Line Lervik-Olsen
Head of Department
Department of Marketing
Head of Department
Department of Marketing
Chapter Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen (2025)
Chapter Line Lervik-Olsen, Bob M. Fennis, Tor W. Andreassen (2024)
Article Delphine Sylvie Sophie Caruelle, Line Lervik-Olsen, Anders Gustafsson (2023)
Customer waits are commonplace in retail settings. To develop efficient wait management strategies, retailers need insights into how customers respond to waiting during service encounters. An intuitive insight supported by extensive research is that a longer wait duration decreases customer satisfaction. However, the same wait duration might have different effects on customers depending on whether it is shorter or longer than what customers expected. To address this question, we draw upon the research on time value and predict asymmetry in the customer satisfaction response to waiting shorter versus longer than expected: Though the clock is often said to be ticking, waiting longer than expected leads to a minor decrease in satisfaction, whereas waiting shorter than expected substantially increases satisfaction. We provide evidence for this asymmetric effect across three studies and identify two boundary conditions: if the source of the expectation is external (e.g., wait time estimate provided by the retailer) or if the wait is much longer than expected. Overall, our research encourages retailers to put the customer response to waiting into perspective: Customers will tolerate waiting longer than expected, up to a certain point.
Anthology Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor W. Andreassen (2023)
Article Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor W. Andreassen, Bob M. Fennis (2023)
Article Delphine Sylvie Sophie Caruelle, Poja Shams, Anders Gustafsson, Line Lervik-Olsen (2023)
Customer emotion in services has been extensively studied, but prior research has overlooked the dynamics of emotion over time. Our research addresses this gap by studying how emotional arousal varies throughout a service encounter. Drawing from the psychology literature, we identify certain features (or patterns) that characterize how arousal varies throughout a service encounter and predict how they may affect customer approach response (e.g., spending, unplanned purchases). We explore the effect of these features in field studies in two stores using a psychophysiological measure (electrodermal activity) to capture arousal over time. We find that (1) the highest arousal level reached during the encounter and (2) the skewness of the distribution of arousal levels (i.e., the frequency of lower arousal levels relative to higher ones) predict customer approach response. This paper opens new avenues for understanding customers from an emotional perspective, which can improve the customer experience in service encounters.
Chapter Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor W. Andreassen (2022)
Article Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor W. Andreassen (2022)
Although customers are the final judges of innovations, their opinions on firms’ innovations are rarely listened to. In this article, we developed a novel model for examining the antecedents and consequences of perceived firm innovativeness. We argue that when customers cognitively register changes in the value creation introduced by a firm, they perceive the firm as more innovative and, consequently, more attractive than its competitors. Using two waves of data from nationally representative samples (1,293 and 1,583 responses), we developed measures for examining changes in value creation that firms introduce and customers can perceive. We tested our theory by applying structural equation modeling to data from a nationally representative sample (5,812 responses). We found that firms that introduced changes affecting value proposition, value actualization, and interaction space were perceived as more innovative and more attractive than their competitors. Surprisingly, changes in relationship experience are negatively associated with perceived innovativeness and contribute to lower relative attractiveness in the market. One explanation is that firms introduce relationship innovations to safeguard future cash flows, which customers do not necessarily see as innovative.
