Bienstock et al., 1996; Rabinovich and Bailey, 2004),
logistics service quality (Mentzer et al., 2001; Rao, Goldsby, Griffis and Iyengar, 2011),
functional order fulfillment service quality (Collier and Bienstock, 2006; Davis-Sramek et al.,
2010; Richey et al., 2012) and relationship quality (Yu et al., 2017). Based on a Mentzer et al.’s
(1989) conceptual model, Bienstock et al. (1996) developed a scale that measures perceptions
of PDSQ which contains availability, timeliness and conditional facets.
One dire challenge in front of e-tailer is to retain valuable customers who anytime freely
switch to second best option owing to the minimal efforts, trivial substitute cost, easy
switching opportunity and attractive deals (Khalifa and Liu, 2007). Bart et al. (2005)
proposed to measure a person’s attitude about the way a particular website manages orders
with the emphasis on the assistance issues relevant to customers, i.e., providing
confirmation of orders, delivery options and clear return policies. E-tailers can acquire loyal
customers by offering and assisting them in product returns (Mollenkopf et al., 2011).
There are a few frequently cited dimensions of the order fulfillment experience, namely,
product availability, delivery timeliness, condition of the package, billing accuracy and ease
of return ( Jain et al., 2015, 2017; Koufteros et al., 2014). Cao et al. (2018) provided managerial
insights on customer satisfaction and purchase decisions focused on logistic activities
related to shipping, tracking and returns for efficient e-commerce.
E-tail encompasses specific aspects such as navigation, sequential steps to completing
the order and the ease of searching the products (Boyer and Hult, 2006), timeliness, condition
and billing accuracy ( Jain et al., 2015, 2017) and ease of return ( Jiang and Rosenbloom, 2005;
Mollenkopf et al., 2007). E-fulfillment practices in the retail industry contend that survival is
dependent on effective supply chains that facilitate e-tailers to moderate order fulfillment
costs while delivering incomparable customer value (Mollenkopf et al., 2011). Order
fulfillment in e-tailing is all about surpassing customer expectation, or at least meeting and
ensuring gratification – a progression that begins with accepting the customer order and
culminate in the form of timely customer delivery (Tarn et al., 2003). Pyke et al. (2001)
described five e-fulfillment distinct routes: order capturing, processing, packing, shipment
and after-sales service which comprises product returns as well, which assist e-shoppers
while they make purchase decisions (Rao et al., 2014). Based on the above discussion, we
advance the following hypothesis:
H2. Order fulfillment positively and directly facilitates shopping assistance for customers.

Product assortment
Product assortment is the most critical decision facing retailers in terms of product variety
with reference to price range, selection (depth and breadth), attributes, stock-out or delivery
issues and consumer relevance that are the key driver of consumers’ purchase intentions
and retailer profitability (Eroglu et al., 2011; Kahn, 2017; Mosteller et al., 2014). The e-tailing
APJML environment is profoundly dependent on the product assortment mix as customer cannot
31,4 touch and feel the products in terms of physicality. Finch (2007) termed it “product risk” in
relation to ambiguity about the product description and price in an online environment.
In addition, the expansion and consolidation of online retailing have hosted different levels
of operational flexibility challenges (Audrain-Pontevia et al., 2013; Richey et al., 2012), and
access to detailed transaction information (Bauer et al., 2006). Pascoe et al. (2017) acclaimed
1166 that consumers’ involvement with a retail brand is positively related to effective website
aesthetics and online communications performance.
Product assortment directly affects the potential contribution value co-creation. Value
co-creation transpires during and after service interaction between customer and service
provider (Grönroos, 2011). Quach and Thaichon’s (2017) study examines the processes of
value co-creation and co-destruction between luxury brands and consumers in light of
conversations and sophisticated interactions. Convenient browsing makes product
evaluation and consumer experience positive (Kim et al., 2009; Verhagen et al., 2016) and
website design quality constructs exert different impact on intention of initial and continued
purchase conversion rate (Kuan et al., 2008; McDowell et al., 2016). Broniarczyk et al.’s (1998)
research findings suggest that consuming assortment perception has cognitive dimension
and affective dimension in terms of availability of the favorites and ease of shopping.
Product assortment displays (online or offline) are complex as it contains vast amounts of
information and consumer deals with them by developing “internal structures” which
involve categorizing brands and information into knowledge structures called “schemas”
(Morales et al., 2005). Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3a. Customer-perceived product assortment is positively and directly associated with
shopping assistance.
In today’s interconnected world, the boundaries between customers, firms and other
suppliers are increasingly becoming blurred (Achrol and Kotler, 2012) thus service
ecosystem perspective suggests that the system adapts to the changing business situations,
rather than determining the nature of relationships contained within it (Frow et al., 2014).
Online product presentation plays an important role in e-vendors’ marketing strategy and
the quality of product information is necessary for consumers to evaluate products, thus
impact their online purchase decisions (Lin et al., 2018). The product presentation with a
relevant consumption background is effective in evoking mental imagery by eliciting a
positive emotional response which increases consumers’ behavioral intentions (Yoo and
Kim, 2014). In e-tailing, location effects can be fundamentally mitigated, thus the price
and variety become more important. Cui and Wang (2010) examined the effects of loyalty
and e-marketing mix variables on the choices of online consumers at the stock-keeping-unit
(SKU) level. They concluded that SKU loyalty is a better predictor of consumer choices than
brand and size loyalty. Order fulfillment cycle time is instrumental in generating referrals
for the online retailers, even factoring in product quality (Griffis et al., 2012). In light of the
above discussion, we posit that:
H3b. Customer-perceived product assortment is positively and directly associated with
order fulfillment.
Value creation has been linked to an interactive process (e.g. Grönroos, 2008; Vargo and
Lusch, 2008), both by direct or indirect interaction, “A service is an interactive process and
during such interactions the customer and the service provider co-produce the service”
(Heinonen et al., 2010). For instance, experiencing difficulty in navigating product display,
not able to access a full description about the product, lack of variety available, etc., will add
an unnecessary burden on the “discount” aspects in the appraisal of the shopping
experience. Jaiswal et al. (2018) investigate the effect of trust and a set of other relationship
and transaction characteristics – mode customer acquisition, length of relationship, service, Superior
communication, product return activity and type of product purchased on customer e-tailing
retention in the context of emerging online markets. The electronic service (e-service) service
flexibility allows a B2C company to decrease transaction costs, expedite delivery time and
serve more customers ( Jin and Oriaku, 2013; Yang et al., 2014). Mallapragada et al.’s (2016) experience
study results support the claims that contextual factors are linked to online browsing
and product variety is positively related to visit durations and basket values. Therefore, 1167
we posit:
H3c. The relationship between perceived product assortment performance and shopping
assistance is mediated by order fulfillment.

Methodology
The hypothesized model was empirically validated by choosing a natural field research
approach (Barratt et al., 2015). This research method has the advantage of extending
sufficient variance across the variable/constructs that are essential to test the conceptual
model. The measurement of the constructs of interest was based on established scales
proven to be psychometrically sound and the research instrument comprising multiple-item
scales ensures validity and reliability (Peter, 1979). The questionnaire covering all items
was scored based on seven-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7
“strongly agree.”
The present research takes up shape as a composite-formative construct which assumes to
be composed by its indicators and the indicators of a composite construct essentially make up
the construct (Bollen and Diamantopoulos, 2017; Henseler, 2017). The partial least squares
(PLS) algorithm, independent of the epistemic relationships between construct and their
observed indicators, hence, estimates all constructs as composite construct (Henseler, 2017)
by aggregating the observed variables (Chin, 1998a; Chin and Newsted, 1999).
As the main concern of the study is to predict the relationships and to maximize the
explained variance in the dependent variables (DVs), PLS is used (Ringle et al., 2014). PLS
methodology is the second-generation exploratory multivariate statistical technique to test
the research hypotheses with structural equation modeling (SEM) (Hair, Hult, Ringle and
Sarstedt, 2014, p. 2), better suited for theory development and entails less stringent sample
distribution norms. The PLS approach was considered to be advantageous owing to its
prediction-oriented methodology (Fornell and Cha, 1994; Lowry and Gaskin, 2014) and if the
purpose of the study is “an extension of an existing structural theory” (Hair et al., 2011,
p. 144). PLS-SEM is used to validate the constructs and measure the structural relationships
among the constructs (Chin, 1998a). Furthermore, PLS properties are less limiting, such as
distributions, normality and sample size requisites are relatively small (Hair et al., 2012;
Henseler, 2010) and when the main concern of the analysis is prediction accuracy, the PLS
technique is ideal (Sarstedt, 2008) in the assessment of composite relationship with many
indicators/constructs and models (Chin et al., 2003). Therefore, we have chosen to employ
PLS, because it facilitates the exploration of complex models with moderately small sample
size modalities; nevertheless, we have taken care of the suggested caveats while making
inferences from the study (Hair et al., 2011).

Construct operationalization
To measure the latent constructs, questionnaire items were adapted from past studies as a
methodological norm in measuring latent constructs (Westland, 2015). The scale items
analogous to shopping assistance were adapted from a scale developed by Bart et al. (2005)
and Postma and Brokke (2002). For measuring shopping efficiency, scale items were
adapted from Mathwick et al. (2001, 2002) and Mishra (2018). A total of 13 order fulfillment
APJML items were included in the final questionnaire out of 18 items based on measures developed
31,4 by Bart et al. (2005), Mishra (2018) and Nguyen et al. (2016). For modeling purposes,
order fulfillment was exhibited as a hierarchical construct in the research (Mishra, 2018;
Wetzels et al., 2009), entailing availability, timeliness, condition, bill accuracy and ease
of the returns act as five reflective first-order constructs. The formative indicators of the
second-order construct were these first-order constructs (Mowen and Voss, 2008).
1168 Similarly, the customer-perceived product assortment was demonstrated as a
hierarchical construct comprising four first-order reflective constructs that act as
formative indicators for the second-order construct. The first-order constructs were
computed with a scale of items adapted from Srinivasan et al. (2002) and Tan and
Cadeaux (2011). In order to explain the construct, and assess the model performance, the
causal relationship is inverted and channelized from the first-order constructs to the latent
second-order construct (Vinzi et al., 2010). The product assortment performance
reflects the customers’ perception while interacting with the e-servicescape of the
shopping portal. Finding the higher levels of perceived product assortment does not
presume that performance is improved on all the dimensions at the same time; in other
words, it does not approve correlations among all of its dimensions, whereas a substantial
growth in performance on any of its dimensions will definitely improve on the perceived
product assortment.

