Josm 10 2012 0219 PDF

Journal of Service Management
Accessing resources for service innovation the critical role of network relationships
Helena Rusanen Aino Halinen Elina Jaakkola
Downloaded by Faculty of Economics and Business University of Lampung At 16:20 05 December 2016 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
Helena Rusanen Aino Halinen Elina Jaakkola , (2014),"Accessing resources for service innovation the
critical role of network relationships", Journal of Service Management, Vol. 25 Iss 1 pp. 2 - 29
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-10-2012-0219
Downloaded on: 05 December 2016, At: 16:20 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 68 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2137 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2010),"Capabilities for managing service innovation: towards a conceptual framework", Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 21 Iss 4 pp. 490-514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564231011066123
(2012),"Shaping, organizing, and rethinking service innovation: a multidimensional framework", Journal of
Service Management, Vol. 23 Iss 5 pp. 696-715 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564231211269847
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:600023 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-5818.htm
JOSM
25,1
Accessing resources for service

innovation the critical role
of network relationships
2
Received 18 October 2012
Revised 20 April 2013
Accepted 21 June 2013
Helena Rusanen, Aino Halinen and Elina Jaakkola

Department of Marketing and International Business,
Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to explore how companies access resources through network
relationships when developing service innovations. The paper identifies the types of resource that
companies seek from other actors and examines the nature of relationships and resource access
strategies that can be applied to access each type of resource.
Design/methodology/approach A longitudinal, multi-case study is conducted in the field of
technical business-to-business (b-to-b) services. An abductive research strategy is applied to create a
new theoretical understanding of resource access.
Findings Companies seek a range of resources through different types of network relationships for
service innovation. Four types of resource access strategies were identified: absorption, acquisition,
sharing, and co-creation. The findings show how easily transferable resources can be accessed through
weak relationships and low-intensity collaboration. Access to resources that are difficult to transfer,
instead, necessitates strong relationships and high-intensity collaboration.
Research limitations/implications The findings are valid for technical b-to-b services, but
should also be tested for other kinds of innovations. Future research should also study how actors
integrate the resources gained through networks in the innovation process.
Practical implications Managers should note that key resources for service innovation may be
accessible through a variety of actors and relationships ranging from formal arrangements to
miscellaneous social contacts. To make use of tacit resources such as knowledge, firms need to engage
in intensive collaboration.
Originality/value Despite attention paid to network relationships, innovation collaboration, and
external resources, previous research has neither linked these issues nor studied their mutual
contingencies. This paper provides a theoretical model that characterizes the service innovation
resources accessible through different types of relationships and access strategies.
Keywords Resources, Networks, Service innovation, Relationships, Business-to-business services,
Service development
Paper type Research paper
Erratum
It has been brought to Emeralds attention that the article Accessing resources
for service innovation the critical role of network relationships published in the
Journal of Service Management, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp. 2-29 contains an error
introduced in the production process.
Journal of Service Management
Vol. 25 No. 1, 2014
pp. 2-29
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1757-5818
DOI 10.1108/JOSM-10-2012-0219
The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to Dr Helen Perks and
Dr Nicole Coviello for their helpful advice and comments. The authors are also indebted to those
who attended the IMP Conference in 2010 and 2011. The authors gratefully acknowledge The
Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (SERVE program) for financial
support.
The name of the second author on this article was incorrectly published as
Aino Halinen-Kaila. The correct name of the author is Aino Halinen.
Emerald and its typesetters sincerely apologise for this error. The article has been
corrected online.
1. Introduction
Recent contributions in service innovation research stress the role of networks in
accessing resources for innovation. Studies show that, in the development of new
services, engaging in networks is a key capability (den Hertog et al., 2010), and
inter-organizational relationships function as important sources of resources
(Kandampully, 2002; Syson and Perks, 2004; Eisingerich et al., 2009). Innovating has