Article Delphine Sylvie Sophie Caruelle, Poja Shams, Anders Gustafsson, Line Lervik-Olsen (2022)
After years of using AI to perform cognitive tasks, marketing practitioners can now use it to perform tasks that require emotional intelligence. This advancement is made possible by the rise of afective computing, which develops AI and machines capable of detecting and responding to human emotions. From market research, to customer service, to product innovation, the practice of marketing will likely be transformed by the rise of afective computing, as preliminary evidence from the feld suggests. In this Idea Corner, we discuss this transformation and identify the research opportunities that it ofers
Article Allard C. R. van Riel, Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Lu Zhang, Sunil Mithas, Kristina Heinonen (2021)
Service industries are increasingly unsustainable. Considering consumers as change agents, we show how service innovation may contribute to a service ecosystem that helps achieve emerging sustainability goals. To achieve sustainability the dyadic focus on value-co-creation is complemented with a broader stakeholder perspective, abandoning the shareholder-first-doctrine toward a collaborative stakeholder perspective, emphasizing profit, planet, and people. We propose a five-actor model and argue that one stakeholder - the consumer - is a central driver of sustainability. Consumers’ sustainability-focused behaviors drive the market for sustainable products and services, leading to sustainable firm and investor behavior. Beyond a conceptual model, our empirical study shows that innovations in social and environmental dimensions drive customer loyalty to the brands. Consumers aware of the consequences and risks associated with unsustainable consumption tend to consume more responsibly. Service firms integrating a stakeholder perspective into the design of their service systems perform better on the triple bottom line.
Article Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor W. Andreassen (2021)
Ledere som ønsker at deres bedrift skal være relevant og attraktiv, må bedre balansere forholdet mellom to innovasjonsstrategier: digitalisering av kundefronten og innovasjoner forankret i samfunnsansvar. Sistnevnte kaller vi sosiale innovasjoner. For ledere fortoner dette seg som et valg mellom å sette søkelys på innovasjoner som er til bedriftens beste, gjennom å digitalisere kundeløsninger, eller å gi oppmerksomhet til innovasjoner som er sosiale, miljø- og samfunnsnyttige. Sagt på en annen måte: Hvilke innovasjoner bidrar mest til å øke kundelojaliteten og dermed kundebasens økonomiske verdi? I denne artikkelen belyser vi problemstillingen med utgangspunkt i virksomhetenes viktigste interessentgruppe – kundene. Vi har intervjuet mer enn 10 000 kunder av norske bedrifter. Tallenes tale er klar: Sosiale innovasjoner er tre ganger så viktige som digitale i sin samvariasjon med opplevd innovasjonsevne, relativ attraktivitet og kundelojalitet. Samtidig viser resultatene at digitalisering kan være en svært viktig forutsetning for å lykkes med sosiale innovasjoner. En bedrift som vil oppnå vekst i omsetning og lojale kunder, bør derfor ikke stoppe ved digitalisering av kundeopplevelsen, men bruke de mulighetene digitalisering gir til å skape sosiale innovasjoner som bidrar gir positive bidrag til miljø og samfunn. I artikkelen belyser vi også ulike innovasjonsorienteringer som vi finner blant bedrifter og virksomheter, om de er digitalt eller sosialt forankret. Til slutt diskuterer vi hvilke ledelsesmessige implikasjoner de ulike orienteringene gir.
Editorial Line Lervik-Olsen, Anders Gustafsson (2021)
Article Line Lervik-Olsen (2019)
Bedrifter ønsker i større grad å benytte sosiale medier i reklame og markedsføringsøyemed. Kundene er betenkte, og stadig flere velger å reservere seg mot reklame i sosiale medier. Et betimelig spørsmål er derfor hva som må til for at kunder skal adoptere sosiale medier. I denne artikkelen studerer vi hvordan teknologisk tilrettelegging og sosial innflytelse fra familie og venner påvirker vår motivasjon til å adoptere sosiale medier. Resultatene viser at både teknologisk tilrettelegging og sosial innflytelse motiverer oss til å bruke sosiale medeier, men gjør det på ulikt vis.
Article Delphine Caruelle, Anders Gustafsson, Poja Shams, Line Lervik-Olsen (2019)
Electrodermal activity (EDA) is a psychophysiological indicator of emotional arousal. EDA measurement was first employed in consumer research in 1979 but has been scarcely used since. In the past decade, the ease of access to EDA recording equipment made EDA measurement more frequent in studies of consumer emotions. Additionally, recent calls to include physiological data in consumer studies have been voiced, which in turn is increasing the interest in EDA. Such a growing interest calls for assessing why and how EDA measurement has been used and should be used in consumer research. To this end, we undertook a critical review of studies of consumer emotions that employed EDA measurement. We found that most of these studies did not sufficiently report how they recorded and analyzed EDA data, which in turn impeded the replication of the findings. We therefore make recommendations derived from the psychophysiology literature to help consumer researchers get meaningful insights from EDA measurements. Finally, we call on researchers to be more transparent when reporting how they recorded and analyzed EDA data.