Instrument administration and sample size

At the beginning, we formulated the items constructed on evidently relevant and precisely
validated scales. A pre-test was run among 15 online customers to categorize and remove
excessively ambiguous items. On the basis of the pre-test feedback vis-à-vis response style
assessment for data collection, some modifications were made in the language of the items in
the questionnaire. The sample size was decided based on the rule of thumb (Hair, Hult,
Ringle and Sarstedt, 2014), i.e., one to five ratio. Before the data collection, “a-priori sample
size calculator for structural equation models” was used and the required total number of
responses for model structure is found to be adequate for SEM with 11 latent variables,
35 observed variables, p-value of 0.5 and anticipated size effect 0.3 is 195 (Soper, 2018;
Westland, 2010).
Upon the pre-testing by employing judgmental sampling, a random sample of 800
largely female university students was drawn from a list of online customers maintained by
a market research firm that surveys customers on their actual shopping experiences.
An HTML-based e-mail invitation was sent by the market research firm to each of the 1,200
potential customers informing them that respondents would be entitled for free gift coupon.
The e-mails contain an embedded URL link to the website hosting the survey, data collected
within a two-month period and this e-mail campaign produced total 246 usable responses,
representing an overall 20.5 percent response rate, which is within the acceptable range.
This method has been employed in a recent study (Wan et al., 2016).

Non-response bias
The present study examined non-response bias which “pre-assumes that people who are more
interested in the questionnaire subject respond more readily and non-response bias occurs on
the items in which the subjects’ answer is related to his interest area” (Armstrong and
Overton, 1977, p. 2). The researchers tried to convince the respondents that their responses
would be treated with utmost confidentiality. We used the Mann-Whitney U test on age
group, gender and education background between early and late respondents with respect to
the means of all research variables, by selecting the first 50 respondents as early responses
and the last 50 respondents as late responses. The findings showed that the impact value in
the research variable is not less than 0.5 probability value, which is insignificant; hence, there
was no statistical significance between early and late respondents. Second, we performed a Superior
wave analysis applying the guidelines of the continuum of resistance theory and we found no e-tailing
substantial difference who did not respond (Lin and Schaeffer, 1995); therefore, non-response service
bias is not a threat in this study.
experience
Common method bias
Common method variance (CMV) is a problematic issue in self-report questionnaires, since the 1169
quantitative data were collected from a single survey method (Spector, 2006). The CMV could
affect the relationships (co-variation between constructs and the item reliabilities) in
cross-sectional studies (Greenleaf, 1992; Lindell, 2001), which generally jeopardizes the
findings’ validity of linkage results (Kline et al., 2000), so few selections were made in the
research design to moderate the possible consequences of CMV (MacKinzie and Podsakoff,
2012; Podsakoff et al., 2003). As suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003), at the designing stage
of the survey instrument, we prevented item priming effects, acquiescence biases, e.g.,
“yea-saying or nay-saying,” common scale anchors, common rate effects, common scale
formats, scale length and item characteristic effects. At the data analysis stage, CMV was
tested using Harman’s one-factor test, and in the partial correlation procedures, the marker
variable and the structural model techniques were carried out. The exploratory factor analysis
of all the measurement items extracted five factors explaining 70 percent of the total variance
and the first factor explained only 34 percent of the total variance. Hence, CMV was unlikely to
be a major worry in the present research (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Data analysis and results

Screening and refinement
The present study checks the missing values and a limited number of missing cases were
identified (less than 4 percent) which were replaced with the midpoint of scale, i.e., 2
(Hair, Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt, 2014). Moreover, SPSS was used to check the presence of
outliers (value that diverge significantly from other values) for the standardized scores.
Mahalanobis distance was calculated (Mahalanobis’s D (36) W65.82 on p o0.001), and four
multivariate outliers were identified from the analysis. Furthermore, the negatively skewed
variables were transformed using a square root conversion, with the purpose of reducing
skewness and refining normality postulation (Kenny and McCoach, 2003).

Data analysis
All the hypotheses were subject to a PLS path modeling which is a prediction-oriented and
variance-based SEM (Hair, Sarstedt, Hopkins and Kuppelwieser, 2014). The amount of
variance explained is maximized in PLS modeling and relatively robust in case of
non-normality as a consequence of heterogeneity among groups in observations (Henseler,
2010; Monecke and Leisch, 2012). PLS-SEM is unambiguously recommended for models
including formative measurement constructs and readily incorporates both reflective and
formative measures (Hair, Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt, 2014). The higher-order construct of
order fulfillment was modeled formatively by using the hierarchical components or repeated
indicators approach, where the indicators of the lower-order reflective dimensions are repeated
to measure higher-order formative constructs (Ringle et al., 2012; Henseler et al., 2016).

Measurement model
The focus of the measurement model assessment is to evaluate the relationships between the
indicators/items and validation of the theoretical constructs which is based on the reliability
and validity of the model (Hair, Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt, 2014). Reliability of the model was
decided on factor loading and composite reliability (Chin, 2010). Tables II and III demonstrate
APJML that all factor loadings and composite reliability exceeded the threshold value of 0.50 and 0.70,
31,4 respectively (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The validity of the measurement model was
assessed based on psychometric properties for the constructs by examining the discriminant
and convergent validity (Hair et al., 2012). Discriminant validity is assessed by using two
criteria: first, Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion and second, the heterotrait-monotrait ratio
(HTMT) method developed by Henseler et al. (2015). The average variance extracted (AVE)
1170 was estimated and compared with Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) index and it clearly shows that
the average variance shared between a construct and its measures is of greater value than the
variance shared between that construct and other constructs in the model. For satisfactory
convergent validity of a measurement model, the factor loading of indicators should exceed
0.70, the composite reliability should also exceed 0.70 and AVE from each construct should
exceed 0.50 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Chin, 1998a). The homogeneity of the construct was
assessed by convergent validity. The factor loadings of the measurement items for each
construct exceeded 0.70 and are significant at po0.01. The composite reliabilities of
each construct exceeded 0.70, with the values ranging from 0.70 to 0.875. The AVE exceeded
0.50, with the values ranging from 0.62 to 0.83. This indicates that the proposed measurement
model that demonstrates adequate internal consistency, scale reliability and convergent
validity is confirmed (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). A detail listing of the retained scale
items, the quality of descriptive statistics attained in CFA and t-values, means, standard
deviations and AVE values for the total sample is reported in the Tables I and II.
The discriminant validity may be considered to be adequate if the square root of the
AVE for a given factor is of greater value than the correlations between this factor and other
factors remaining in the model. The correlations between constructs and square root of AVE
are specified in Table III. The AVE of shopping assistance is 0.607 and thus exceeds the
threshold for acceptable convergent validity. The hypothesized relationships demonstrate
moderate to strong correlations between the DVs and the independent variables (IVs)
(W 0.50). After establishing the strength and psychometric properties of the scales,
we examined the degree of multicollinearity among the dimensions suggested for
formative measurement constructs. When too much multicollinearity exists between the
formative indicators, the formative nature of the higher-order construct may be
inappropriate (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001). The variance inflation factor (VIF)
for each indicator was determined, and VIF values vary from 1.926 to 3.249, which is below
the threshold limit of 5 (Hair, Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt, 2014), thereby suggesting that
factors are not highly correlated with one another.
To consistently estimate and test hierarchical constructs those are composed of reflective
first-order constructs, we employed novel “three-stage” PLS-based approach which requires
three rounds of estimation (Van Riel et al., 2017). The reliability of the second-order construct
was calculated manually. In addition, to assess the discriminant validity we relied on the
HTMT between all reflective constructs (Henseler et al., 2015, 2016). HTMT represents the
ratio of within-construct correlations to the between-construct correlation (Henseler et al.,
2015). The assessment of discriminant validity using HTMT can be completed in two ways:
as a criterion and a statistical test. As a criterion, HTMT values need to be less than 0.85 for
constructs that are conceptually different (Kline, 2011) and 0.90 for constructs that are
conceptually similar (Henseler et al., 2015). The second criteria involved testing the null
hypothesis (H0: HTMT ⩾ 1) against the alternative hypothesis (H1: HTMT o 1) and in
order to achieve the discriminant validity, confidence interval supposes not to include the
value of 1 (Henseler et al., 2015). As shown in the Table VI, none of HTMT values surpassed
the cutoff point of HTMT.90 and HTMT.85. The highest HTMT value for the whole model is
0.798 and the HTMT inference also showed that the confidence interval did not show a
value of 1 for any of the constructs, which means that there is adequate discriminant
validity throughout the model. This study has also examined the measurement model’s
 Factor
Superior
Constructs/measures loading t-value Mean SD AVE e-tailing
service
Order fulfillment (composite reliability ¼ 0.83)
Availability (CR ¼ 0.84) 0.68 experience
This website makes available high-quality products 0.792 18.045 5.2 0.93
Delivery options are available on this website 0.763 21.783 5.3 0.91
This website makes available all the brands you planned to buy (A5) 0.730 10.490 4.4 1.52 1171
Timeliness (CR ¼ 0.83) 0.65
This website delivers the product as per the schedule 0.804 8.847 4.8 1.19
The order given on this website never gets delayed 0.843 8.122 5.2 1.20
This website has embedded option for early delivery 0.816 24.274 4.9 1.42
Condition (CR ¼ 0.82) 0.67
This website orders always deliver in good condition 0.703 6.812 4.4 1.31
The products delivered from this website never in damaged condition 0.715 14.174 4.3 1.34
The website uses excellent packaging material 0.732 12.001 5.0 1.30
Billing accuracy (CR ¼ 0.83) 0.62
Immediately after the order the bill or invoice get generated
accurately with full details 0.824 22.373 4.6 1.28
The billing of the product is always fair and without any discrepancy 0.793 21.242 4.3 1.26
Ease of returns (CR ¼ 0.84) 0.66
Product return is very easy in case of any unwanted or faulty
product delivery 0.810 18.386 5.1 1.26
Return policies or other measures of accountability are present on
this website 0.831 18.292 5.2 1.23
Shopping assistance (composite reliability ¼ 0.85)
Comparison of all competing brands are presented on this website 0.818 28.612 4.7 1.21 0.83
In order to recommend products, easy-to-answer questions are asked
about my preferences 0.875 29.238 4.8 1.27
I am disappointed to visit this website for shopping (rc) 0.836 27.128 5.5 1.67
Useful shopping recommendations are made based on my personal
information and preferences 0.818 28.405 4.9 1.14
I am not at all happy to visit this website (rc) 0.821 24.214 5.7 1.76
Table I.
Shopping efficiency (composite reliability ¼ 0.84)
Descriptive statistics
Shopping from this website is an efficient way to manage my time 0.837 32.562 4.9 1.21 0.79 and measurement
Shopping from this website makes my life easier 0.805 22.474 4.6 1.20 model for order
Shopping from this website fits with my schedule 0.851 38.391 4.5 1.21 fulfillment, shopping
Shopping from this website suits to my lifestyle and status 0.753 40.212 4.3 1.32 assistance and
Note: rc, reverse coded shopping efficiency