even been conceptualized as effective resource integration within broader networks
(Gummesson and Mele, 2010; Russo-Spena and Mele, 2012). Despite acknowledgement
of the importance of external resources in service innovation, existing research has not
yet examined how firms can actually access such resources through network
relationships. Very little is known about the types of resources that companies seek, or
the nature of the relationships or strategies they employ to access resources for the
purpose of service innovation. This is an important omission, as resources residing
outside the firms boundaries are of particular importance for services: due to the nature
of services as processes where various tangible and intangible elements are combined,
far more actors and attributes need to be considered than in tangible product
development (Smith and Fischbacher, 2005; Eisingerich et al., 2009; Halliday and Trott,
2010). From a service provider perspective, it would therefore be critical to understand
how a company can gain access to resources that facilitate innovation.
To address these deficiencies in our current understanding, this paper explores
how companies access resources through network relationships for service
innovation. More specifically, the paper:
.
identifies the types of resource companies seek for service innovation; and
.
examines the nature of relationships and access strategies employed to access
each type of resource.
This is accomplished by drawing on an extensive, longitudinal case study that
examines collaborative service innovation in three focal companies and four service
innovation projects in the field of technical services.
The theoretical frame for the study is derived from the IMP Groups interaction and
network approach, which portrays industrial markets as networks of interrelated actors,
activities, and resources (Hakansson and Snehota, 1995; Hakansson and Ford, 2002;
Hakansson and Waluszewski, 2007), combined with service and product innovation
literature that focuses on collaborative innovation (Oerlemans et al., 1998; Eisingerich et al.,
2009). By focusing on business relationships and networks, the IMP Groups interaction
and network approach offers a novel perspective to service innovation research that has
previously examined innovation primarily as a company-internal activity (Droege et al.,
2009) or an activity pursued in formal partnerships, e.g. alliances or joint ventures
(Goes and Park, 1997; Eisingerich et al., 2009). The interaction and network approach
considers interactive business relationships between companies as the means to access
both resources as well as the platforms to integrate them (Hakansson and Snehota, 1995;
Harrison and Hakansson, 2006). According to the IMP view, innovations occur when
Resources for
service
innovation
3
JOSM
25,1
companies integrate and create resources in the business network (Easton, 1992, p. 24;
Baraldi and Stromsten, 2009), which is a good conceptual fit to current thinking in the
service field (Gummesson and Mele, 2010; Russo-Spena and Mele, 2012).
This study contributes to the service innovation literature by providing new
knowledge on resource access through network relationships. It broadens existing
knowledge, especially on service innovation processes that occur within business
networks where various social contingencies as well as informal arrangements come
into play. The outcome of the study is a theoretical model that characterizes development
resources accessible through different types of relationships and access strategies.
The paper is organized as follows. The literature review section combines literature
on collaborative innovation with the IMP interaction and network literature to build a
tentative framework of resource access. The following section describes the empirical
research methodology. Then, four project cases illustrating service innovation in
business networks are presented. This is followed by the findings and the
resulting theoretical model. We conclude the paper with implications for research and
practice.
2. Literature review
2.1 Resources and network relationships in service innovation
Innovation research increasingly emphasizes the importance of resources that reside
outside the firms boundaries (Cassiman and Veugelers, 2006; Nieto and Santamaria,
2007; Perks and Moxey, 2011). Research suggests that new product ideas and solutions
to problems are typically sought from external actors (Vega-Jurado et al., 2009), and the
lack of required resources is the key driver for firms to enter into collaborative service
innovation arrangements (Goes and Park, 1997; Tether, 2002).
Studies focusing specifically on resource access for service innovation are
nevertheless sparse. A recent study by Baraldi and Stromsten (2009) examined how
combining and controlling resources takes place in a network setting between actors
targeting product innovation. The authors point out that identifying which resources
need to be combined, who controls these resources, and how these actors might be
mobilized, are critical questions to pose at the firm level before commencing network
level activity. This creates an impetus to examine more closely how relationships to
external actors help access resources for service innovation.
Resource-advantage theory defines valuable resources as tangible and intangible