Article Nina Helene Ronæs, Line Lervik-Olsen (2018)
Feilbruk av internett kan føre til økt stress, redusert velvære og at vi logger av i økende grad. Dette får store konsekvenser for norske bedrifter. Hva skal de gjøre nå? Vise ansvar og oppfordre til å logge av? Etablere fysiske butikker i stedet? Eller legge til rette for mer hensiktsmessig og meningsfylt bruk? Spørsmålene er mange og ubesvarte. I denne artikkelen ser vi derfor på hva som får oss til å logge av internett, hvilke konsekvenser dette har for oss selv som individer, og ikke minst hvilke konsekvenser dette kan ha for bedriftene som vil beholde kundene sine – også på nett.
Article Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor W. Andreassen (2018)
Norske bedrifter er opptatt av innovasjon. Motivasjonen er mangslungen. Noen innoverer for å kutte kostnader i produksjon og administrasjon eller for å bli mer bærekraftige. Andre ønsker å innovere i bedriftens eksisterende tilbud for å heve kvaliteten på leverte varer og tjenester eller for å redusere variasjonen i kvaliteten. Atter andre innoverer i organisasjonskultur for å bli mer kundesentriske. Felles for de fleste bedrifter er at kundene ikke blir spurt om bedriftens innovasjonsaktiviteter, og at kundenes syn på kvalitet blir tillagt begrenset betydning. Dette er typisk ved for eksempel klagehåndtering. I denne artikkelen benytter vi data fra Norsk Innovasjonsindeks utviklet ved Center for Service Innovation (CSI) på Norges Handelshøyskole. Vi hører fra markedsdirektører i utvalgte bransjer og bedrifter som forteller om hvilke innovasjoner som har funnet sted, og fra kunder som forteller om hva de opplever at bedriftene har gjort av endringer. Avstanden mellom hva bedriftene gjør, og hva kundene opplever at de faktisk gjør, gir ny innsikt som ledere kan bruke i sitt innovasjonsarbeid. Vi finner at i motsetning til stereotypiske oppfatninger om kunders manglende evne til å vurdere bedriftens innovasjonsarbeid, legger kundene godt merke til endringer. Innovasjonene oppfattes imidlertid ikke som enkeltstående tiltak, men som et resultat av den totale kundeopplevelsen. Ikke overraskende er det ofte forskjeller mellom bedriftens og kundenes vurdering av type endringer og omfanget på endringene. I noen tilfeller fører disse forskjellene, og bedriftens manglende kundeforståelse, til sterke emosjonelle kundereaksjoner, noe som igjen kan ha store konsekvenser for bedriftens omdømme og økonomi.
Chapter Anders Gustafsson, Line Lervik-Olsen (2018)
Article Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Hannah Snyder, Van Riel Allard, Jill Sweeney, Van Vaerenbergh Yves (2018)
Purpose Open service innovation is an emergent new service development practice, where knowledge on how to organize development work is scarce. The purpose of the present research is to identify and describe relevant archetypes of open service innovation. The study views an archetype as an organizing template that includes the competence of participants, organizing co-creation among participants and ties between participants. In particular, the study’s interest lies in how open service innovation archetypes are used for incremental and radical service innovation. Design/methodology/approach For the research, a nested case study was performed, in which an industrial firm with nine open service innovation groups was identified. Forty-five interviews were conducted with participants. For each case, first a within-case analysis was performed, and how to perform open service innovation in practice was described. Then, a cross-case analysis identifying similarities and differences between the open service innovation groups was performed. On the basis of the cross-case analysis, three archetypes for open service innovation were identified. Findings The nested case study identified three archetypes for open service innovation: internal group development, satellite team development and rocket team development. This study shows that different archetypes are used for incremental and radical service innovation and that a firm can have multiple open service innovation groups using different archetypes. Practical implications This study provides suggestions on how firms can organize for open service innovation. The identified archetypes can guide managers to set up, develop or be part of open service innovation groups. Originality/value This paper uses open service innovation as a mid-range theory to extend existing research on new service development in networks or service ecosystems. In particular, it shows how open service innovation can be organized to develop both incremental and radical service innovations.