reliability and validity of the second order as recommended by Chin (1998b). Using higher
order construct allows achieving more theoretical parsimony and reducing complexity
(Edwards, 2001; MacKinzie et al., 2005). Tables I and II illustrate that the values of factor
loadings, AVE and composite reliability for PA, SE, OF and SA are greater than 0.70, 0.50
and 0.70, respectively (Hair et al., 2011; Henseler et al., 2009).
The goodness-of-fit of the model, including the second-order composite as well, is: the
geodesic discrepancy of 0.106 lies even below its corresponding HI95 value of 0.125, and the
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) is 0.058. This shows that the second-order
composite does not produce significant model misfit. Dijkstra–Henseler’s ρA was used to
assess the construct reliability (Dijkstra and Henseler, 2015) of shopping assistance. The
geodesic discrepancy between the empirical correlation matrix and the implied correlation
matrix of the saturated model (e.g. a model in which all constructs are allowed to covary) is
0.405 and lies beneath its corresponding HI99 value. Accordingly, the implied correlation
matrix does not differ significantly from the empirical correlation matrix (1 percent level).
APJML Factor
31,4 Constructs/measures loading t-value Mean SD AVE

Product assortment (composite reliability ¼ 0.83)

Variety (CR ¼ 0.78) 0.69
This website provides a “one-stop-shop” for my shopping 0.826 14.371 4.7 1.60
The choice of products on this website is sufficient 0.812 17.612 4.5 1.47
1172 This website carries a wide selection of products to choose 0.835 8.842 5.3 1.51
This website serve the majority of my online shopping needs 0.841 12.714 5.2 1.49
Stock-out (CR ¼ 0.81) 0.76
On this website, products are always displayed in stock (rc) 0.712 5.163 4.3 1.48
During my visit to this website, I noticed stock-outs of products
that were of my interest 0.767 4.348 2.9 1.62
Product accessibility (CR ¼ 0.76) 0.81
In this website, navigability for product bothers me (rc) 0.774 4.123 3.7 1.20
In this website, all products can be easily accessed 0.806 8.238 5.0 1.31
Information relevance (CR ¼ 0.79) 0.77
All the product descriptions are provided on the website 0.752 9.268 5.3 1.30
Product or price comparisons are available 0.783 3.916 5.2 1.46
On the website, information related to stock-outs is well displayed 0.742 4.653 3.6 1.54
Table II.
Descriptive statistics In this website, information on product manufacturers/trade
and measurement partners is provided 0.794 2.582 5.3 1.12
model for product The relevant information about products get displayed 0.755 3.817 4.8 1.47
assortment Note: rc, reverse coded

Product assortment Shopping efficiency Order fulfillment Shopping assistance

Constructs (PA) (SE) (OF) (SA)

Product assortment –
(PA)
Shopping efficiency 0.672 0.793
(SE)
Order fulfillment 0.709 0.620 0.682
(OF)
Table III. Shopping assistance 0.651 0.746 0.618 0.832
Correlations among (SA)
the factors Note: Square root of AVE is on the diagonal

The SRMR 0.062 provides evidence for an acceptable model fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999) and
also lower than the 95 percent bootstrap quantile of SRMR (0.077), supporting the model.
Dijkstra–Henseler’s ρA for shopping assistance is a healthy 0.864 and the reliability
of the second-order composite is 0.843. At last, the VIF under the 3.3 limit (inner VIF is
1.0–2.4; outer VIF is 1.0–1.8) indicates the absence of collinearity (Diamantopoulos and
Siguaw, 2006). We can conclude that the measurement model offers an acceptable
justification of the co-variation in the data in terms of reliability/validity at the first and
second order thus structural model can be assessed.

Structural model
The structural model evaluates the relationships between theoretical constructs in the form of
hypothesis testing (Anderson and Gerbing, 1982). The confirmatory composite analysis was
performed to the extent that convergent and discriminant validity of the factors was confirmed
by SmartPLS 3.0 software in order to assess the structural model (Ringle et al., 2014).
The predictive power of inner model (structural model) is evaluated based on the Superior
significant level of the path coefficients, t-value and the amount of variance explained (R2) in e-tailing
the endogenous constructs (Hair, Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt, 2014). PLS algorithm and service
bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 resamples were applied to generate the path coefficients
and their corresponding t-values to determine these paths are significant or not (Hair, Hult, experience
Ringle and Sarstedt, 2014). In Figure 2, standardized PLS path coefficients, t-values and R2
metrics are presented along with each explained variance. In Figure 2, we describe the 1173
adequacy coefficient R2a as well for product assortment which is the formative construct
(Cadogan and Lee, 2013). MacKenzie et al. (2011) and Lee and Cadogan (2013) advise that
on an average the formative dimensions cannot be considered sharing a majority of the
variance with the construct on 0.47 values, and they reemphasized the need to redevelop and
redesign the measurement instrument so only significant influences are shown in Figure 2.
The first-order constructs’ loadings on the second-order construct do not essentially give an
error-free and accurate clue of the magnitude of the variance explained in the second-order
construct, as they may share variance or correlated with each other. So in order to ascertain
about their individual contribution to the second-order construct we calculated β values on the
basis of the correlation matrix of the latent constructs. Table IV provides the relative effects of

Shopping Efficiency
R2 = 0.560

0.748 (25.730)
0.214 (2.386) Shopping Assistance
R2 = 0.485

0.891 (32.354)
Availability

0.690 (10.830)
Timeliness
0.510 (9.583)
Information relevance
0.482 (6.272)

0.762 (15.852)
Condition
0.739 (18.652)
Product accessibility
0.668 (30.371)
Billing Accuracy

0.586 (8.772)
Stock-out 0.864 (22.384)
Ease of returns

Figure 2.
0.797 (8.097) 0.721 (15.147) Empirically
Product Order Fulfillment validated model
Variety
Assortment R2a = 0.472 R2 = 0.431

Dimensions β values

Product variety 0.487

Stock-out 0.342 Table IV.
Product accessibility 0.469 β values for product
Information relevance 0.454 assortment (PA)
APJML the various product assortment dimensions. The R2 values for product assortment, order
31,4 fulfillment, shopping assistance and shopping efficiency exceeded the recommended cutoff
value of 0.30, which indicates good explanatory power of the model (Gefen and Straub, 2005).
Furthermore, the effect size ( f2) and predictive relevance (Q2) are shown in Table V.
The values of f2 indicate the individual effect of exogenous variables in explaining the
variance in the inner model. To measure the effect size, we used the equation suggested by
1174 Cohen (1988), e.g., f2 ¼ R2included−R2excluded/1−R2included and respective values of 0.02, 0.15
and 0.35 represent small, medium and large effects, respectively. From Table V it can be
observed that order fulfillment exercised medium effect, whereas shopping assistance
exerted a small effect. On the other hand, the Q2 values demonstrate the collective effect of
exogenous variables in predicting the inner model. The blindfolding procedure was used
to assess the predictive relevance of the model (Tenenhaus et al., 2005). If the Q2 value is
larger than 0 the model has predictive relevance for a certain endogenous construct and in
this study, the Q2 values for order fulfillment (Q2 ¼ 0.310), and shopping assistance
(Q2 ¼ 0.295), thus the model has suitable predictive relevance (Hair, Hult, Ringle and
Sarstedt, 2014; Fornell and Cha, 1994).
We test the nomological validity of the hypothesized e-tail service dimensions by
examining relationships between each dimension to establish the external validity of
formative constructs (Netemeyer et al., 2003) and its antecedent and consequent effects.
We conducted a structural model to examine whether order fulfillment had an effect on
theoretically related constructs (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001), namely
shopping assistance and shopping efficiency. The weights of the constructs are
significant and more than 0.1 with positive signs, which supports the relevance of the
indicators for the construction of the formative, higher-order construct and consistent with
the underlying theory.
In order to examine the statistical significance of the mediation effect of order fulfillment
and shopping assistance, bootstrapping the indirect effect with 5,000 resamples as
suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2004) was implemented. To ascertain the mediation, we
first calculated the direct influence of the IV, product assortment on the DV, shopping

Parameters Three-stage approach Criteria

Path coefficients
Product assortment→Order fulfillment 0.657 Yes
Order fulfillment→Shopping assistance 0.695 Yes
Amount of explained variance (R2)
Order fulfillment 0.431 Good
Shopping assistance 0.485 Good
Effect size ( f2)
Order fulfillment 0.18 Medium
Shopping assistance 0.05 Small
Predictive relevance (Q2)
Order fulfillment 0.310 Yes
Shopping assistance 0.295 Yes
Weights
Availability→Order fulfillment 0.291 Yes
Timeliness→Order fulfillment 0.508 Yes
Table V. Condition→Order fulfillment 0.492 Yes
Estimates for the Billing accuracy→Order fulfillment 0.436 Yes
three-stage approach Ease of returns→Order fulfillment 0.501 Yes
assistance and we found the effect was significant (β ¼ 0.541; t ¼ 8.295), and nearly Superior
31 percent of the variance explained for the DV. When we incorporated the mediating e-tailing
variable (MV ), order fulfillment, the direct association remained significant between IV and service
DV. This denotes that the effect of perceived product assortment on shopping assistance is
moderately mediated by order fulfillment. To confirm the mediation, we bootstrap the experience
results of the effects by correcting the percentile method to bring in extra accuracy between
IV and MV and then MV and DV since bootstrap-t automatically produces corrections 1175
(DiCiccio and Efron, 1996). The mediation effect t-value is 5.764, indicating the substantial
partial mediation. On the other hand, a very significant percentage of variance in the order
fulfillment practice seems to be explained by perceived product assortment, precisely
highlighting the key conception about the prominence of online interface in turn concerning
customer evaluations of e-tailing and shopping assistance. The bootstrapping analysis
showed a strong relationship between order fulfillment and shopping assistance (β ¼ 0.482;
t ¼ 6.272; p o0.01) at 95% CI (0.124-0.332) thus the data support H1 and H2. The PLS
results confirm a positive and direct relationship between product assortment and shopping
assistance (β ¼ 0.214; t ¼ 2.386; p o0.01), supporting H3a and a mediating influence by
order fulfillment construct (β ¼ 0.721; t ¼ 15.147; po 0.01) at 95% CI (0.038-0.297) as well,
which supports H3b. The size of the indirect effect was assessed using the variance
accounted for (VAF), which represents the ratio of indirect effect to the total effect
(Iacobucci and Duhachek, 2004). The values of VAF indicate that order fulfillment
(63.2 percent) and shopping assistance (67.4 percent) partially mediating the relationships
between product assortments and shopping efficiency. Moreover, 94.7 percent of the total
effect of order fulfillment on shopping efficiency was explained by indirect effects of
shopping assistance. Now H3c, order fulfillment, was hypothesized to indirectly influence
product assortment performance for shopping assistance to online customers.
The three-stage estimates, i.e., path coefficients, R2 values, effect size ( f2), predictive
relevance (Q2) and corresponding weights of the construct in the study are shown in Table VI.
Product assortment has a relatively large-sized effect on order fulfillment, and the order
fulfillment strongly influences shopping assistance. As expected, a positively strong
association was detected between shopping assistance and shopping efficiency (β ¼ 0.748;
t ¼ 25.730; po0.01), displayed in Figure 2. The study results show that a substantial
part of the variance in shopping assistance, with a shopping portal, is influenced by
customer-perceived product assortment performance. The product assortment has a
persistent effect on consumers and its effect on shopping assistance is mediated by the order
fulfillment. The perceived mediation can be inferred as follows: apart from directly
augmenting shopping assistance, extraordinary product assortment performances also enrich
the shopping experience and service elements in the overall evaluation, which in turn clue to
even better online assistance for customers. Thus, the predictive validity of the model was
achieved, and the hypotheses were confirmed.

