Abstract:This paper posits that innovation management practices are contingent upon the type of industry, and examines the innovation management practices in a distinctive set of service firms: production-intensive service firms. Production-intensive services are standardized services produced at a large scale. These services have received little attention from prior comprehensive qualitative innovation management practices research. The examination in this paper is based on in-depth interviews with 21 keyemployees in five large Scandinavian production-intensive service firms. The results revealed a number of innovation management practices specific to productionintensive service firms in the four dimensions of strategy and culture, front end of innovation and portfolio management, development process as well as intellectual and organizational resources. The findings expose that production-intensive service firms are less likely to have an explicit innovation strategy and they are unlikely to measure the strategic impact of innovation activities. Furthermore, the innovation processes in production-intensive service firms tend to be flexible, although formal descriptions exist. The findings extend knowledge on innovation management practices research and provide useful lessons and implications for managers who seek to develop new production-intensive services. The findings also demonstrate that there is a need to acknowledge a contingent view of innovation management practices that are receptive to the type of context the innovation occur in.Response to Reviewers: Please see separate file.
Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems CorporationInnovation Management Practices in Production-Intensive Service Firms
Explanatory notes to the editor and reviewerThank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit this manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer's efforts and valid suggestions for improvement of our paper. We have revised our paper by taking the suggestions into account and we think that the paper has been much improved by doing so. Please find our detailed response to all the comments made by the reviewer in the Putting ahead the lack of literature on the matter as the author did is very useful, but should not occupy such a huge place in the beginning of the paper, one paragraph suffices. As an example, I will start with the description of large firms and their specificity in the management of innovation services as the authors did at the end of page 3 and starting from it put ahead the value added of their work by showing the lack of studies on the matter in the empirical literature.We have carefully revised the introduction based on the reviewer's advice. We agree with the reviewer that it is better to start with the description of the context, and then discuss the literature gaps and the value of the research. Consequently, the structure of the introduction has been changed by removing the first general paragraph, and by explaining the context, i.e. service innovation in (larg...