Article Tor W. Andreassen, Rutger Daniel van Oest, Line Lervik-Olsen (2017)
Article Janet, R. McColl-Kennedy, Tracey, S. Danaher, Andrew Gallan, Chiara Orsingher, Line Lervik-Olsen, Rohit Verma (2017)
Article Vebjørn Varlid, Kristine Moen, Line Lervik-Olsen (2017)
Chapter Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2017)
Article Tor W. Andreassen, Per Kristensson, Line Lervik-Olsen, A. Parasuraman, Janet McColl-Kennedy, Bo Åke Edvardsson, Maria Colurcio (2016)
Article Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Tor W. Andreassen (2016)
I en BCG-undersøkelse fra 2015 fremkom det at omtrent 80 prosent av de intervjuede topplederne hadde definert innovasjon som en del av virksomhetens viktigste område, og hele 57 prosent hadde definert det som en av de tre viktigste tingene (Ringel et al. 2015). Når man samtidig vet at de fleste innovasjoner feiler i markedet (Gourville 2006), blir behovet for nye og bedre måter å allokere investeringer til viktige områder på samt bedre måter å måle effekten av innovasjoner på, åpenbart kritisk. Eksisterende mål som er utelukkende basert på bedrifters selvrapportering, patentsøknader eller makroøkonomiske indikatorer, er ikke tilstrekkelige. Her tar vi utgangspunkt i Schumpeters (1934) klassiske tolkning av innovasjon, som er en ny idé som er kommersialisert. Med det avviser vi å sette likhetstegn mellom FoU-forsøk og innovasjoner og mellom oppfinnelser og innovasjoner. For å være en innovasjon bør en ny idé være på markedet og bli sett av markedet, det vil si en ny idé må føre til en merkbar endring i en kundeopplevelse (Andreassen & Lervik-Olsen 2016). Grunnleggende i vår tenkning er at virksomheter, ikke nasjoner, er innovative, og at kunder, ikke ledere eller eksperter, er best skikket til å vurdere virksomheters innovasjonsevne. I denne artikkelen skal vi gjøre rede for en systematisk tilnærming til måling av innovasjonsevne, slik kunder av definerte virksomheter i viktige bransjer opplever det. Vi viser også hvilke strategiske implikasjoner dette kan få for virksomheter.
Article Nina Helene Ronæs, Bengt Gunnar Lorentzen, Pål Rasmus Silseth, Line Lervik-Olsen (2016)
Article Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor W. Andreassen, Sandra Streukens (2016)
Article Lars Witell, laurel anderson, roderick brodie, Maria Colurcio, Bo Edvardson, Per Kristensson, Line Lervik-Olsen, Roberta Sebastiani, Tor W. Andreassen (2015)
Article Bob M. Fennis, Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen (2015)
To curb the trend towards obesity and unhealthy living, people may need to change their entire lifestyle to a healthier alternative, something that is frequently perceived to be problematic. The present research, using a large, representative community sample, hypothesized and found that a key factor responsible for why people do not intend to change lifestyles is a sense of commitment to past behavior. However we also found that the contribution of commitment was attenuated for individuals with a stronger tendency for behavioral disinhibition thus underscoring the “bright side” of this individual difference characteristic that traditionally has been mainly associated with impulsive and indulging behavior. Overall, the present findings add to our understanding of factors inhibiting and promoting healthy behavior change.