Constructs PA SE OF SA

PA
SE 0.762
CI90 (0.585, 97.2%)
OF 0.871 0.798
CI90 (0.742, 0.980) CI90 (0.653, 0.886)
SA 0.734 0.709 0.693
CI90 (0.645, 0.912) CI90 (0.624, 0.848) CI90 (0.489, 0.823) Table VI.
Notes: CI, confidence interval; PA, product assortment; SE, shopping efficiency; OF, order fulfillment; Discriminant validity
SA, shopping assistance using HTMT
APJML Discussion and implications
31,4 Summary of the study
The present research highlights the role of online product assortment related issues in
facilitating shopping assistance and shopping efficiency for the customers. Our exploration of
the product assortment and the empirical results demonstrates the prominence of this
construct in enriching shopping assistance gamut for better customer value co-creation, and
1176 the influence order fulfillment is partially mediated. These insights are in tandem with Emrich
et al. (2015) and Kautish and Rai (2018, 2019), who took an extended view on customer
outcomes such as variety, benefits, convenience and reduced risk in case of multi-channel
assortment integration (Gallino and Moreno, 2014). We reflect that the product assortment
decisions are instrumental in endorsing customer shopping assistance in varied forms of e-tail
servicescape, effective website navigation, facilitating the e-tailer service practices to enrich
customers experience and co-creating value during transactions (Kautish and Sharma, 2018).
A unique e-tail experience can be created by refining the product assortment visualization,
customization scopes while shop, advance e-services planning aspects and customer
perception about control (Dellaert and Dabholkar, 2014).

Implications for research

The results from this study contribute to the body of knowledge in several ways. First, this
research departs from the past studies on e-tailing, which are predominantly confined to
internet usage (Alwahaishi and Snásel, 2013; Quinones and Kakabadse, 2015), online shopping
adoption (Ashraf et al., 2014; McKenna et al., 2013) and the influence of demographic factors on
online purchasing (He and Freeman, 2010; Pascual-Miguel et al., 2015). Second, this research
develops and validates a research model of integrating four distinct facets of online shopping
with value co-creation gamut. To our knowledge, this study is one of the first to apply
the S-D logic to understand product assortment and order fulfillment domain with customer
shopping orientation. This study extends and validates empirically a parsimonious, yet
wide-ranging, model that demonstrates how product assortment and order fulfillment
influence value co-creation in the form of shopping assistance and efficiency. Thus, this
research provides a novel perspective that addresses customers’ interaction with physical
experience and virtual technology during online shopping. As such, this study addressed a
critical gap in the existing body of knowledge – lack of integration of value co-creation for
better e-tailing experience for customers.

Implications for managers

The study has several implications for managerial practice. In terms of direct or indirect
effects, all hypotheses were substantiated and the positive relationships between constructs
indicate the importance of product assortment and order fulfillment in extending value
co-creation realm and competitive advantage. The theory of relevance-oriented value-creating
business practices/activities develops the strategy crossing departmental boundaries and
incorporates all the firm’s functions into one purpose – delivering superior digital customer
experiences (Klaus, 2014). McColl-Kennedy et al. (2015) emphasized that in order to advance
customer experience, e-tailers should work on three key domains: first, broadening the
customer role; second, practice-based approach; and third, recognizing the holistic and
dynamic nature of the customer experience journey across all touch points and over time.
Otieno et al. (2005) asserted the prominence of appraising consumers’ views on fit, sizing,
availability, perception about offers and shopping environments. Their research emphasized
that lack of proper sizes creates negative emotions for visual merchandising, choices, pricing
and promotional activities. Chan et al. (2016) posited that consumer control, online dependency
and online encounter satisfaction work as a mean for overall customer satisfaction.
Virtual fitting room or virtual try-on technological applications for online shopping portals are Superior
one of such service dimensions which may resolve the problem to some extent of sizing and e-tailing
fitting to ensure satisfaction (Beck and Crié, 2018; Kim and Forsythe, 2008). Considering the service
fact that customers expect competitively convenient delivery, collection options and easy
returns are critical performance dimensions on which customers' value e-tailers ( Jindal et al., experience
2017). In light of the radical changes in modern e-tailing and technological backdrop,
customers vary not only in their shopping behavior, but also in value perceptions, so e-tailers 1177
have to be ready to respond to the new realities of the business (Grewal et al., 2012). Reports on
e-tailing suggest that a large number of online consumers want convenience and choice – not
conversational interfaces, which struggle to deliver contextual convenience (Forrester, 2018).
Managers must know that to better serve the customer they need to understand the role that
they play in the customer-defined service journey and be prepared to coordinate their
activities with complementary providers (Tax et al., 2013). The critical elements for online
purchases are availability, delivery time, condition on arrival, condition on arrival, return
options and the perceived service quality of the logistics service providers (Lang and
Bressolles, 2013). Online product assortment and order fulfillment can play a pivotal role in
forming positive shopping outcomes by focusing on those online and offline operative
components that directly affect the value creation and convenience for online consumers
(Herhausen et al., 2015). At the outset, we observe that the effect sizes of the product
assortment dimensions vary. E-tail managers should perhaps give priority to the dimensions
with the highest β values, as displayed in Table IV. Interestingly noteworthy dimension is the
stock-out which expectedly does not bear the highest priority from the customers’ viewpoint
(Peinkofer et al., 2016). This finding could be alleviated by the right product assortment on
offer, since customers will most likely less stuck with a stock-out if they have sufficient
options to shop from (Peinkofer et al., 2015). An e-tailing site where limited or no options are
available, a stock-out display may have negative consequences on shopping assistance, than
on sites where voluminous options are available. Furthermore, product accessibility has
categorically highest β, and should hence be dealt with utmost care, closely followed by the
product accessibility and product variety provided on the sites. The last place is taken by
the relevant information about the products typically made available by service provider;
customers do care about the information overloaded (Quach et al., 2016), but this effect could
be improved by the comparative details available in brief and the quality of the information
with the internet services milieu (Thaichon and Jebarajakirthy, 2016), since it can help
customers in reaching to the right decision. Pantano et al. (2017) highlighted that the online
portals extend the traditional offers and possibilities to virtually try-on the product before the
effective buying takes place; hence, consumers get motivated to employ augmented reality
systems for supporting their online purchase decisions. Furthermore, Pei et al. (2014) argued
that e-tailers’ return policies in terms of return depth have a positive influence on the
consumer’s perceived fairness of the return policy and play a strategic influence on consumer
behavior. Since consumers check on eReviews while making purchases because the
information is easily accessible, out of habit and/or because it is also financially inexpensive
option to use, highlighting prominent reviews are significant for e-tail managers.
Search engines’ interface, social media, online reviews and social networking sites enabled
consumer socialization play a vital role in the initial stages of need recognition and
information search to advance stages of evaluation and purchase decision (Thaichon, 2017);
thus, e-tail managers may work out effective strategies for these marketing channels as well in
order to attract loyal customers (Ismail, 2017).

Future directions
We segregate future directions into three distinctive, but related facets, namely, theory,
methods and contexts in line with the recently used structure (Kautish and Sharma, 2018).
APJML Future directions – theory
31,4 Theoretically, our results offer a holistic, multi-dimensional view toward product
assortment and order fulfillment and validate the nomological network of the construct.
The economics of information approach suggest that as e-tailing matures, information
asymmetry will enforce the reduction of price dispersion online as service providers will
operate in conditions close to perfect competition (Fedoseeva et al., 2017). We call for new
1178 studies on the product assortment and order fulfillment constructs to examine its
antecedents, outcomes and contingencies. As the established positive link must be
considered to be preliminary, we encourage future studies to study the relationships more
closely. To better understand the e-tailing phenomenon, we particularly encourage scholars
to examine the internal and/or external contingencies that specify the relevance and
performance of product assortment with order fulfillment.

Future directions – methods

The research was quantitative in nature, and further research may employ qualitative
approaches and analyses to complement and expand the insights. Though the sample was
sufficient for the purpose of the research and allowed reasonable conclusions to be drawn,
data limitations did not allow us to address a few other considerations such as the role of
branding and online marketing. Future research might strengthen the current findings in
light of access to a larger sample for generalizability of the results. Future studies should
gather longitudinal information during customer interaction in order to understand and
measure the various stages of the customer journey (Hall and Towers, 2017) with other
dimensions and outcomes. Similarly, the study might be replicated drawing different sample
(i.e. older age or diverse segments) that could offer opportunities for comparing findings and
achieving better results. E-tailers vary on how they attract and keep consumers loyal,
and we could not account for these variations, so future research may address these issues
(Yadav and Pavlou, 2014). The qualitative-based phenomenological methods including
observations, accompanied with customer narratives, testimonials, diaries and structured or
semi-structured interviews, could provide better understanding of how customers make
judgments about e-services.