entities available to the firm that enable it to produce efficiently and effectively a
market offering that has value for some market segment (Hunt and Morgan, 1995,
p. 6). Resources can be divided into financial, physical, legal, human, organizational,
informational, and relational (Hunt et al., 2002). Service innovation studies typically
cite information (Goes and Park, 1997; Lievens and Moenaert, 2000), knowledge
(Knights et al., 1993; den Hertog, 2000; Leiponen, 2006) and technology (Kandampully,
2002; de Vries, 2006; Essen, 2009) as resources exchanged in collaboration. Other types
of resource are seldom identified or elaborated on.
According to current innovation literature, firms typically seek external resources
through formal agreements, such as R&D partnerships or alliances and joint ventures
(Powell et al., 1996; Goes and Park, 1997; Eisingerich et al., 2009). The IMP Groups
interaction and network approach in turn emphasizes the nature of relationships and
networks as organically evolving platforms for resource access (Lundgren, 1992, p. 158;
Hakansson and Snehota, 1995, pp. 133-134). According to the IMP view, no business
enterprise has direct control of all the resources it needs (Hakansson and Snehota, 1995,
p. 143), but firms can access other actors resources through interactive relationships
(Harrison and Hakansson, 2006). Actors attain resources when they perform activities with
other actors in the network (Johanson and Mattsson, 1987). It is also noteworthy that
resources are considered to have value only when they are combined with other resources
(Harrison and Hakansson, 2006). In this process, new knowledge emerges which provides
possibilities for improved resource combinations and thereby for innovations (Lundgren,
1992, p. 158).
The literature on service innovation has focused on identifying collaborating actors,
while the knowledge about resources that they potentially bring into the service
innovation process has remained scant. Customers have been regarded as sources of
information about needs, desires, and ideas that are crucial to the development of new
offerings that meet market demand (Alam, 2006). Zomerdijk and Voss (2011) found
that firms place special emphasis on studying customer insight during the service
innovation process. As service is typically a process that is realized in interaction with
the customer (Matthing et al., 2004), knowledge about customers service usage is
considered a matter of special importance in service innovation (Love and Mansury,
2007; Kristensson et al., 2008; Edvardsson et al., 2010).
Suppliers form another group of external actors that has been studied as a source of
service development resources. According to Tether (2005), service firms typically seek
new technologies and intellectual property from their suppliers. Syson and Perks (2004)
identified a range of intangible resources such as reputation, information, knowledge,
and experience as important contributions from suppliers to service innovation.
In addition, consultants, universities, research centers, funding agencies, and
associations are noted as sources of resources such as knowledge and information,
technology, and finance for the innovation process (Freel, 2006; Koch and Strotmann,
2008). A reliance on universities and research centers as a source of knowledge has
been found to influence a companys knowledge development potential and ability to
integrate internal and external innovation activities (Tether and Tajar, 2008).
In sum, extant research indicates that firms use external relationships to access
resources for innovation in the service context. Knowledge about the types of resources
sought, and the nature of relationships needed for accessing resources is, however,
very limited. An exploration beyond the literature in the service context is therefore
needed to untangle how companies access resources through network relationships.
2.2 Resource access strategies
According to Coviello and Cox (2006), firms can access resources through network
relationships principally in two ways: by acquiring resources through market transaction,
or by mobilizing resources. Acquiring entails the transfer of resource ownership and risk
attached thereto, while mobilizing allows the use of resource without ownership transfer.
The current literature indicates that the access strategy may depend on the nature
of resources (Chi, 1994; Hakansson and Snehota, 1995; van de Vrande et al., 2006).
Clearly specified and transferable resources may simply be acquired in arms-length
relationships that require only limited interaction (Lefaix-Durand and Kozak, 2009).
However, particularly service innovation calls for sharing intangible resources which are
embedded in organizational structures and routines (Hakansson and Snehota, 1995, p. 143;
Resources for
service
innovation
5
JOSM
25,1
Figure 1.
Tentative framework of
resource access through
network relationships
Syson and Perks, 2004). Such resources cannot readily be acquired on the market and
transferred to the firm, but accessing them requires mobilization (Chi, 1994).
Scholars have argued that mobilization is the primary method of accessing resources
when innovating in a network (Hakansson and Snehota, 1995, p. 136; Oerlemans et al.,
1998). According to Mouzas and Naude (2007, p. 62), mobilization refers to utilizing a
