Game-changers: dynamic capabilities’ influence on service ecosystems

Abstract

Purpose -Service-dominant logic acknowledges that actors can influence how service ecosystems evolve through institutional work, but empirical research is only nascent. This paper advances understanding of ecosystem change by proposing that dynamic capabilities are a special type of operant resources enabling actors to conduct institutional work. Consequently, the purpose of this paper is to explore which dynamic capabilities are associated with proactively influencing service ecosystems.Design/methodology/approach -Drawing on service-dominant logic, institutional work, and dynamic capabilities, this exploratory study assumes an actor-centric perspective and proposes a conceptual model with a hierarchy of dynamic capabilities as the antecedents for successfully influencing service ecosystems. The research model was tested with survey data using PLS- SEM.Findings -Among the dynamic capabilities studied, 'visioning' and 'influencing explicit institutions' directly affect 'success in influencing service ecosystems', whereas 'timing' does so indirectly through 'influencing explicit institutions'. The other dynamic capabilities studied have no significant effect on 'success in influencing service ecosystems'. 'Success in influencing service ecosystems' positively affects the 'increased service ecosystem size and efficiency'.Practical implications -In addition to reactively positioning and competing at the marketplace, firms can choose to proactively influence their service ecosystems' size and efficiency. Firms aiming to influence service ecosystems should particularly develop dynamic capabilities related to visioning, timing, and influencing explicit institutions.Originality/value -This research is the first service-dominant logic investigation of the linkage between the actors' dynamic capabilities and their ability to influence service ecosystems.

Service Ecosystem Design: Propositions, Process Model, and Future Research Agenda

“…Like natural ecosystems, service ecosystems exhibit the quality of emergence and are, therefore, beyond the full control of any individual actor (Chandler et al 2019). However, actors are able to intentionally influence, at least partially, how service ecosystems evolve (Mele et al 2018; Nenonen, Gummerus, and Sklyar 2018). This is usually done through reconfiguring the institutional arrangements that are guiding value cocreation within service ecosystems (Koskela-Huotari et al 2016; Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka 2015).…”

“…This means that, without any awareness of these often taken-for-granted institutional arrangements, actors simply reproduce routinized behaviors implied by their institutional arrangements with limited variations (Greenwood et al 2008). However, actors have the ability to intentionally shape service ecosystems (Mele et al 2018; Nenonen, Gummerus, and Sklyar 2018) by reconfiguring the institutional arrangements that are guiding them (Koskela-Huotari et al 2016; Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka 2015). As such, the service ecosystem perspective informs the processes of design by highlighting that it is embedded within the ongoing reproduction of the existing institutional arrangements and is focused on reshaping those arrangements.…”

“…The service ecosystems perspective emphasizes that value is cocreated within multi-actor exchange systems in which shared and enduring institutional arrangements—interrelated rules, roles, norms, and beliefs—guide resource integration and service exchange (Vargo and Lusch 2016). In addition to providing a systemic and institutional understanding of value cocreation, this perspective also offers important insights into how actors can intentionally influence long-term change within the complex service ecosystems they are a part of (Mele et al 2018; Nenonen, Gummerus, and Sklyar 2018).…”

Charting service ecosystems flexibility: A museum setting

“…Service ecosystems are defined as complex, self‐adjusting systems of resource‐integrating actors connected by shared institutional arrangements and mutual value creation (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). Several authors (e.g., Akaka, Vargo, & Lusch, 2013; Frow et al, 2014; Giannakopoulos, Sakas, Kutsikos, Konstantopoulos, & Verginadis, 2014; Koskela‐Huotari, Edvardsson, Jonas, Sörhammar, & Witell, 2016; Mars, Bronstein, & Lusch, 2012; Nenonen, Gummerus, & Sklyar, 2018; Skålén, Aal, & Edvardsson, 2015; Vargo & Lusch, 2017) have acknowledged service ecosystems' flexibility, that is, their ability to adjust to changes, recognizing it as an inherent trait of service ecosytems. Moreover, the infusion of digital technologies adds a new layer to service ecosystems flexibility due to the technology's contribution to increased customer experience and a higher level of value creation in SE (Sklyar, Kowalkowski, Sörhammar, & Tronvoll, 2019).…”

The Power of Senses

“…With the development of the service-dominant (S-D) logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004; within the time period of T1, not only customercentricity but also broader perspectives on the servicescape and service interactions became prominent (Lipkin, 2016;Nenonen et al, 2018;Rosenbaum and Massiah, 2011). The themes interaction, and quality include three of five CSE dimensions: physical, social, and affective (i.e.…”