Crowdsourcing to manage service gaps in service networks

Blair, Amanda; Key, Thomas Martin; Wilson, Matthew

doi:10.1108/jbim-12-2018-0387

Cited by 11 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Service ecosystems are a type of ecosystem that underlines the systemic and institutional characteristics of value (co-)creation, emphasizing service exchange and resources Vargo & Lusch, 2017;Vargo et al, 2015). Research on service ecosystems is inextricably intertwined with affiliated product-service networks (Blair et al, 2019;Gebauer et al, 2013;Rabetino et al, 2017) and service-dominant logic research streams (Hsu et al, 2019;Lusch & Vargo, 2014;Vargo & Lusch, 2008. Therefore, service ecosystems are seen as an integral element of the servitization journey and effective service provision within contemporary socioeconomic and technological conditions (Palo et al, 2019;Rabetino et al, 2017).…”

Section: Service Ecosystems: a Brief Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A bibliometric review of service ecosystems research: current status and future directions

Gölgeci

Ali

Ritala

et al. 2021

JBIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Service ecosystems are becoming an important domain of joint value creation and resource integration, and the literature in the field is burgeoning. The recent growth in the literature warrants consolidating the findings of the existing literature, summarizing the recent development and identifying avenues for more impactful future research on the topic. This study aims to map the service ecosystems research domain and synthesize insights by integrating qualitative content analysis with quantitative data analysis. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses algorithmic bibliometric review (quantitative) with VOSviewer and R-package and content analysis (qualitative) on 119 service ecosystems papers published between 2003 and 2020. Findings The bibliometric analysis uncovers the critical research domains, knowledge trajectories, influential authors and journals and author networks in the field. The content analysis identifies the four most important research themes (value creation, change triggers, strategic and entrepreneurial action and institutional embeddedness and agency) and provides an integrative view of the dynamics among these themes. The authors also find the need for more empirical and theory grounded research around these four themes. Furthermore, based on the review, the authors discuss the disciplinary identity of the service ecosystems field and suggest interesting future research opportunities, along with ideas for useful empirical approaches and theoretical extensions. Originality/value This study’s comprehensive analysis offers an overview of the evolution and identity of the service ecosystems research and identifies several promising opportunities for future research on service ecosystems.

show abstract

Section: Service Ecosystems: a Brief Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A bibliometric review of service ecosystems research: current status and future directions

Gölgeci

Ali

Ritala

et al. 2021

JBIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, when NPD is not perceived as highly innovative, managers must be cautious in the adoption of coopetition which may lead to a negative price fairness perception. In that case, we invite managers to opt, instead, for emergent practices of crowdsourcing through the involvement of consumers in the product innovation process (Blair et al, 2019). Thus, seeking to closely work with consumers thereby enables firms to satisfy consumers' needs in a more accurate way (Poetz and Schreier, 2012).…”

Section: Managerial Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When does coopetition affect price unfairness perception? The roles of market structure and innovation

Sabri

Djedidi

Hani

2020

JBIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to examine the critical role of types of coopetition (upstream/downstream), market structure (concentrated/competitive) and innovation (low vs high degree of innovation) that can affect the way consumers perceive the resulting price (un)fairness of new offerings. Design/methodology/approach Three between-subjects experiments involving different participant populations and product categories were conducted to test the research hypotheses. Findings The valence of the effect of types of coopetition (upstream/downstream) on price fairness is conditional on the market structure and the degree of innovation associated with the new product offering. Downstream (as opposed to upstream) coopetition is much more detrimental to perceptions of price fairness in a concentrated market than in a competitive and fragmented market. However, within a competitive market, downstream coopetition may lead to greater price fairness perception than upstream coopetition when the new product offering is highly innovative. Research limitations/implications The current study uses lab experiments with fictitious scenarios and focuses on two moderating variables: market structure and innovation perceptions. Future research may use field experiments and explore additional moderating variables that may annihilate the negative effect of downstream coopetition on price fairness perception, especially in a concentrated market. Practical implications In concentrated markets, firms should opt for upstream rather than downstream coopetition to limit the negative effect the announcement of coopetition has on price fairness evaluation. However, within a competitive market, when the new product offering resulting from coopetition is associated with a high perceived degree of innovation, firms should opt for downstream rather than upstream coopetition because of its positive impact on price fairness evaluation. Originality/value To the best of authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate that new product development from coopetition has important implications for the perception of price fairness, leading to positive or negative effects depending on market structure and the degree of innovation of the new product offering. It then explores the conditions under which types of coopetition (upstream/downstream) might backfire.

show abstract

“…When seeking to complement their knowledge, professionals rely on several sources, among which interactions with peers have a prominent role as a trusted source of information (Blair et al, 2019;Brandon-Jones et al, 2016). In this study, we specifically focus on the content exchanged among peers, and for the empirical analysis, we consider one of the communication channels through which these exchanges take place, namely, professional social media.…”

Section: Research Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antecedents of professionals’ self-efficacy in professional service firms: effects of external source credibility and content quality

Cassia

Magno

2021

JBIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Professional service firm (PSF) performance depends on the accumulation and application of specialist knowledge to find customised solutions to customer problems. However, available research has not examined whether knowledge acquired from external sources affects PSF outcomes by strengthening professionals’ beliefs rather than only by increasing technical competency. Drawing on self-efficacy theory, this study tests a model that links the quality of content acquired from external sources and the credibility of those sources to professionals’ self-efficacy and, in turn, to PSF outcomes (solution quality and firm performance). In particular, this paper aims to consider the case of professional content exchanged through professional social media. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional research design was applied. Data were collected from a sample of 208 accountants, auditors and lawyers who used professional social media and were analysed using covariance-based structural equation modelling. Findings When accessing professional content from external sources, source credibility and content quality are significant antecedents of professionals’ self-efficacy, which, in turn, has positive effects on PSF outcomes (solution quality and PSF performance). Research limitations/implications Self-efficacy plays a key role in the link between knowledge acquired from external sources (professional content) and PSF outcomes. Practical implications This study provides recommendations and actionable insights for PSFs, professionals and other actors who create and exchange professional content. Professional associations may also take an active role by contributing and sharing credible and high-quality content, using, for example, professional social media. Originality/value This paper advances the current understanding of the effects of professionals’ access to content from external sources on PSF outcomes. It provides an explanation of these effects based on the enhancement of professionals’ beliefs instead of their technical competencies, as indicated in previous research. In addition, it is the first research effort to consider professional social media as a communication channel to exchange content that affects the self-efficacy of PSF professionals.

show abstract

Crowdsourcing to manage service gaps in service networks

Cited by 11 publications

References 59 publications

A bibliometric review of service ecosystems research: current status and future directions

A bibliometric review of service ecosystems research: current status and future directions

When does coopetition affect price unfairness perception? The roles of market structure and innovation

Antecedents of professionals’ self-efficacy in professional service firms: effects of external source credibility and content quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About