Future directions – contexts

The scope of this study is limited due to its focus on university students’ responses to online
shopping. While university students embrace a major chunk of online shoppers for apparel,
this segment may not represent the online apparel shoppers. Thus, future research needs to
include a more diverse segment of e-shoppers for generalizability. Future research might
also collect and compare data from different countries to investigate the extent to which the
other e-tailing facets affect shopping behavior. With the advent of mobile, tablet and
social media, both consumers and retailers are transiting from a multi-channel world to
omni-channel world (Bell et al., 2014; Verhoef et al., 2015); thus, future research may focus
on the interactions of these channels (Pantano and Priporas, 2016). We excluded the
consumer-level characteristics, including prior online behavior and demographics so other
unobserved or omitted variables could be correlated with our explanatory variables, leading
to potential bias. Future studies could suggest to include some moderator in terms of
experiential values, i.e., the level of experience with e-tail could impact the usage and
efficiency (Shobeiri et al., 2015).

Limitations of the study

The present study has some limitations. First, the research was mainly exploratory in
nature and was conducted in a northwestern part of India. It would be extremely desirable
to replicate the research across a broader range of online shopping portals, settings, point of Superior
time, product types and country, and compare results with each other. Second, the present e-tailing
research is limited in that majority of the participants were females and university students service
who have an online shopping orientation. The results of the research may be appropriate
only for the shopping portals targeting young customers so the caveat is in generalizing the experience
findings of the study to other consumer segments. Third, we exhibited a sound relationship
between product assortment and order fulfillment, we have not accounted for other facets of 1179
order fulfillment facet, i.e., supply chain and logistics issues. These kinds of omissions such
as cost were deliberate; by excluding order fulfillment cost of our model, we sought to
emphasize upon the physical characteristics of order fulfillment.
Fourth, although an online survey was used to increase the appropriateness of an online
shopping experience and to better understand the factors which influence retail atmospherics,
the uncontrolled conditions such as variation in screen resolution, internet speed issues,
computer graphic problems, display, etc., may have adversely affected these factors, along
with a consideration of how different types of design elements (i.e. images, music and video
captions, etc.) and website-related characteristics (interactivity, navigation, etc.) affect the
overall shopping environment and customer perceptions (Kahn, 2017). Fifth, the constructs
related to product assortment, order fulfillment, shopping assistance and shopping efficiency
ought that further advanced and better reliable measurement instrument needs to be
developed and validated, in order to get superior outcomes for application orientation.
Consumer research should emphasize on exceeding the customer expectations related to
product assortment and order fulfillment service processes with greater understanding of
benchmarks against best practices and improve the decision levels.

