Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Service Innovation Capabilities Dynamization in Knowledge-Intensive Organizations: Evidence from Research and Technology Organizations

  • Chapter
Book cover Self-Reinforcing Processes in and among Organizations

Abstract

Innovation is of fundamental importance in services (den Hertog, van der Aa, and de Jong, 2010) as it underlies the ability to sustain competitive advantage (Miller, Fern, and Cardinal, 2007). Moreover, it helps fight commoditization (Lyons, Chatman, and Joyce, 2007), as new ideas are easily introduced and also easily imitated in services; “in such an environment, innovative ability — the ability to continue the process of innovation — may be crucial for leading edge companies”. Proficient New Service Development (NSD) process has been declared one of the key determinants of successful service innovation (de Brentani, 1995; Riedl et al., 2009), but still few organizations actually actively manage it (de Jong et al., 2003; Kim and Meiren, 2010). Thus, often, NSD and related service innovation becomes simply based on an historical way of acting. This raises concerns about the organizations’ ability to ensure long-term performance through service innovation. In other words, in order to maintain or improve performance, organizations must continuously develop new services (Storey and Kelly, 2001) and build innovation capabilities (Schang, Wu, and Yao, 2010). This requires a certain level of their service innovation capabilities’ “dynamisation”, aimed at solving the capability-rigidity paradox (Leonard-Barton, 1992), which means fighting a situation whereby core capabilities become rigidities because of path dependence, inertia, or cognitive traps such as commitment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P. J. H., 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (1), pp. 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. and Schön, D., 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W. B., 1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99 (394), pp. 116–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B., 1991. Firms’ resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), pp. 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, P. and Jack, S., 2008. Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13 (4), pp. 544–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, K., 2008. Unlearning as a driver of sustainable change and innovation: Three Australian case studies. International Journal of Technology Management, 42 (1/2), pp. 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, T. and Davies, A., 2004. Building project capabilities: From exploratory to exploitative learning. Organization Studies, 25 (2), pp. 1601–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., 1992. The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: Toward theoretical progress. The Academy of Management Review, 17 (1), pp. 39–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. and Garman, A. R., 2009. Use open innovation to cope in a downturn. Harvard Business Review, 87 (June), pp. 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, D. J., 1994. Research note: How valuable are organizational capabilities? Strategic Management Journal, 15 (Special Issue), pp. 143–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E., 2002. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23 (12), pp. 1095–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Brentani, U., 1995. New industrial service development: Scenarios for success and failure. Journal of Business Research, 32 (2), pp. 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, J. P. J., Bruins, A., Dolfsma, W. and Meijaard, J., 2003. Innovation in service firms explored: What, how and why? Literature review. Strategic Study B200205, EIM Business and Policy Research. Zoetermeer.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Hertog, P., 2000. Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 4 (4), pp. 491–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • den Hertog, P., van der Aa, W. and de Jong, M. W., 2010. Capabilities for managing service innovation: Towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Service Management, 21 (4), pp. 490–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., 1978. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G., 2000. “Introduction: The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities”, in G. Dosi, R. R. Nelson, and S. G. Winter (eds) Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities. Ipswich: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Expert Group on Innovation in Services. 2007. Fostering Innovation in Services. European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), pp. 532–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froehle, C. M. and Roth, A. V., 2007. A resource-process framework of new service development. Production and Operations Management, 16 (2), pp. 169–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froehle, C. M., Roth, A. V., Chase, R. B. and Voss, C. A., 2000. Antecedents of new service development effectiveness. An exploratory examination of strategic operations choice. Journal of Service Research, 3 (1), pp. 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gago, D. and Rubalcaba, L., 2006. Innovation and ICT in service firms: Towards a multidimensional approach for impact assessment. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17, pp. 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godkin, L. and Allcorn, S., 2008. Overcoming organizational inertia: A tripartite model for achieving strategic organizational change. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 8 (1), pp. 82–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T. and Freeman, J., 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49 (2), pp. 149–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IfM and IBM, 2008. Succeeding through Service Innovation: A Service Perspective for Education, Research, Business and Government. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. P., Menor, L. J., Roth, A. V. and Chase, R. B. 2000. A critical evaluation of the new service development process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandampully, J., 2002. Innovation as the core competency of a service organization: The role of technology, knowledge and networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 5 (1), pp. 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K. -J. and Meiren, T., 2010. “New service development process”, in G. Salvendy and W. Karwowski (eds) Introduction to Service Engineering. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 253–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. and Samson, D., 2001. Developing innovation capability in organizations: A dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5 (3), pp. 377–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. and Kelley, D., 2008. Building dynamic capabilities for innovation: An exploratory study of key management practices. Ramp;D Management, 38 (2), pp. 155–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, D. and Sensiper, S., 1998. The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review, 40 (3), pp. 112–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D., 1992. Core competencies and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13 (5), pp. 111–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, R. K., Chatman, J. A., and Joyce, C. K., 2007. Innovation in services: Corporate culture and investment banking. California Management Review, 50 (1), pp. 174–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, S. and Sydow, J., 2011. Projects, paths, and practices: Sustaining and leveraging project-based relationships. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20 (5), pp. 1369–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2 (1), pp. 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKelvie, A. and Davidsson, P., 2009. From resource base to dynamic capabilities: An investigation of new firms. British Journal of Management, 20, pp. S63–S80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menor, L. J. and Roth, A. V., 2008. New service development competence and performance: An empirical investigation in retail banking. Production and Operations Management, 17 (3), pp. 267–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., 1993. The architecture of simplicity. Academy of Management Review, 18 (1), pp. 116–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., 1994. What happens after success: The perils of excellence. Journal of Management Studies, 31 (3), pp. 325–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. J., Fern, M. J. and Cardinal, L. B., 2007. The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (2), pp. 308–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, G. C. and DeMartino, R., 2006. Organizing for radical innovation: An exploratory study of the structural aspects of RI management systems in large established firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23 (6), pp. 475–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD, 2005. Promoting Innovation in Services. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E., 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preissl, B., 2006. Research and technology organizations in the service economy: Developing analytical tools for changing innovation patterns. Innovation, 19 (1), pp. 131–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedl, C., Böhmann, T., Leimeister, J. M., and Krcmar, H., 2009. “A framework for analysing service ecosystem capabilities to innovate”, in 17th European Conference on Information Systems. Verona, Italy, pp. 2097–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Say-Yen, T. and Schun, C., 2009. “Innovative capability development process: A Singapore IT healthcare case study”, in S. Newell, E. A. Whitley, N. Pouloudi, J. Wareham, and L. Mathiassen (eds) 17th European Conference on Information Systems. Verona, Italy, pp. 328–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., Laurent, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., and Newell, S., 2004. Project-based learning and the role of learning boundaries. Organization Studies, 25 (9), pp. 1579–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schang, S. S. C., Wu, S. -H. and Yao, C. -Y., 2010. A dynamic innovation model for managing capabilities for continous innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 51 (2/3/4), pp. 300–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilke, O. and Goerzen, A., 2010. Alliance management capability: An investigation of the construct and its measurement. Journal of Management, 36 (5), pp. 1192–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreyögg, G. and Kliesch-Eberl, M., 2007. How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual-process model of capability dynamization. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (9), pp. 913–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreyögg, G. and Sydow, J., 2010. Organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 21 (6), pp. 1251–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwenk, C. R., 1986. Information, cognitive biases, and commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review, 11 (2), pp. 298–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staber, U., 2011. Creating and breaking paths in organizational culture: A cognitive-evolutionary perspective. Journal of Futures Studies, 15 (4), pp. 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staw, B. M., 1981. The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review, 6 (4), pp. 577–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storey, C. and Kelly, D., 2001. Measuring the performance of new service development activities. The Service Industries Journal, 21 (2), pp. 71–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L. and DeFillippi, R., 2004. Project-based organizations, embeddedness and repositories of knowledge: Editorial. Organization Studies, 25 (9), pp. 1475–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., and Koch, J., 2009. Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34 (4), pp. 689–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (13), pp. 1319–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A., 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), pp. 509–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thrane, S., Blaabjerg, S. and Hannemann Moller, R., 2010. Innovative path-dependence: Making sense of product and service innovation in path-dependent innovation processes. Research Policy, 39 (7), pp. 932–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vergne, J.-P. and Durand, R., 2011. The path of most persistence: An evolutionary perspective on path dependence and dynamic capabilities. Organization Studies, 32 (3), pp. 365–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Foerster, H., 1982. Observing Systems. Seaside: Intersystems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, C. A., Johnston, R., Silvestro, R., Fitzgerald, L. and Brignall, T. J., 1992. Measurement of innovation and design performance in services. Design Management Journal, 3, pp. 40–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B., 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5 (2), pp. 272–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xin, Y., Chai, K. H. and Tan, K. C., 2006. “Service innovation: A review and future research areas”, in 3rd IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology. Singapore. 21–23 June 2006, pp. 309–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th edn Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Lidia Gryszkiewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eleni Giannopoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pierre-Jean Barlatier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Freie Universität of Berlin, Germany

    Jörg Sydow  & Georg Schreyögg  & 

Copyright information

© 2013 Lidia Gryszkiewicz, Eleni Giannopoulou, and Pierre-Jean Barlatier

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gryszkiewicz, L., Giannopoulou, E., Barlatier, PJ. (2013). Service Innovation Capabilities Dynamization in Knowledge-Intensive Organizations: Evidence from Research and Technology Organizations. In: Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G. (eds) Self-Reinforcing Processes in and among Organizations. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230392830_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation