Research on servitization of manufacturing companies concentrates on typologies of product–service bundles, on transition pathways to increased servitization, and on resource and capabilities configurations necessary to accomplish this transition. Missing from existing research is an analysis of the degree of novelty of service innovations introduced by manufacturing companies. Therefore, this article shifts the focus from the transition process itself to the question of how manufacturing companies can introduce radical service innovations to the market. This article links servitization literature with service innovation literature and investigates how manufacturing companies can introduce radically new services in terms of three forms of innovations: service concept innovations, customer experience innovations, and service process innovations. Service‐dominant logic (SDL) is applied as the theoretical lens because it covers four significant factors influencing the success of companies’ innovation activities: actor value networks, resource liquefaction, resource density, and resource integration. Based on a multiple case study of 24 Danish business‐to‐business manufacturing small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises and through a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis, different configurations of the principles of SDL are analyzed. They describe the paths to radical service innovation. Digitalization appears as a central causal condition in the bulk of the configurations. Big and rich data generated internally within the focal company in combination with for instance customer data can enhance the innovativeness of the service offerings. However, digitalization is not a sufficient condition for launching radical service innovation—it should be combined with an efficient mobilization of resources internally within the focal company and/or collaboration with other organizations within the value system. In addition, the analysis hints to a need to detach from immediate customers as the prime driver of service innovation.
This article analyses the challenging collaboration between small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) and knowledge institutions. The aim of the article is to shed light on the barriers, which hinder collaboration, and to investigate the particular role of research and technology organizations (RTOs) as potential mediators of collaboration between SMEs and universities. On the basis of a unique sample consisting of 151 SMEs, RTOs and universities from seven countries, the differences across dyads of potential collaborations are identified. In particular, the article finds that both firms and universities with collaboration experience with the other partner in general perceive higher barriers than inexperienced firms or universities. In terms of the mediating role of RTOs, the article illustrates that universities perceive lower barriers when collaborating with RTOs than with SMEs. A similar tendency to a mediating role of RTOs can be found among the SMEs' perception of university collaboration. Finally, the analysis shows that the knowledge institutions perceive the SMEs as very important collaboration partners, but the same sense of importance is not shared by the SMEs regarding collaboration with the knowledge institutions. Hence, there seems to be a quite unbalanced view on the potential of the collaborative ties, which is further discussed in the conclusion.
Traditionally, universities have had two missions: to carry out teaching and research. While the universities still follow these missions, a third mission was added some time ago: university research must establish its direct value for society more clearly. However, a lingering question is how this third mission should be carried out. While the earliest models focused on the universities operating similarly to an R&D department in a private companyseeking to patent as much of the research inventions as possible and then capitalising on the intellectual property rightsthe focus today is much more nuanced and incorporates both invention and innovation-oriented activities. This article captures existing knowledge of universities' third mission activities by identifying five different models of how universities seek to fulfil the third mission. These models are empirically investigated through two multi-level case studies based on insights from top management, innovation and/or technology transfer offices, and research units within the emerging drone technology area. The findings illustrate how the two universities seek to fulfil the third mission, based on the same starting point but following different models. The findings identify a sixth model, namely the Ecosystem Model. In this model, the universities engage more extensively and with greater responsibility in simultaneous collaborative efforts with a range of both public and private actors on addressing continuous and comprehensive industrial and societal challenges through technology development and market insights. In doing so, the university's role becomes more active in advancing the development of an industry. This emerging way of addressing the third mission is discussed with respect to university management, achievement of the SDGs and Grand Challenges leading to the formulation of avenues for future research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.