How do innovators stay innovative? A longitudinal case analysis

Abstract

A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the 'permanent WRAP URL' above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. Design/Methodology/Approach -The paper uses a longitudinal case study approach to gain an understanding of what and how Singapore Airlines (SIA) sustained service innovation for over 30 years. The study uses triangulation, whereby the core data from in-depth interviews with senior and middle management, and frontline employees were complemented with academic research, case studies, annual reports, observations, and archival documents. 240 single-spaced pages of interview transcripts with over 130,000 words were analyzed and coded using MAXQDA for identifying repeated patterns of meaning.Findings -We identified three key institutional foundations for service innovation: (1) innovation climate (i.e., leadership and service culture), (2) human capital (i.e., recruitment, training and development, and engagement and incentives), and (3) resource configurations (i.e., systems, structure, and processes). These foundations enabled the organization to build the following four service innovation-related dynamic capabilities: (1) embrace ambidexterity, (2) institutionalize learning and knowledge integration, (3) orchestrate collaboration, and (4) reinvent customer value. Interestingly, these institutional foundations and capabilities remained largely stable across 30 years; what changed were the contexts and specifics, not the foundations and capabilities.Research Limitations and Implications -Data were collected only from one company. Due to the method of thematic analysis the generalizability of our findings needs further

Strategic entrepreneurship and performance of Nigerian banks: A quantitative approach

“…This negative relationship could mean that the banks did not carry out appropriate new activities. This finding differs from previous studies outside of Nigeria and has not supported Dai et al (2015), the findings of Kuratko and Morris (2018), Mazzei (2018), andTuzovic et al (2018) that are continuous innovations in the form of new products and services required for a better performance of the organization. This could possibly be due to insufficient investment in innovative resources, such as human resources, that will promote innovative activities, especially in most banks, where the attitude towards employment of employees is slow due to challenges, especially in the sectors financial Most banks in Nigeria employ contract employees who lack job security and are poorly paid, leading to high employee turnover rates.…”

The influence of dynamic capabilities on startup growth

“…Over the past decade, research into service innovation has expanded considerably (Carlborg, Kindström, & Kowalkowski, 2014;Vargo & Lusch, 2017). Prior to this, studies prioritized technological innovations related to the production and commercialization of tangible products rather than services (Tuzovic et al, 2018;Weerawardena & Mavondo, 2011). The rise of service-intensive industries has triggered a debate about why and how policies should be formulated to foster service innovation .…”

“…However, most of these have focused on specific contexts (i.e. manufacturing), and neglected the service industry (Den Hertog, Van der Aa, & Jong, 2010;Janssen, Castaldi, & Alexiev, 2016;Tuzovic, Wirtz, & Heracleous, 2018) despite its growing relevance to global GDP (World Bank, 2019).…”

“…The dynamic capability view has gained prominence in relation to understanding service innovation-based competitive advantage (Hogan, Soutar, McColl-Kennedy, & Sweeney, 2011;Tuzovic et al, 2018), notably in innovative organizations such as startups or new technology-based firms (NTBFs) (Seo & Lee, 2019). These firms strive to build scalable, repeatable and profitable business models, one of the reasons they tend to be more fluid (Blank & Dorf, 2012).…”

Stratégiai megújulás és bomlasztó innováció = Strategic renewal and disruptive innovation

“…Ahogy a felderítéshez és kiaknázáshoz, úgy az érzékeléshez és a megragadáshoz is eltérő képességek, gondolkodás és folyamatok szükségesek(Raisch és Zimmermann, 2017).Az interjúk rávilágítottak arra, hogy a megragadás és átalakítás megvalósítását lehetővé tette és támogatta a vállalat belső kultúrája, melyben a munkatársak megszokták a változásokat. Az átalakulás folyamatát a vállalat olyan dinamikus képességei segítették, mint a tanulás és tudás integrációjának intézményesítése, az együttműködés megszervezése, és az értékajánlat megújítása(Tuzovic et al, 2018). A bomlasztó innováció átvételéhez szükséges radikálisan új termékek fejlesztésének képessége kiemelkedően fontos dinamikus képesség volt az átalakulás során.…”