References
Achrol, R.S. and Kotler, P. (2012), “Frontiers in the marketing paradigm”, Journal of Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 35-52.
Agatz, N.A.H., Fleischmann, M. and van Nunen, J.A.E.E. (2008), “E-fulfillment and multi-channel
distribution: a review”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 187 No. 2, pp. 339-356.
Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A. and Wood, S. (1997), “Interactive home
shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic
marketplace”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 38-53.
Alptekinoglu, A., Grasas, A. and Akcali, E. (2009), “Is assortment selection a popularity contest? a
study of assortment, return policy and pricing decisions of a retailer”, in Tang, C.S. and
Netessine, S. (Eds), Consumer-Driven Demand and Operations Management Models, Springer,
New York, NY, pp. 205-228.
Alwahaishi, S. and Snásel, V. (2013), “Acceptance and use of information and communications
technology: a UTAUT and flow based theoretical model”, Journal of Technology Management
and Innovation, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 61-73.
Amin, M., Rezaei, S., Valaei, N. and Wan Ismail, W.K. (2015), “Gender differences and consumers’
repurchase intention: the impact of trust propensity usefulness and ease of use for implication of
innovative online retail”, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 217-233.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1982), “Some methods for respecifying measurement models to
obtain unidimensional construct measurement”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 453-460.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Ansari, A., Essegaier, S. and Kohli, R. (2000), “Internet recommendation systems”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 363-375.
APJML Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
31,4 Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Ashraf, A.R., Thongpapanl, N.T. and Auh, S. (2014), “The application of the technology acceptance
model under different cultural contexts: the case of online shopping adoption”, Journal of
International Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 68-93.
ASSOCHAM (2016), “India’s e-tailing growing fastest in the world”, available at: www.assocham.org/
1180 newsdetail-print.php?id=5669 (accessed July 2, 2018).
AT Kearney (2016), “Digital retail in 2020: Rewriting the rules”, available at: www.thehindu.com/business/
Industry/digital-retail-2020-report-by-google-and-at-kearney-onlineretail-will-drive-25-of-organised-
retail-sales-by 2020/article8671796.ece (accessed March 22, 2018).
Audrain-Pontevia, A.-F., N’Goala, G. and Poncin, I. (2013), “A good deal online: the impacts of
acquisition and transaction value on e-satisfaction and e-loyalty”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 445-452.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Barratt, M.J., Ferris, J.A. and Lenton, S. (2015), “Hidden populations, online purposive sampling and
external validity: taking off the blindfold”, Field Methods, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 3-21.
Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F. and Urban, G.L. (2005), “Are the drivers and role of online trust the
same for all websites and consumers? A large scale exploratory study”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 133-152.
Bauer, H.H., Falk, T. and Hammerschmidt, M. (2006), “eTransQual: a transaction process-based
approach for capturing service quality in online shopping”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59
No. 7, pp. 866-875.
Beck, M. and Crié, D. (2018), “I virtually try it … I want it! Virtual fitting room: a tool to increase on-line
and off-line exploratory behavior, patronage and purchase intentions”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 40, pp. 279-286.
Bell, D.R., Gallino, S. and Moreno, A. (2014), “How to win in omnichannel world”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 45-53.
Bhatnagar, A. and Syam, S.S. (2014), “Allocating a hybrid retailer’s assortment across retail stores:
bricks-and-mortar vs online”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 1293-1302.
Bienstock, C.C., Mentzer, J.T. and Bird, M.M. (1996), “Measuring physical distribution service quality”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 31-44.
Blázquez, M. (2014), “Fashion shopping in multichannel retail: the role of technology in enhancing the
customer experience”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 97-116.
Bollen, K.A. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2017), “In defence of causal–formative indicators: a minority
report”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 581-596.
Bolton, R.N., Gustafsson, A., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Sirianni, N.J. and Tse, D.K. (2014), “Small details
that make big differences: a radical approach to consumption experience as a firm’s
differentiating strategy”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 253-274.
Bourlakis, M., Xing, Y., Grant, D.B., McKinnon, A.C. and Fernie, J. (2011), “The interface between
retailers and logistics service providers in the online market”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 334-357.
Boyer, K.K. (2001), “E-operations: a guide to how the internet streamlines operations”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 47-54.
Boyer, K.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2006), “Customer behavioral intentions for online purchases: an
examination of fulfillment method and customer experience level”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 124-147.
Boyer, K.K., Prud’homme, A.M. and Wenming, C. (2009), “The last mile challenge: evaluating the effects
of customer density and delivery window patterns”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 185-201.
Breidbach, C.F. and Maglio, P.P. (2016), “Technology-enabled value co-creation: an empirical analysis Superior
of actors, resources, and practices”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 56, pp. 73-85. e-tailing
Broniarczyk, S. (2008), “Product assortment”, in Haugtvedt, C., Herr, P. and Kardes, F. (Eds), Handbook service
of Consumer Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, NY, pp. 755-779.
experience
Broniarczyk, S.M., Hoyer, W.D. and McAlister, L. (1998), “Consumers’ perceptions of the assortment
offered in a grocery category: the impact of item reduction”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 166-176. 1181
Cadogan, J.W. and Lee, N. (2013), “Improper use of formative endogenous variables”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 233-241.
Cao, Y., Ajjan, H. and Hong, P. (2018), “Post-purchase shipping and customer service experiences in
online shopping and their impact on customer satisfaction: an empirical study with
comparison”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 400-416.
Chan, S.F., Barnes, B.R. and Fukukawa, K. (2016), “Consumer control, dependency and satisfaction
with online service”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 594-615.
Chen, N.H. and Hung, Y.W. (2015), “Online shopping orientation and purchase behavior for high-touch
products”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 187-202.
Chernev, A. (2003), “When more is less and less is more: the role of ideal point availability and
assortment in consumer choice”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 170-183.
Cheung, C.M.K., Chan, G.W.W. and Limayem, M. (2005), “A critical review of online consumer behavior:
empirical research”, Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 1-19.
Chin, W.W. (1998a), “The partial least squares approach for structural equation modelling”, in
Marcoukides, G.A. (Eds), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336.
Chin, W.W. (1998b), “Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 7-26.
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, in Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W.,
Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and
Applications, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 655-690.
Chin, W.W. and Newsted, P.R. (1999), “Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using
partial least squares”, in Hoyle, R.R. (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 307-341.
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L. and Newsted, P.R. (2003), “A partial least squares latent variable modeling
approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and
an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 189-217.
Chocarro, R., Cortiñas, M. and Villanueva, M-L. (2013), “Situational variables in online versus offline
channel choice”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 347-361.
Citi GPS (2017), “Technology at work v3.0 automating e-commerce from click to pick to door”,
available at: www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/CITI%20REPORT%20ADR0N.pdf
(accessed April 8, 2018).
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ.
Collier, J.E. and Bienstock, C.C. (2006), “Measuring service quality in e-retailing”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 260-275.
Cui, G. and Wang, Y. (2010), “Consumers’ SKU choices in an online supermarket: a latent class
approach”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 26 Nos 5/6, pp. 495-514.
Dang, V.T. and Pham, T.L. (2018), “An empirical investigation of consumer perceptions of online
shopping in an emerging economy: adoption theory perspective”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 952-971.
APJML Davis-Sramek, B., Germain, R. and Stank, T.P. (2010), “The impact of order fulfillment service on
31,4 retailer merchandising decisions in the consumer durables industry”, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 215-230.
Dellaert, B.G.C. and Dabholkar, P.A. (2014), “Increasing the attractiveness of mass customization: the
role of complementary on-line services and range of options”, International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 43-70.
1182 Demirkan, H. and Spohrer, J. (2014), “Developing a framework to improve virtual shopping in digital
malls with intelligent self-service systems”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21,
pp. 860-868.
Dennis, C., Merrilees, B., Jayawardhena, C. and Wrigt, L.T. (2009), “E-consumer behavior”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 9/10, pp. 1121-1139.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2006), “Formative vs reflective indicators in organizational
measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 263-282.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Winklhofer, H. (2001), “Index construction with formative indicators: an
alternative to scale development”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 269-277.
DiCiccio, T.J. and Efron, B. (1996), “Better bootstrap confidence interval”, Journal of American
Statistical Association, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 189-228.
Dijkstra, T.K. and Henseler, J. (2015), “Consistent partial least squares for nonlinear structural equation
modeling”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 297-316.
Edwards, J.R. (2001), “Multidimensional constructs in organizational behaviour research: an integrative
analytical framework”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 144-192.
Emrich, O., Paul, M. and Rudolph, T. (2015), “Shopping benefits of multichannel assortment integration
and moderating role of retailer type”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 326-342.
Eroglu, C., Williams, B.D. and Waller, M.A. (2011), “Consumer‐driven retail operations: the moderating
effects of consumer demand and case pack quantity”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 420-434.
Evanschitzky, H., Iyer, G.R., Pillai, K.G., Kenning, P. and Schütte, R. (2015), “Consumer trial, continuous
use, and economic benefits of a retail service innovation: the case of the personal shopping
assistant”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 459-475.
Fedoseeva, S., Herrmann, R. and Nickolaus, K. (2017), “Was the economics of information approach
wrong all the way? Evidence from German grocery r(E)tailing”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 80, pp. 63-72.
Fernie, J. and McKinnon, A. (2009), “The development of e-logistics”, in Fernie, J. and Sparks, L. (Eds),
Logistics and Retail Management, Emerging Issues and New Challenges in the Retail Supply
Chain, Kogan Page, London, pp. 113-134.
Finch, B.J. (2007), “Customer expectations in online auction environments: an exploratory study of
customer feedback and risk”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 985-997.
Floh, A. and Madlberger, M. (2013), “The role of atmospheric cues in online impulse buying behavior”,
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 425-439.
Fornell, C. and Cha, J. (1994), “Partial least squares”, in Bagozzi, R.P. (Ed.), Advanced Methods of
Marketing Research, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 52-78.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Foroudi, P., Gupta, S., Sivarajah, U. and Broderick, A. (2018), “Investigating the effects of smart
technology on customer dynamics and customer experience”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 80, pp. 271-282.
Forrester (2018), “Consumers want convenience, not conversations”, available at: www.forrester.com/
report/Consumers+Want+Convenience+Not+Conversations/-/E-RES142249 (accessed July 4, 2018).
Frow, P., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Hilton, T., Davidson, A., Payne, A. and Brozovic, D. (2014), “Value Superior
propositions: a service ecosystem perspective”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 327-351. e-tailing
Gallino, S. and Moreno, A. (2014), “Integration of online and offline channels in retail: the impact of service
sharing reliable inventory availability information”, Management Science, Vol. 60 No. 6,
pp. 1434-1451. experience
Gao, L. and Bai, X. (2014), “A unified perspective on the factors influencing consumer acceptance of
internet of things technology”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 211-231.
1183
Gefen, D. and Straub, D. (2005), “A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: tutorial and
annotated example”, Communications of AIS, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 91-109.
Greenleaf, E.A. (1992), “Improving rating scale measures by detecting and correcting bias components
in some response styles”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 176-188.
Grewal, D., Levy, M. and Kumar, V. (2009), “Customer experience management in retailing: an
organizing framework”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A.L. and Nordfält, J. (2017), “The future of retailing”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A.L., Compeau, L.D. and Levy, M. (2012), “Retail value-based pricing strategies:
new times, new technologies, new consumers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Griffis, S.E., Rao, S., Goldsby, T.J., Voorhees, C.M. and Iyengar, D. (2012), “Linking order fulfillment
performance to referrals in online retailing: an empirical analysis”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 279-294.
Grönroos, C. (2008), “Service-dominant logic revisited: who creates value and who co-creates?”,
European Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 298-314.
Grönroos, C. (2011), “Value co-creation in service logic: a critical analysis”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11
No. 3, pp. 279-301.
Hagberg, J., Sundstrom, M. and Egels-Zandén, N. (2016), “The digitalization of retailing: an exploratory
framework”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 44 No. 7,
pp. 694-712.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-151.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research”, European Business
Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modelling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433.
Hall, A. and Towers, N. (2017), “Understanding how millennial shoppers decide what to buy: digitally
connected unseen journeys”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 45
No. 5, pp. 498-517.
Häubl, G. and Trifts, V. (2000), “Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: the
effects of interactive decision aids”, Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-21.
He, J. and Freeman, L. (2010), “Are men more technology-oriented than women? The role of gender on
the development of general computer self-efficacy of college students”, Journal of Information
Systems Education, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 203-212.
Heinonen, K., Strandvik, T., Mickelsson, K-J., Edvardsson, B. and Sundström, E. (2010), “A customer-
dominant logic of service”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 531-548.
Henseler, J. (2010), “On the convergence of the partial least squares path modeling algorithm”,
Computational Statistics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-120.
APJML Henseler, J. (2017), “Bridging design and behavioral research with variance-based structural equation
31,4 modeling”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 178-192.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P.A. (2016), “Using PLS path modeling in new technology research:
updated guidelines”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43
1184 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Henseler, J., Christain, M., Ringle, R. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The use of partial least square
path modeling in international marketing”, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 277-319.
Herhausen, D., Binder, J., Schögel, M. and Herrmann, A. (2015), “Integrating bricks with clicks: retailer-
level and channel-level outcomes of online-offline channel integration”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 309-325.
Homburg, C., Jozić, D. and Kuehnl, C. (2017), “Customer experience management: toward implementing
an evolving marketing concept”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 3,
pp. 377-401.
Hu, L-T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis:
conventional versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Hu, M., Huang, F., Hou, H., Chen, Y. and Bulysheva, L. (2016), “Customized logistics service and online
shoppers’ satisfaction: an empirical study”, Internet Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 484-497.
Huang, T-L. and Liao, S. (2015), “A model of acceptance of augmented-reality interactive technology:
the moderating role of cognitive innovativeness”, Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 269-295.
Hübner, A., Wollenburg, J. and Kuhn, H. (2016), “Last mile fulfillment and distribution in omni-channel
grocery retailing: a strategic planning framework”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 228-247.
Hüseyinoğlu, I.Ö.Y., Sorkun, M.F. and Börühan, G. (2018), “Revealing the impact of operational logistics
service quality on omni-channel capability”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 1200-1221.
Iacobucci, D. and Duhachek, A. (2004), “Roundtable mediation analysis”, in Kahn, E. and Luce, M.F.
(Eds), NA – Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 31, Association for Consumer Research,
Valdosta, GA, p. 395.
Immonen, M. and Sintonen, S. (2015), “Evolution of technology perceptions over time”, Information
Technology & People, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 589-606.
Ismail, A.R. (2017), “The influence of perceived social media marketing activities on brand loyalty: the
mediation effect of brand and value consciousness”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 129-144.
Izogo, E.E. and Jayawardhena, C. (2018), “Online shopping experience in an emerging e-retailing
market: towards a conceptual model”, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 379-392.
Jain, N.K., Gajjar, H., Shah, B.J. and Sadh, A. (2015), “A conceptual framework for measuring E-fulfillment
dimensions: a consumer perspective”, Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 363-383.
Jain, N.K., Gajjar, H., Shah, B.J. and Sadh, A. (2017), “E-fulfillment dimensions and its influence on
customers in e-tailing: a critical review”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 347-369.
Jaiswal, A.K., Niraj, R., Park, C.H. and Agarwal, M.K. (2018), “The effect of relationship and
transactional characteristics on customer retention in emerging online markets”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 92, pp. 25-35.
Jiang, P. and Rosenbloom, B. (2005), “Customer retention to return online: price perception, attribute-
level performance and satisfaction unfolding over time”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39
Nos 1/2, pp. 150-174.
Jin, Y. and Oriaku, N. (2013), “E-service flexibility: meeting new customer demands online”, Superior
Management Research Review, Vol. 36 No. 11, pp. 1123-1136. e-tailing
Jindal, I., Wright, J., Rigby, C. and Shaw, M. (2017), “Competitive delivery, collections and returns service
(IRUK 2017)”, Internet Retailing, January, pp. 16-17.
Kahn, B.E. (2017), “Using visual design to improve customer perceptions of online assortments”,
experience
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 29-42.
Kahn, B.E. and Wansink, B. (2004), “The influence of assortment structure on perceived variety and 1185
consumption quantities”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 519-533.
Kalia, P. (2015), “Top e-retailers of India: business model and components”, International Journal of
Electronic Marketing and Retailing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 277-298.
Karpen, I.O., Bove, L.L., Lukas, B.A. and Zyphur, M.J. (2015), “Service-dominant orientation: measurement
and impact on performance outcomes”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 89-108.
Kautish, P. (2011), “Consumer satisfaction and internet shopping: a literature review”, International
Journal of Marketing and Management Research, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 40-61.
Kautish, P. and Rai, S.K. (2018), “Fashion portals and generation Y consumers in India: an exploratory
study”, in Soni, S. and Sharma, V. (Eds), Marketing Magic for Millennials: Rise of Gen YO!,
Bloomsbury India, New Delhi, pp. 125-150.
Kautish, P. and Rai, S.K. (2019), “Fashion portals and Indian consumers: an exploratory study on online
apparel retail marketing”, International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing, (in press).
Kautish, P. and Sharma, R. (2018), “Consumer values, fashion consciousness and behavioural
intentions in the online fashion retail sector”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 46 No. 10, pp. 894-914.
Kenny, D.A. and McCoach, D.B. (2003), “Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in
structural equation modeling”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 333-351.
Khalifa, M. and Liu, V. (2007), “Online consumer retention: contingent effects of online shopping habit
and online shopping experience”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 6,
pp. 780-792.
Kim, J. and Forsythe, S. (2008), “Adoption of virtual try-on technology for online apparel shopping”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 45-59.
Kim, J.-H., Kim, M. and Lennon, S.J. (2009), “Effects of website atmospherics on consumer responses:
music and product presentation”, Direct Marketing: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 4-19.
Klaus, P. (2014), “Towards practical relevance – delivering superior firm performance through digital
customer experience strategies”, Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, Vol. 15
No. 4, pp. 306-316.
Klaus, P. and Maklan, S. (2013), “Towards a better measure of customer experience”, International
Journal of Market Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 227-246.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Kline, T.J.B., Sulsky, L.M. and Rever-Moriyama, S.D. (2000), “Common method variance and
specification errors: a practical approach to detection”, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 134 No. 4,
pp. 401-421.
Koufteros, X., Droge, C., Heim, G., Massad, N. and Vickery, S.K. (2014), “Encounter satisfaction in
e‐tailing: are the relationships of order fulfillment service quality with its antecedents and
consequences moderated by historical satisfaction?”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 5-48.
KPMG (2016), “Fulfilled! India’s e-commerce retail logistics growth story”, available at: https://assets.
kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/in/pdf/2016/08/E-commerce-retail-logistics-India.pdf (accessed
April 8, 2018).
Kuan, H.H., Bock, G.W. and Vathanophas, V. (2008), “Comparing the effects of website quality on
customer initial purchase and continued purchase at e-commerce websites”, Behaviour and
Information Technology, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 3-16.
APJML Lang, G. and Bressolles, G. (2013), “Economic performance and customer expectation in e-fulfillment
31,4 systems: a multi-channel retailer perspective”, Supply Chain Forum, Vol. 14 No. 32, pp. 16-26.
Lee, N. and Cadogan, J.W. (2013), “Problems with formative and higher-order reflective variables”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 242-247.
Leeflang, P.S.H., Verhoef, P.C., Dahlström, P. and Freundt, T. (2014), “Challenges and solutions for
marketing in a digital era”, European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
1186 Lemke, F., Clark, M. and Wilson, H. (2011), “Customer experience quality: an exploration in business
and consumer contexts using repertory grid technique”, Journal of Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 846-869.
Li, E., Lu, S. and Talebian, M. (2014), “Online versus bricks-and-mortar retailing: a comparison of price,
assortment, and delivery time”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 13,
pp. 3823-3835.
Lim, H., Widdows, R. and Hooker, N.H. (2009), “Web content analysis of e-grocery retailers: a
longitudinal study”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 37 No. 10,
pp. 839-851.
Lin, I-F. and Schaeffer, N.C. (1995), “Using survey participants to estimate the impact of
nonparticipation”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 236-258.
Lin, X., Featherman, M., Brooks, S.L. and Hajli, N. (2018), “Exploring gender differences in online
purchase decision making: an online product presentation perspective”, Information Systems
Frontiers, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-018-9831-1
Lindell, M.K. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-121.
Lowry, P.B. and Gaskin, J. (2014), “Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM)
for building and testing behavioral causal theory: when to choose it and how to use it”,
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 123-146.
Lummus, R.R. and Vokurka, R.J. (2002), “Making the right e-fulfillment decision”, Production and
Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 43 Nos 1/2, pp. 50-55.
Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2006), “Service-dominant logic as a foundation for a general theory”, in
Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (Eds), The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and
Directions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 406-419.
Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L. and O’Brian, M. (2007), “Competing through service: insights from service-
dominant logic”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Gustafsson, A., Jaakkola, E., Klaus, P., Radnor, Z.J., Perks, H. and Friman, M.
(2015), “Fresh perspectives on customer experience”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 29
Nos 6/7, pp. 430-435.
McDowell, W.C., Wilson, R.C. and Kile, C.O. Jr (2016), “An examination of retail website and conversion
rate”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 11, pp. 4837-4842.
McIntyre, S.H. and Miller, C.M. (1999), “The selection and pricing of retail assortments: an empirical
approach”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 295-319.
McKenna, B., Tuunanen, T. and Gardner, L. (2013), “Consumers’ adoption of information services”,
Information & Management, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 248-257.
MacKinzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2012), “Common method bias in marketing: causes mechanisms,
and procedural remedies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 542-555.
MacKinzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Jarvis, C.B. (2005), “The problem of measurement model
misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 710-729.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2011), “Construct measurement and validation
procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing techniques”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 293-334.
Ma, S. (2017), “Fast or free shipping options in online and omni-channel retail? The mediating role of Superior
uncertainty on satisfaction and purchase intentions”, International Journal of Logistics e-tailing
Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1099-1122.
Maes, P. (1999), “Smart commerce: the future of intelligent agents in cyberspace”, Journal of Interactive
service
Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 66-76. experience
Mallapragada, G., Chandukala, S.R. and Liu, Q. (2016), “Exploring the effects of what (product) and
where (website) characteristics on online shopping behavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80
No. 2, pp. 21-38.
1187
Maltz, A.B., Rabinovich, E. and Sinha, R. (2004), “Logistics: the key to e-retail success”, Supply Chain
Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 48-54.
Mantrala, M.K., Levy, M., Kahn, B.E., Fox, E.J., Gaidarev, P., Dankworth, B. and Shah, D. (2009), “Why
is assortment planning so difficult for retailers? A framework and research agenda”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 71-83.
Marimon, F., Vidgen, R., Barnes, S. and Cristobal, E. (2010), “Purchasing behaviour in an online
supermarket: the applicability of E-S-QUAL”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 52
No. 1, pp. 111-129.
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N.K. and Rigdon, E. (2001), “Experiential value: conceptualization,
measurement and application in the catalog and internet shopping environment”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 39-56.
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N.K. and Rigdon, E. (2002), “The effect of dynamic retail experiences on
experiential perceptions of value: an internet and catalog comparison”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 51-60.
Menczer, F., Street, W.N. and Monge, A.E. (2002), “Adaptive assistants for customized e-shopping”,
IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 12-19.
Mentzer, J.T., Flint, D.J. and Hult, G.T.M. (2001), “Logistics service quality as a segment-customized
process”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 82-104.
Mentzer, J.T., Gomes, R. and Krapfel, R.E. (1989), “Physical distribution service: a fundamental
marketing concept?”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 53-62.
Mishra, M. (2018), “For Indian online shoppers, have saying and doing parted ways?”, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 5-19.
Mollenkopf, D.A., Frankel, R. and Russo, I. (2011), “Creating value through returns management:
exploring the marketing-operations interface”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 391-403.
Mollenkopf, D.A., Rabinovich, E., Laseter, T.M. and Boyer, K.K. (2007), “Managing internet product
returns: a focus on effective service operations”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 215-250.
Monecke, A. and Leisch, F. (2012), “semPLS: structural equation modeling using partial least squares”,
Journal of Statistical Software, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 1-32.
Morales, A., Kahn, B.E., McAlister, L. and Broniarczyk, S.M. (2005), “Perceptions of assortment variety:
the effects of congruency between consumers’ internal and retailers’ external organization”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 159-169.
Mosteller, J., Donthu, N. and Eroglu, S. (2014), “The fluent online shopping experience”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 11, pp. 2486-2493.
Mowen, J.C. and Voss, K.E. (2008), “On building better construct measures: implications of a general
hierarchical model”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 485-505.
Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden, W.O. and Sharma, S. (2003), Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Nguyen, D.H., de Leeuw, S. and Dullaert, W.E.H. (2016), “Consumer behavior and order fulfillment in
online retailing: a systematic review”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 255-276.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychology Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
APJML Oppewal, H. and Koelemeijer, K. (2005), “More choice is better: effects of assortment size and
31,4 composition on assortment evaluation”, International Journal of Research Marketing, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 45-61.
Otieno, R., Harrow, C. and Lea-Greenwood, G. (2005), “The unhappy shopper, a retail experience:
exploring fashion, fit and affordability”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 298-309.
1188 Overmars, S. and Poels, K. (2015), “Online product experiences: the effect of simulating stroking
gestures on product understanding and the critical role of user control”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 51, pp. 272-284.
Pantano, E. and Priporas, C.V. (2016), “The effect of mobile retailing on consumers’ purchasing
experiences: a dynamic perspective”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 548-555.
Pantano, E. and Timmermans, H. (2014), “What is smart for retailing?”, Procedia Environmental
Sciences, Vol. 22, pp. 101-107.
Pantano, E., Rese, A. and Baier, D. (2017), “Enhancing the online decision-making process by using
augmented reality: a two country comparison of youth markets”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 38, pp. 81-95.
Pascoe, M., Wright, O. and Winzar, H. (2017), “Using best-worst scaling to reveal perceived relative
importance of website attributes”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 393-408.
Pascual-Miguel, F.J., Agudo-Peregrina, Á.F. and Chaparro-Peláez, J. (2015), “Influences of gender
and product type on online purchasing”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 7,
pp. 1550-1556.
Pei, Z., Paswan, A. and Yan, R. (2014), “E-tailer’s return policy, consumer’s perception of return policy
fairness and purchase intention”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 249-257.
Peinkofer, S.T., Esper, T.L. and Howlett, E. (2016), “Hurry! sale ends soon: the impact of limited
inventory availability disclosure on consumer responses to online stockouts”, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 231-246.
Peinkofer, S.T., Esper, T.L., Smith, R.J. and Williams, B.D. (2015), “Assessing the impact of price
promotions on consumer response to online stockouts”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 36
No. 3, pp. 260-272.
Pentina, I., Amialchuk, A. and Taylor, D.G. (2011), “Exploring effects of online shopping experiences on
browser satisfaction and e-tail performance”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 742-758.
Peter, J.P. (1979), “Reliability: a review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 6-17.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Poncin, I. and Mimoun, M.S.B. (2014), “The impact of ‘e-atmospherics’ on physical stores”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 851-859.
Posset, T. and Gerstner, E. (2005), “Pre-sale vs post-sale e-satisfaction: impact on repurchase intention
and overall satisfaction”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 35-47.
Postma, O.J. and Brokke, M. (2002), “Personalization in practice: the proven effects of personalization”,
Journal of Database Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 137-142.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models”, Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 717-731.
Pyke, D.F., Johnson, M.E. and Desmond, P. (2001), “E-fulfillment: it’s harder than it looks”, Supply Chain
Management Review, Vol. 27, pp. 26-32.
Quach, S. and Thaichon, P. (2017), “From connoisseur luxury to mass luxury: value co-creation and Superior
co-destruction in the online environment”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 81, pp. 163-172. e-tailing
Quach, T.N., Jebarajakrithy, C. and Thaichon, P. (2016), “The effects of service quality on internet service
service provider customers’ behaviour: a mixed methods study”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 435-463. experience
Quinones, C. and Kakabadse, N.K. (2015), “Self-concept clarity, social support and compulsive
internet use: a study of the US and the UAE”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 44, 1189
pp. 347-356.
Rabinovich, E. and Bailey, J.P. (2004), “Physical distribution service quality in internet retailing: service
pricing, transaction attributes, and firm attributes”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21
No. 6, pp. 651-672.
Ramaswamy, V. and Ozcan, K. (2018), “Offerings as digitalized interactive platforms: a conceptual
framework and implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 19-31.
Randall, T., Netessine, S. and Rudi, N. (2006), “An empirical examination of the decision to invest in
fulfillment capabilities: a study of internet retailers”, Management Science, Vol. 52 No. 4,
pp. 567-580.
Rao, S., Griffis, S.E. and Goldsby, T.J. (2011), “Failure to deliver? Linking online order fulfillment
glitches with future purchase behavior”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 7,
pp. 692-703.
Rao, S., Rabinovich, E. and Raju, D. (2014), “The role of physical distribution services as determinants
of product returns in internet retailing”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 32 No. 6,
pp. 295-312.
Rao, S., Goldsby, T.J., Griffis, S.E. and Iyengar, D. (2011), “Electronic logistics service quality (e-LSQ):
its impact on the customer’s purchase satisfaction and retention”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 167-179.
Reinartz, W. (2016), “In the future of retail, we’re never not shopping”, available at: https://hbr.org/20
16/03/in-the-future-of-retail-were-never-not-shopping (accessed July 11, 2018).
Renko, S. and Druzijanic, M. (2014), “Perceived usefulness of innovative technology in retailing:
consumers’ and retailers’ point of view”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21
No. 5, pp. 836-843.
Richey, R.G., Adams, F.G. and Dalela, V. (2012), “Technology and flexibility: enablers of collaboration
and time-based logistics quality”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 34-49.
Ricker, F.R. and Kalakota, R. (1999), “Order fulfillment: the hidden key to e-commerce success”,
Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 60-70.
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D.W. (2012), “A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in
‘MIS Quarterly’ ”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J-M. (2014), Smart PLS 3.0, SmartPLS, University of Hamburg,
Hamburg, available at: www.smartpls.de
Roggeveen, A.L., Grewal, D., Townsend, C. and Krishnan, R. (2015), “The impact of dynamic
presentation format on consumer preferences for hedonic products and services”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 34-49.
Rose, S., Clark, M., Samouel, P. and Hair, N. (2012), “Online customer experience in e-retailing: an
empirical model of antecedents and outcomes”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 308-322.
Roy, S.K., Balaji, M.S., Quazi, A. and Quaddus, M. (2018), “Predictors of customer acceptance of and
resistance to smart technologies in the retail sector”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 42, pp. 147-160.
Roy, S.K., Balaji, M.S., Sadeque, S., Nguyen, B. and Melewar, T.C. (2017), “Constituents and
consequences of smart customer experience in retailing”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 124, pp. 257-270.
APJML Sarstedt, M. (2008), “A review of recent approaches for capturing heterogeneity in partial least squares
31,4 path modelling”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 140-161.
Savelli, E., Cioppi, M. and Tombari, F. (2017), “Web atmospherics as drivers of shopping centres’
customer loyalty”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 45 No. 11,
pp. 1213-1240.
Schramm-Klein, H. and Wagner, G. (2014), “Broadening the perspective one-commerce: a comparative
1190 analysis of mobile shopping and traditional online shopping”, Journal of Research Management,
Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 119-130.
Shobeiri, S., Mazaheri, E. and Laroche, M. (2015), “Shopping online for goods vs services: where do
experiential features help more?”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 172-179.
Skålén, P., Gummerus, J., von Koskull, C. and Magnusson, P.R. (2015), “Exploring value propositions
and service innovation: a service-dominant logic study”, Journal of Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 137-158.
Song, S.S. and Kim, M. (2012), “Does more mean better? An examination of visual product presentation
in e-retailing”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 345-355.
Soper, D.S. (2018), “A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models (software)”, available
at: www.danielsoper.com/statcalc
Spector, P.E. (2006), “Method variance in organizational research truth or urban legend?”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 221-232.
Srinivasan, S.S., Anderson, R. and Ponnavolu, K. (2002), “Customer loyalty in e-commerce: an
exploration of its antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 41-50.
Talebian, M., Boland, N. and Savelsbergh, M. (2014), “Pricing to accelerate demand learning in dynamic
assortment planning for perishable products”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 237 No. 2, pp. 555-565.
Tan, L.P. and Cadeaux, J. (2011), “Brand and stock-keeping-unit (SKU) assortments, assortment
changes and category sales”, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 161-185.
Tarn, J.M., Razi, M.A., Wen, H.J. and Perez, A.A. Jr (2003), “E-fulfillment: the strategy and operational
requirements”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 350-362.
Tax, S.S., McCutcheon, D. and Wilkinson, I.F. (2013), “The service delivery network (SDN): a
customer-centric perspective of the customer journey”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 454-470.
Tenenhaus, M., Esposito Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y-M. and Lauro, C. (2005), “PLS path modeling”,
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 159-205.
Thaichon, P. (2017), “Consumer socialization process: the role of age in children’s online shopping
behavior”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 34, pp. 38-47.
Thaichon, P. and Jebarajakirthy, C. (2016), “Evaluating specific service quality aspects which impact
on customers’ behavioural loyalty in high-tech internet services”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 141-159.
Thirumalai, S. and Sinha, K.K. (2005), “Customer satisfaction with order fulfillment in retail supply
chains: implications of product type in electronic B2C transactions”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 291-303.
Thirumalai, S. and Sinha, K.K. (2011), “Customization of the online purchase process in electronic
retailing and customer satisfaction: an online field study”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 477-487.
Trabold, L.M., Heim, G.R. and Field, J.M. (2006), “Comparing e-service performance across industry
sectors: drivers of overall satisfaction in online retailing”, International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 34 Nos 4/5, pp. 240-257.
Trevinal, A.M. and Stenger, T. (2014), “Toward a conceptualization of the online shopping experience”, Superior
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 314-326. e-tailing
Van Riel, A.C.R., Henseler, J., Kemény, I. and Sasovova, Z. (2017), “Estimating hierarchical constructs service
using consistent partial least squares: the case of second-order composites of common factors”,
Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 117 No. 3, pp. 459-477. experience
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10. 1191
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2016), “Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service
dominant logic”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Verhagen, T., Vonkeman, C. and van Dolen, W. (2016), “Making online products more tangible: the
effect of product presentation formats on product evaluation”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior and
Social Networking, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 460-464.
Verhoef, P.C., Kannan, P. and Inman, J.J. (2015), “From multichannel retailing to omni-channel retailing:
introduction to the special issue on multichannel retailing”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 91 No. 2,
pp. 174-181.
Vinzi, V.E., Trinchera, L. and Amato, S. (2010), “PLS path modeling: From foundations to recent
developments and open issues for model assessment and improvement”, in Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W.,
Henseler, J. Jr and Wold, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and
Applications, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 47-82.
Visinescu, L.L., Sidorova, A., Jones, M.C. and Prybutok, V.R. (2015), “The influence of website
dimensionality on customer experiences, perceptions and behavioral intentions: an exploration
of 2D vs 3D web design”, Information & Management, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A. and Amirkhanpour, M. (2016), “B2C smart retailing: a consumer-focused
value-based analysis of interactions and synergies”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 124, pp. 271-282.
Wan, X., Huang, X. and Dong, Y. (2016), “The moderating role of product categories in the relationship
between online fulfillment, procurement, and consumer repurchase intention: a hierarchical
analysis”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 63-76.
Wang, P., Chaudhry, S., Hu, M., Huang, F., Hou, H., Chen, Y. and Bulysheva, L. (2016), “Customized
logistics service and online shoppers’ satisfaction: an empirical study”, Internet Research, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 484-497.
Wang, Y.J., Hernandez, M.D. and Minor, M.S. (2010), “Web aesthetics effects on perceived online
service quality and satisfaction in an e-tail environment: the moderating role of purchase task”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 Nos 9/10, pp. 935-942.
Westland, J.C. (2010), “Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling”, Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 476-487.
Westland, J.C. (2015), “Data collection, control, and sample size”, Structural Equation Models, Springer
International Publishing, Cham, pp. 83-115, available at: https://link.springer.com/
chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-16507-3_6
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Van Oppen, C. (2009), “Using PLS path modeling for
assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 177-195.
Xing, Y., Grant, D.B., McKinnon, A.C. and Fernie, J. (2010), “Physical distribution service quality in
online retailing”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 40
No. 5, pp. 415-432.
Yadav, M.S. and Pavlou, P.A. (2014), “Marketing in computer-mediated environments: research
synthesis and new directions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 20-40.
Yang, X., Strauss, A.K., Currie, C.S. and Eglese, R. (2014), “Choice-based demand management and
vehicle routing in e-fulfillment”, Transportation Science, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 473-488.
APJML Yoo, J. and Kim, M. (2014), “The effects of online product presentation on consumer responses: a mental
31,4 imagery perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 11, pp. 2464-2472.
Yu, K., Cadeaux, J. and Song, H. (2017), “Flexibility and quality in logistics and relationships”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 62, pp. 211-225.

