@inproceedings{37058,
  abstract     = {{Digital technologies have made the line of visibility more transparent, enabling customers to get deeper insights into an organization’s core operations than ever before. This creates new challenges for organizations trying to consistently deliver high-quality customer experiences. In this paper we conduct an empirical analysis of customers’ preferences and their willingness-to-pay for different degrees of process transparency, using the example of digitally-enabled business-to-customer delivery services. Applying conjoint analysis, we quantify customers’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for different service attributes and levels. Our contributions are two-fold: For research, we provide empirical measurements of customers’ preferences and their willingness-to-pay for process transparency, suggesting that more is not always better. Additionally, we provide a blueprint of how conjoint analysis can be applied to study design decisions regarding changing an organization’s digital line of visibility. For practice, our findings enable service managers to make decisions about process transparency and establishing different levels of service quality.
}},
  author       = {{Brennig, Katharina and Müller, Oliver}},
  booktitle    = {{Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences}},
  keywords     = {{Digital Services, Line of Visibility, Process Transparency, Customer Preferences, Conjoint Analysis}},
  location     = {{Lāhainā}},
  title        = {{{More Isn’t Always Better – Measuring Customers’ Preferences for Digital Process Transparency}}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}

@article{51368,
  abstract     = {{Dealing with opaque algorithms, the frequent overlap between transparency and explainability produces seemingly unsolvable dilemmas, as the much-discussed trade-off between model performance and model transparency. Referring to Niklas Luhmann's notion of communication, the paper argues that explainability does not necessarily require transparency and proposes an alternative approach. Explanations as communicative processes do not imply any disclosure of thoughts or neural processes, but only reformulations that provide the partners with additional elements and enable them to understand (from their perspective) what has been done and why. Recent computational approaches aiming at post-hoc explainability reproduce what happens in communication, producing explanations of the working of algorithms that can be different from the processes of the algorithms.}},
  author       = {{Esposito, Elena }},
  journal      = {{Sociologica}},
  keywords     = {{Explainable AI, Transparency, Explanation, Communication, Sociological systems theory}},
  number       = {{3}},
  pages        = {{17--27}},
  title        = {{{Does Explainability Require Transparency?}}},
  doi          = {{10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/15804}},
  volume       = {{16}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}

@article{51369,
  abstract     = {{This short introduction presents the symposium ‘Explaining Machines’. It locates the debate about Explainable AI in the history of the reflection about AI and outlines the issues discussed in the contributions.}},
  author       = {{Esposito, Elena}},
  journal      = {{Sociologica}},
  keywords     = {{Explainable AI, Inexplicability, Transparency, Explanation, Opacity, Contestability}},
  number       = {{3}},
  pages        = {{1--4}},
  title        = {{{Explaining Machines: Social Management of Incomprehensible Algorithms. Introduction}}},
  doi          = {{10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/16265}},
  volume       = {{16}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}

@techreport{37131,
  abstract     = {{This paper introduces a novel database on the European corporate bond market to analyze the role of transparency regulation and recent developments in bond markets. We use data from the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to build a comprehensive database covering daily corporate bond listing information in Europe starting in 2018. We then analyze the different market segments of the European bond market along four key areas: (i) time and cross-sectional trends in bond listings; (ii) composition of firms on the market; (iii) firms’ financial reporting transparency; (iv) bond contract terms. Furthermore, we discuss the impact of recent economic events on these key areas.}},
  author       = {{Franke, Benedikt and Kosi, Urska and Stoczek, Pia}},
  keywords     = {{Transparency regulation, Corporate bond, European market}},
  title        = {{{Current developments in the European corporate bond market}}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}