companys relationships to move other actors such as customers, suppliers, partners and
even competitors to work within the plans of the mobilizing company. Mobilization
therefore is a process of utilizing relationships to other actors in order to connect
resources (Chou and Zolkiewski, 2012). Resources can be accessed only temporarily
through mobilization, however, as ownership of the resource does not transfer
(Glover and Parry, 2005). Thus, the relationships have to be sustained as long as the firm
wishes to continue to access the resources.
In order to access resources through mobilization, actors first need to activate or
reactivate ongoing or dormant relationships, or initiate new relationships (Chou and
Zolkiewski, 2012), and then commit the actors to resource mobilization (Lundgren, 1992,
p. 160). Seeking resources from new counterparts is considered more difficult than
mobilizing resources within existing relationships where some investments have
already been made and the costs and benefits of collaboration are more apparent
(Hakansson and Ford, 2002). Established relationships that are characterized by trust
and commitment between the actors facilitate resource mobilization (Eisingerich et al.,
2009; Hakansson et al., 2009, p. 18). In sum, the IMP literature suggests that by activating
or initiating relationships with other actors, their resources eventually become available
to the Mobilizer.
On the basis of the extant literature, we can draw up a tentative framework of
resource access through network relationships (Figure 1). The framework indicates
that firms seek resources such as information, knowledge, and technology for service
innovation through network relationships. These resources can be accessed
through two principal resource strategies, acquisition and mobilization. These
strategies call for establishing new, or activating existing or dormant relationships in
networks.
Overall, research on the topic is very fragmented, and empirical evidence on the
relationships between resources, relationships and access strategies is scant. Both the
IMP Groups interaction and network approach and the innovation literature discuss
resource access through acquisition and mobilizing, but their focus is on actors or
relationships. The relationship types originate from the IMP Groups interaction and
network approach in the framework, and the service innovation literature provides
some knowledge about resources that are sought from other actors. The role of the
tentative framework is to gather the current knowledge together and to outline the key
conceptual categories addressed in the empirical study.
Needed resources
for service
innovation:
information
knowledge
technology
Relationship types in
business networks:
Resource access
strategies:
existing relationship
dormant relationship
new relationship
acquisition
mobilization
3. Methodology
3.1 Research strategy
In order to explore resource access through network relationships for the purpose of
service innovation, we conducted a longitudinal case study in the field of technical b-to-b
services. A multiple, embedded case design (Yin, 2003; Aaboen et al., 2012) was applied
to shed light on the innovation process, with particular emphasis on the types of resource
companies sought, and the relationship types and access strategies they used to attain
resources. Three case companies providing various technical services were chosen for
the study, and four service innovation projects where one or two of the case companies
were developing services in inter-organizational collaboration were selected as
embedded cases for further investigation.
The aim of the study was to create a new understanding of resource access and to put
forth a theoretical model on the connections between the types of resources, network
relationships, and resource access strategies. We therefore applied an abductive, theory
development approach (Dubois and Gadde, 2002) with a multiple-case study as the
research strategy (Gummesson, 2003; Yin, 2003, p. 47). The abductive approach is based
on matching, that is, moving back and forth between the preliminary theoretical
framework, data sources, and analysis in a gradually advancing iterative process,
ultimately reaching disclosure in a developed theory (Dubois and Gadde, 2002).
Qualitative case study methodology, for its part, is most suitable for studying
human interactions, meanings, and processes pertinent to organizational (Gephart and
Rynes, 2004) and inter-organizational settings (Halinen and Tornroos, 2005) such as
networks for service innovation. The multiple, embedded case design provided a
robust basis for theory development, as it allowed us to analyze resource access in
several cases and at two levels (Eisenhardt, 1989; Scholz and Tietje, 2002) at the
single company level and at the network level from different actors perspectives.
Conducting qualitative longitudinal case research in networks is contextually and
temporally challenging (Halinen and Tornroos, 2005). Both theoretical and empirical
delimitations are needed to keep the study on track. The tentative framework
specifying the key conceptual categories (Figure 1) was derived to set theoretical
boundaries for the longitudinal study (Aaboen et al., 2012). Empirically we focused the