Further reading
1192 Carlson, J. and O’Cass, A. (2011), “Developing a framework for understanding e‐service quality, its
antecedents, consequences, and mediators”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 264-286.
Rindskopf, D. and Rose, T. (1988), “Some theory and applications of confirmatory second-order factor
analysis”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 51-67.
Supramanien, D. (2011), “Conflicting attitudes and skepticism toward online shopping: the role of
experience”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 338-347.
Yan, T., Rabinovich, E., Dooley, K. and Evers, P.T. (2010), “Managing backlog variation in order
fulfillment: the case of Internet retailers”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 261-268.

About the authors

Dr Pradeep Kautish is Associate Professor in Marketing Area at the School of Management Studies,
Mody University of Science and Technology, Lakshmangarh, Rajasthan, India. He is MBA and PhD
from the Department of Management Studies, Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Rajasthan,
India. His academic satchel is brimming with laurels such as National Eligibility Test (NET)
qualification for Lectureship in Management conducted by University Grants Commission, New Delhi,
and prestigious Accredited Management Teacher (AMT) certification in Marketing by All India
Management Association, New Delhi. He is a manuscript reviewer for many publication houses,
McGraw Hill, Prentice Hall of India and Macmillan to name a few. Dr Kautish has a number of
publications to his credit in ABDC ranking research journals, articles, technical papers, conference
papers and edited book chapters. Dr Pradeep Kautish is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: pradeep.kautish@gmail.com
Rajesh Sharma is Assistant Professor in Economics Area at the School of Management Studies,
Mody University of Science and Technology, Lakshmangarh, Rajasthan, India. He is MA and MPhil
from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and PhD from the Department of Economics, Mody
University of Science and Technology, Lakshmangarh, Sikar, Rajasthan, India. His academic satchel is
brimming with laurels such as National Eligibility Test (NET) qualification for Lectureship in
Economics conducted by University Grants Commission, New Delhi.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com