{"title":"Bringing together the whats and hows in the service innovation literature: An integrative framework","authors":"Seidali Kurtmollaiev, Per Egil Pedersen","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The concept of service has gone through both evolutionary and revolutionary changes, but this has had little effect on the way reviews portray service innovation research. Our paper is the first to investigate whether and how different conceptualizations of service influence the formation of perspectives on studying and practicing service innovation. Combining an exploratory content analysis with a thorough examination of 886 articles on service innovation published from 1981 to 2019, we suggest a novel integrative framework for the multiple perspectives on service innovation. We outline new service development, service engineering, service infusion, service design, service reconfiguration and service integration as autonomous, yet interconnected, perspectives, each with its own research focus, logic and vocabulary. This integrative framework can assist with defining research questions and designing innovation studies, as well as selecting approaches to managing innovation. We also argue that the main obstacles to the progress of service innovation research are lexical cross-contamination, parallelism in approaches, the gravity of the new service development perspective and the legacy of new product development. To overcome these challenges, we encourage a more distinct pluralism of perspectives and demonstrate possibilities for meaningful conversations across them.</p>","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"24 4","pages":"625-653"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijmr.12297","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Management Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12297","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The concept of service has gone through both evolutionary and revolutionary changes, but this has had little effect on the way reviews portray service innovation research. Our paper is the first to investigate whether and how different conceptualizations of service influence the formation of perspectives on studying and practicing service innovation. Combining an exploratory content analysis with a thorough examination of 886 articles on service innovation published from 1981 to 2019, we suggest a novel integrative framework for the multiple perspectives on service innovation. We outline new service development, service engineering, service infusion, service design, service reconfiguration and service integration as autonomous, yet interconnected, perspectives, each with its own research focus, logic and vocabulary. This integrative framework can assist with defining research questions and designing innovation studies, as well as selecting approaches to managing innovation. We also argue that the main obstacles to the progress of service innovation research are lexical cross-contamination, parallelism in approaches, the gravity of the new service development perspective and the legacy of new product development. To overcome these challenges, we encourage a more distinct pluralism of perspectives and demonstrate possibilities for meaningful conversations across them.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR) stands as the premier global review journal in Organisation and Management Studies (OMS). Its published papers aim to provide substantial conceptual contributions, acting as a strategic platform for new research directions. IJMR plays a pivotal role in influencing how OMS scholars conceptualize research in their respective fields. The journal's reviews critically assess the state of knowledge in specific fields, appraising the conceptual foundations of competing paradigms to advance current and future research in the area.