Article Line Lervik-Olsen, Anders Gustafsson, Pål Rasmus Silseth, Bengt Gunnar Lorentzen (2015)
Article Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Giulia Calabretta (2015)
Purpose – Improving the commercial success rate of innovations requires alternative approaches based on social science methodologies for identifying subtle, emerging changes in consumer needs and behaviors. The purpose of this paper is to address this call by proposing trend spotting to guide innovation researchers and service managers towards innovations that are more in accordance with emerging consumer needs. Design/methodology/approach – The authors develop, describe, and employ a methodology for trend spotting to derive eight consumer trends that will have a strong influence on their choices. To provide further insights into these trends, the authors label and describe three customer segments as a function of life-cycle. The goal is to provide a framework for identifying innovations that are of higher value consumers. Findings – The authors identified eight consumer trends, i.e. Always on the go, Always logged-in, Quality information faster, Nowism, Look at me now, Privacy, Sustainable living, and return on time (RoT), present across the three life-stage segments, i.e. Young free and single, Chaos in my life, and Got my life back. Practical implications – For illustration purpose, the authors elaborate on the trend RoT and employ their findings and framework to illustrate how the airline industry may derive ideas for valuable innovations. Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time trend spotting has been employed in the field of service marketing and service innovations.
Article Astri Åmellem Brøto, Line Lervik-Olsen (2015)
Article Line Lervik-Olsen, Lars Witell, Anders Gustafsson (2014)
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the literature on customer orientation by developing and empirically testing a model that attempts to explain the elements that constitute customer orientation and that, in turn, influence customer satisfaction. In particular, this study focuses on how service firms design, collect, analyse and use customer-satisfaction data to improve service performance. This study has the following three research objectives: to understand the process and, as a consequence, the phases of customer orientation; to investigate the relationships between the different phases of customer orientation and customer satisfaction; and to examine activities in the different phases of customer orientation that result in higher customer satisfaction. Design/methodology/approach – This study, combining quantitative and qualitative research, is based on a cross-sectional survey of 320 service firms and a multiple case study of 20 organisational units at a large service firm in the European telecom industry. Findings – The results show that customer orientation consists of a process that includes three phases: strategy, measurement and analysis and implementation. Contrary to previous research, implementation has the strongest influence on customer satisfaction. In turn, customer satisfaction influences financial results. In-depth interviews with managers provided insights into the specific activities that are key for turning customer-satisfaction measurements into action. Originality/value – This research contributes to the literature on customer orientation by developing and empirically testing a model that attempts to explain what constitutes customer orientation and, in turn, influences customer satisfaction and financial results. Given the large amount of research on customer satisfaction, studies on how service firms collect and use customer-satisfaction data in practice are scarce.
Chapter Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor W. Andreassen (2014)
Article Matilda Dorotic, Line Lervik Olsen (2013)
Article Matilda Dorotic, Line Lervik Olsen (2013)
Article Matilda Dorotic, Line Lervik Olsen (2013)
Article Tor Wallin Andreassen, Giulia Calabretta, Line Lervik Olsen (2012)
Article Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen, Anders Gustafsson (2012)
Article Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik Olsen, Giulia Calabretta (2012)
Article Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen (2012)
Chapter Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik Olsen (2012)
Article Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik Olsen (2012)
Article Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen (2011)
Article Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen, Giulia Calabretta (2011)
Chapter Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen (2011)
Article Line Lervik Olsen (2011)
Chapter Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik Olsen (2011)
Article Line Lervik Olsen (2011)
Article Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen (2011)
Chapter Sandra Streukens, Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik Olsen (2011)
Article Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen (2011)
Article Line Lervik Olsen, Sangeeta Singh (2010)
Article Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik Olsen, Giulia Calabretta (2010)
Article Line Lervik Olsen, M.D. Johnson (2009)
Article Michael D. Johnson, Line Lervik Olsen, Tor W. Andreassen (2009)
Chapter Sangeeta Singh, Line Lervik Olsen (2009)
Article Karin Gjerde, Christine Helgeland Midbøe, Line Lervik Olsen (2008)