investigation on recent and ongoing service innovation projects to strengthen the
reliability of the data. The interviews conducted with the project managers in the focal
companies served to set contextual boundaries to the investigation, i.e. to define which
projects and network actors to include in it.
3.2 Empirical cases
The empirical cases dealt with the development of innovative technical services in
inter-organizational collaboration. Technical services were chosen for the study, because
they are typically delivered in cooperation with other goods and services providers and,
as empirical research has shown, technical services firms are likely to engage in
collaborative arrangements for innovation (Tether and Hipp, 2002). In addition, technical
services have received scant attention in the academic service literature (Schilling and
Werr, 2009, p. 44). The focal case companies and the new service development strategies
that led them to seek resources from other actors are presented in Table I.
The companies were selected to provide rich and versatile data on resource access in
service innovation. These companies had some experience in finalized collaborative
Resources for
service
innovation
7
JOSM
25,1
Firm
Alfa
Industry
Engineering, design,
and consultancy
services within the
energy industry, traffic
infrastructure,
manufacturing, civil
engineering, and the
environment
3,300
1,400 (subsidiary)
405 Me
103 Me (subsidiary)
North Europe
Finland
Deltas target was to
Alfas target was to
provide and manage
become a service
large service entities.
integrator and take
This required
increasing
development
responsibility for the
collaboration between
business of their
customers. This called various internal units
for service innovation in and increasingly also
with external partners
both intra-firm and
inter-firm networks
Resource management Foundation solutions
system (IT)
for wind turbine
towersa
Service portfolio for
wind power
construction and
production
8
Number of employees
Turnover in 2011
Operating range
New service
development strategy
Service innovation
projects addressed in
this study
Table I.
Overview of the case
companies and service
innovation projects
Delta
Construction,
maintenance, and
professional services
within the energy,
telecoms and
manufacturing sectors
Gamma
Technical trading and
life-cycle services for
equipment and
machinery
165
96 Me
Finland
Gammas target was to
start systematic new
service development,
particularly in the
mechanical engineering
field. For this purpose,
Gamma sought
development partners
Automation solution for
the mechanical
engineering industry
Note: aBoth Alfa and Delta participated in the same innovation project
service innovation projects, and all had such projects ongoing. Altogether 16 service
innovation networks were identified in the studied companies. Alfa participated in ten
networks, and Delta and Gamma in three each. From those development projects, four
were chosen for further investigation using two key criteria: first, a pilot version of the
service had to be available in order to make a study of actual resource access possible,
and second, the service was to be designed in a network comprising at least
three organizational actors (Moller et al., 2005).
3.3 Data collection
Case study data were collected longitudinally in two phases. In the first phase, the
empirical study focused on service innovation in the three case companies at a general
level. A preliminary understanding of resource access emerged during this phase, and
we also gathered identification data on specific innovation projects. In the second phase,
the study focused on the embedded cases, i.e. the four specific service innovation
projects, and data collection was extended to cover several companies and
organizational units involved in the development work. Data were collected both
retrospectively and in real time, following up what had happened and what was
currently happening in the four innovation projects (Halinen and Tornroos, 2005).
Qualitative interviewing (Warren, 2002) was employed as the primary data collection
method. The interviews in the first study phase were conducted in the three case
companies: Alfa, Delta, and Gamma, by a group of researchers from January to
September 2010 (Table II). First, CEOs and R&D managers or coordinators were
interviewed to gather an overview of the firms service innovation activities. Second, key
actors involved in service innovation were approached. Interviews followed a thematic
guide that included topics such as the companys service development practices and
experiences, forms of resource access, and experiences in and expectations of resource
sharing between actors for service innovation. The interview guide was used very
flexibly depending on the informants position in the company and knowledge of the
studied topics. Interviews were complemented with background information
about the companies by visiting their internet pages, and reading articles and press
materials.
Interviews in the second study phase were conducted by one of the authors of
this article from November 2011 to February 2012 (Table III). Fourteen interviews
consisted of four follow-up interviews with managers of the service innovation projects
Company
Construction, maintenance
and professional services
provider (Alfa)
Engineering firm (Delta)
Technical trading firm

(Gamma)
Position of the
interviewees
Country manager,
account manager 1,
supply director, head of
supplies
Business development
director 1, R&D manager,
BU director
Divisional directors 1 and
2, business development
director 2, marketing and
CRM director, account
manager 2
Account manager 3,
business area director,
R&D director
R&D coordinators 1 and 2
Business area director 1,
BU director
Business area director 2
Business area directors 3
and 4
Project manager
Sales managers 1 and 2,
after sales service
manager
Service engineer
Group president, CEO,
marketing specialist
Divisional director,
maintenance specialist
Date of interviews
Resources for
service
innovation
9
Number of Total
interviews (n 32)
9 February 2010
15 February 2010
18 February 2010
19 February 2010
28 January 2010
17 February 2010
2
2
24 February 2010
4 March 2010
1
2
20 September 2010
1 February 2010
1
3
2 February 2010
11 February 2010
1
3
20 August 2010
15
Table II.
Interviews conducted in
the first phase in the three
case companies
Project manager
Project manager
IT business solutions firm C

IT business solutions firm D
Divisional director
Project manager
Laser technology firm

Production systems firm
Robotics systems firm
Group president
CEO
Business area director
Senior vice president
Business development and

technology director
Business area manager, wind power
Technology firm
Construction, maintenance and professional
services provider (Alfa)
Technical trading firm (Gamma)
Project manager
CEO
Engineering firm A (Delta)
Note: aThe same person was interviewed for two projects in a single interview
Automation solutions for mechanical

engineering industry
Foundation solutions for wind turbine

towers
Wind power producer
Divisional director
Business area manager, wind power
Project manager
IT business solutions firm B
Service portfolio for wind power industry Construction, maintenance and professional
Engineering firm B
Business development director/head

project manager
Business area director
Construction, maintenance and professional

IT business solutions firm A
Resource management system
Position of the interviewee
Company
Table III.
Interviews conducted in
the second phase in the
companies collaborating
for service innovation
Case
10
16 December
2011
1 February
2012
1 February
2012
12 December
2011
28 February
2012
25 January
2012
13 January
2012
16 January
2012
25 November
2011a
24 January
2012
24 January
2012
12 December
2011
30 January
2012
25 November
2011a
2 December
2011
Date of
interview
Number of
interviews
Total (n 14)
JOSM
25,1
in the case companies, and ten interviews were conducted at partner and customer
organizations, one in each firm.
All interviews were conducted face-to-face at the respective companys premises
and lasted between 50 and 150 min. Each informant was interviewed once, except for
managers responsible for the development cases. Interviews were audio recorded and
transcribed verbatim. The interviewers impression was that the atmosphere was
relaxed after the first few minutes of the interview, and the informants spoke very
openly.
3.4 Data analysis
In accordance with abductive logic (Dubois and Gadde, 2002) and the necessities of
longitudinal multiple case designs (Aaboen et al., 2012), the tentative framework guided
data analysis, and at the same time the findings driven by the empirical data influenced
the emergence of the resulting model. The data analysis began with an initial coding and
categorization procedure with regard to the actors involved in service innovation
projects and resources that the focal firms searched for innovation. In the initial coding,
resource-advantage theory (Hunt, 1997) provided the general framework for resource
categorization, and actor categories were adopted mainly from new service development
literature. The complete data set was coded using NVivo qualitative data analysis
software.
Next, relationships between the two categories actors and resources were
searched for. In this phase, coding also included the type of network relationship, the
way of accessing resources, and the role of resources in innovation. Networking for
resources was studied from the perspective of the participating organizations,
employing the focal company perspective in the analysis (Halinen and Tornroos, 2005).
The within-case analysis writing up case descriptions and drawing theoretical
inferences and the cross-case analysis were conducted more or less simultaneously.
The cross-case analysis yielded a coherent picture of the types and roles of
development resource, and the types of relationship and resource strategy needed to
access them. We also found that the results garnered from the embedded service
innovation cases confirmed but also enriched the findings garnered from the single
company interviews in the first study phase. Adding the perspectives of other network
actors significantly strengthened the empirical evidence.
4. Case descriptions
4.1 Resource management system development at Alfa
Alfas aim was to be a pioneering and agile player in its field, to respond swiftly but
cost effectively to customers orders and problems. This necessitated a new kind of
mindset in managing company resources, so Alfa decided to build a resource
management system that included a new enterprise resource planning system and the
development of a workforce management system. This development project started
in 2008 under the auspices of the IT department and continued to some degree
into 2012.
A major part of the resource management system was developed by six software
service companies that were newly involved with Alfa (see Figure 2, boxes at
right-hand side). Alfa made use of their supplier relationships to find new development
partners, as Alfas head project manager stated: When I ask around our present
Resources for
service
innovation
11
JOSM
25,1
Principal partner 1 ERP
Principal partner 2 ERP
12
Asset management
system partner
Alfas IT
department
System integrator
partner
Mobile system partner
Small works system

partner
Figure 2.
Network for the resource
management system
development project
Ready-made software
suppliers
(firms where the interviews were conducted

have been indicated with solid boxes)
supplier network, theyll surely recommend firms that could help us. The rest of the
system was acquired through arms-length relationships from around a dozen software
firms that delivered ready-made software for specific operations. The project manager
described the acquisition of the payroll software: It was an easy project. It was their
standard product. It didnt require any changes.
The principal partner provided their know-how and expertise for the development
of the enterprise resource planning system. Alfas IT department determined the
required attributes and tested and commented on the system during the development
process. The partners project manager described this:
Alfa arranged a common project location for the three first months. The project members,
thats us as specifiers and their main users worked together there [. . .] Then we tested the
system together at our premises.
Alfas project manager explained their part:

