Capabilities for managing service innovation: towards a conceptual framework

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to identify and reflect on a set of dynamic capabilities for managing service innovation and applies a dynamic capabilities view (DCV) of firms for managing service innovation. Design/methodology/approach -This theoretical paper offers a conceptual framework for managing service innovation by proposing six dynamic service innovation capabilities. This framework builds on and is integrated with a model of service innovation that covers the possible dimensions where service innovation can take place. On this basis, avenues for future research into managing service innovation are identified and managerial implications discussed. Findings -The six dynamic service innovation capabilities identified are: signalling user needs and technological options; conceptualising; (un-)bundling; co-producing and orchestrating; scaling and stretching; and learning and adapting. It is hypothesized that successful service innovators, which may include manufacturing firms developing into providers of service solutions, outperform their competitors in at least some of these capabilities.Research limitations/implications -The six dynamic service innovation capabilities identified in this theoretical paper, their mutual links as well as links with dimensions of service innovation need to be tested further. Further refinement is required in order to be able to discriminate between various industries, sizes and types of firms. Practical implications -Those involved in managing service innovation are offered a framework for systematically assessing dynamic service innovation capabilities. Originality/value -The main contribution of this paper is that it links a service (innovation) perspective to a DCV of the firm by proposing a set of six dynamic service innovation capabilities.

Understanding the role of technology in service innovation: Comparison of three theoretical perspectives

“…Finally, technology is optional though it plays an important role through interacting with other dimensions as a specific service innovation dimension.. Although Den Hertog et al (2010) conceptually extended their original service innovation model by adding two more dimensions (i.e., new business partner and new revenue model) and introduced a sixdimensional service innovation model, we believe that their original concept of service innovation dimension is more appropriate for developing SIS. Using and validating their extended framework is premature because their original framework has not been empirically validated.…”

“…Hence, firms adopting SDFS can easily improve the efficiency of their service delivery process to achieve better firm performance. Moreover, the process by which the service provider interacts with their customers could be a source of innovation (Den Hertog et al, 2010). In this case, CIFS concentrates on changes in the depth (customer co-production) and degree (customer contact) by which customers are involved in the service innovation processes.…”

Untitled

“…The tension in individual- organization interaction may vary at different stages of innovation process (Lane, Koka & Pathak, 2006). Overall, the process dimension is often implied in these studies, but not studied in depth (e.g., Hertog et al, 2010). The dynamic capabilities literature (e.g., has recently argued that a life-cycle view and a process approach to capability development may enrich organization research Laamanen & Wallin, 2009).…”

“…Terziovski (2007) on the other hand, suggested just two categories: collaboration and knowledge transfer. Den Hertog et al (2010) identified six dynamic service innovation capabilities (signalling used needs and technological options, conceptualizing, (un)bundling, (co)producing and orchestrating, scaling and stretching, and learning and adapting), arguing for innovation capability as contingent upon the context (i.e. whether the innovation is aiming at product or service improvements).…”

“…In other words, there are a number of contingency variables that may affect the type of innovation capabilities required. Variables of particular interest in recent literature include industry type (e.g., , geographical area or region (e.g., , firm size (e.g., Keskin, 2006), and innovation type (e.g., den Hertog et al, 2010).…”