Article Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik Olsen (2008)
Article Bendik M. Samuelsen, Line Lervik Olsen, Pål Rasmus Silseth, Bengt G. Lorentzen (2007)
Article M.D. Johnson, A. Gustafsson, Tor W. Andreassen, L. Lervik, J. Chae (2001)
Article Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik Olsen (1999)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2025)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2025)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2024)
Feature article Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor W. Andreassen (2024)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2024)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2024)
Feature article Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor W. Andreassen (2023)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2023)
Feature article Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Tor W. Andreassen (2023)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2022)
Feature article Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen (2022)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2021)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2021)
Feature article Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen (2021)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2021)
Feature article Line Lervik-Olsen, Pål Rasmus Silseth, Bengt Gunnar Lorentzen (2021)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2020)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2020)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2020)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2020)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2020)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2020)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2019)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2019)
Interview Line Lervik-Olsen (2019)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2019)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2019)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2018)
Interview Line Lervik-Olsen (2018)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2018)
Feature article Roy Elvegård, Line Lervik-Olsen, Lars Erling Olsen (2018)
Feature article Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen (2018)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2018)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2018)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2018)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2018)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2018)
Feature article Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2017)
Feature article Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Alexander Jakubanecs, Helge Thorbjørnsen (2017)
Feature article Tor Wallin Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen (2017)
Feature article Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2017)
Interview Line Lervik-Olsen (2017)
Feature article Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2017)
Feature article Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2017)
Interview Line Lervik-Olsen (2017)
Interview Line Lervik-Olsen (2017)
Feature article Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2017)
Interview Line Lervik-Olsen (2016)
Interview Line Lervik-Olsen (2016)
Interview Line Lervik-Olsen (2015)
Interview Line Lervik-Olsen (2014)
Interview Line Lervik-Olsen (2014)
Interview Line Lervik Olsen (2013)
Interview Line Lervik Olsen (2013)
Feature article Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik Olsen (2013)
Interview Line Lervik Olsen (2013)
Interview Line Lervik Olsen (2013)
Interview Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen (2013)
Interview Line Lervik Olsen (2013)
Interview Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen (2013)
Interview Line Lervik Olsen (2013)
Interview Line Lervik Olsen (2013)
Interview Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen (2013)
Interview Line Lervik Olsen (2013)
Interview Line Lervik Olsen (2013)
Interview Line Lervik Olsen (2013)
Interview Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik Olsen (2012)
Interview Line Lervik Olsen (2012)
Participation in media Line Lervik Olsen (2012)
Participation in media Line Lervik Olsen (2012)
Interview Line Lervik Olsen (2012)
Book chapter Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen (2025)
Conference lecture Frederica Janotta, Jens Hogreve, Line Lervik-Olsen, Anders Gustafsson (2022)
Conference lecture Frederica Janotta, Jens Hogreve, Line Lervik-Olsen, Anders Gustafsson (2021)
Article Hannah Snyder, Line Lervik-Olsen (2021)
Textbook Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen (2021)
Article Line Lervik-Olsen (2020)
Article Line Lervik-Olsen (2020)
Lecture Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen (2020)
Article Bengt Gunnar Lorentzen, Pål Rasmus Silseth, Line Lervik-Olsen (2019)
Article Line Lervik-Olsen (2019)
Conference lecture Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Tor W. Andreassen (2019)
Lecture Line Lervik-Olsen (2019)
Lecture Line Lervik-Olsen (2019)
Conference lecture Nina Veflen, Line Lervik-Olsen (2019)
Conference lecture Delphine Caruelle, Line Lervik-Olsen, Anders Gustafsson (2019)
Conference lecture Delphine Caruelle, Line Lervik-Olsen, Anders Gustafsson (2018)
Conference lecture Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor W. Andreassen (2018)
Conference lecture Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Hannah Snyder, Allard Van Riel, Jill Sweeney, Yves van Vaerenbergh (2018)
Conference lecture Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2018)
Conference lecture Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Hannah Snyder, Allard Van Riel, Jill Sweeney, Yves van Vaerenbergh (2018)
Conference lecture Delphine Caruelle, Line Lervik-Olsen, Anders Gustafsson (2018)
Conference lecture Delphine Caruelle, Poja Shams, Anders Gustafsson, Line Lervik-Olsen (2018)
Conference lecture Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor W. Andreassen (2018)
Conference lecture Line Lervik-Olsen, Alexander Jakubanecs, Tor Wallin Andreassen, Helge Thorbjørnsen (2017)
Conference lecture Nina Helene Ronæs, Line Lervik-Olsen (2017)
Conference lecture Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor W. Andreassen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev (2017)
Report Line Lervik-Olsen, Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Tor W. Andreassen (2017)
Conference lecture Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor W. Andreassen (2016)
Conference lecture Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen, Sandra Streukens (2016)
Textbook Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen (2015)
Conference lecture Line Lervik-Olsen, Rutger Daniel van Oest, Verhoef Peter C. (2015)
Conference lecture Tor Wallin Andreassen, Rutger Daniel van Oest, Line Lervik-Olsen (2014)
Conference lecture Line Lervik-Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen, Bob M. Fennis (2014)
Conference lecture Tor Wallin Andreassen, Rutger Daniel van Oest, Line Lervik-Olsen (2014)
Conference lecture Sangeeta Singh, Line Lervik Olsen (2013)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen, Anders Gustafsson (2012)
Conference lecture Giulia Calabretta, Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik Olsen (2012)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen (2011)
Conference lecture Sandra Streukens, Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik Olsen (2011)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen (2011)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen (2009)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen, A Isayeva (2009)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen (2007)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen, Sangeeta Singh (2007)
Conference lecture Sangeeta Singh, Line Lervik Olsen (2007)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen, Michael D. Johnson (2004)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen, Michael D. Johnson (2004)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen, M.D. Johnson, Tor W. Andreassen (2003)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen, Bendik Meling Samuelsen, Michael D. Johnson (2002)
Conference lecture Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik Olsen (2002)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen (2001)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen (2001)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen, Tor Wallin Andreassen, Michael D. Johnson (2001)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen, Michael D. Johnson, Tor Wallin Andreassen (2001)
Conference lecture Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik Olsen (2001)
Conference lecture Michael D. Johnson, Bendik Meling Samuelsen, Line Lervik Olsen (2001)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen (2001)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen, Michael D. Johnson (2000)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen, Michael D. Johnson (2000)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen (2000)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen, Bendik Meling Samuelsen, Michael D. Johnson (2000)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen, Michael D. Johnson (2000)
Conference lecture Line Lervik Olsen (1999)
| Year | Academic Department | Degree |
|---|---|---|
| 2002 | BI Norwegian Business School/ University of Michigan Business School | Ph.D. |
| 1995 | University of Stavanger/ Florida International University | Master of Science |
| Year | Employer | Job Title |
|---|---|---|
| 2018 - Present | BI Norwegian Business School | Department of marketing, head of department |
| 2018 - Present | BI Norwegian Business School | Head of department, department of marketing |
| 2018 - Present | Norwegian School of Economics | Professor II Center for Service Innovation, Norwegian School of Economics |
| 2018 - Present | BI Norwegian Business School | Head of Department, department of marketing |
| 2017 - Present | Norwegian School of Economics | Professor II adjunct professor |
| 2016 - Present | BI Norwegian Business School | Professor in Marketing |
| 2015 - Present | Norwegian School of Economics | Associate professor II Center for Service Innovation |
| 2013 - Present | Norwegian Business School, Department of Mareting | Group leader |
| 2003 - Present | BI Norwegian Business School | Associate professor |
| 2010 - 2010 | Standford University | Guest researcher Scancor |
| 2009 - 2010 | Karlstad Business School | Guest researcher |
| 2001 - 2002 | Norwegian Customer Satisfaction Barometer | Head of Research |
| 1997 - 2002 | BI Norwegian Business School | PhD. Candidate |
| 1999 - 2000 | University of Michigan Business School | Guest researcher |
| 1995 - 1997 | Finnmark University College | Lecturer |