Our task was to define the requirements for the system, i.e. which processes we need and how
we want to run them [. . .] The more we learned during the process, the more we were able to
comment on it.
The asset management system partner possessed special know-how and long-term
expertise in enterprise asset management systems. Their target was to develop new
asset management software for the marketplace. The development of the asset
management system for Alfa enabled them to receive financing and acquire a reference
customer for their new software product. They also had the opportunity to learn from
the maintenance firms staff about their everyday work. Alfa tested the new system,
suggested improvements, and also marketed it. The partners project manager
reported:
Resources for
service
innovation
At that time when there was not much to see, Alfa told our potential customers about the
asset management system. Later theyve visited potential customers and presented the
system to them.
13
Alfa did this because all users brought something new to the system and everybody
benefited from it.
Alfas project managers largely took responsibility for partner communication and
project management during the development of the resource management system. The
result was that Alfa communicated and cooperated intensively with each software firm, but
most of the time communication between the software firms remained low. The project
manager of a software partner expressed the end result because of the lack of cooperation
this way:
Everybody fiddled with their own things even though the idea was to develop one resource
management system. Now it consists of separate bricks which are connected by force to each other.
4.2 Development of wind power service portfolio at Alfa

In 2008, the management of Alfa agreed to initiate systematic service development for
the wind power industry. Wind power markets were emergent at that time, but
political decisions being taken by the Finnish Government on the promotion of
renewable energy encouraged Alfa to believe that wind power construction would be
a significant growth industry in the years to come. Alfa employed a business
area director to coordinate wind power business development inside the group. The idea
was to develop an extensive wind power service portfolio that would encompass the
entire life-cycle of a wind power plant (Alfas network is shown in Figure 3).
The idea of the wind power service portfolio was tested with energy producers who
were long-term Alfa customers. The business area director noted:
We had a trusted relationship with them. You can throw them questions like If we would
provide this kind of service, what would you think of it? or Would you be interested in this
kind of service?
The business area director described how social contacts helped him find information
on the wind power field and the actors involved:
We had some seminars. And the wind power association yielded the names of its members.
And as we were a member, too, I naturally went to some of their meetings to see.
Other important sources of information on potential partners were trade fairs and
conferences inside the wind power field.
Alfa had a large number of suppliers, and some of them participated in the
development projects. Engineering firm 1 contributed its know-how in wind
analysis and measurement. When Alfa worked together with the supplier, they
learned to perform the wind analyses themselves. And the suppliers good
reputation enabled Alfa to obtain their first references. The business area director
put it this way:
JOSM
25,1
Energy production
customers
14
IT firm
Engineering firm 1
Alfas wind
power unit
Engineering firm 2
Consultants
Condition
monitoring firm
University
students
Figure 3.
Network for the wind
power service portfolio
development project
Public
funding agency

It was the germ and a way that helped us. We used the cooperation as a springboard. Our firm
now has something like a dozen wind measuring and analyzing projects constantly ongoing.
Alfa decided to extend its offering into preliminary planning services. They found
engineering firm 2 to conduct environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and develop
its specific knowledge in operations where Alfa could not act alone. Both parties had
their own specific know-how and they integrated their services in wind power projects.
Alfas business area director explained: We give the total responsibility for the EIAs
to our partner. But some parts we want to do ourselves, like preliminary planning of
power supply.
Wind power projects provided a learning environment that helped engineering firm
2 develop its EIA services. Their divisional director described it this way:
These two projects that weve done together with Alfa have been the most challenging to be
found in this country. Weve reached a high level of learning because of these projects.
Engineering firm 2, in turn, helped Alfa enter new markets through its foreign sister
company. The divisional director said: We develop our operations also through
cooperation with our sister company. The idea behind this is that Alfa could operate in
their country as well.
Alfa then decided to develop a wind power portal service. The business area
director explained the background for the idea: It originated from discussions with
our customers. We asked what kinds of problems they are facing. Then we planned
together how the suitable solution should look like. An IT firm that had earlier
belonged to Alfa contributed ideas for the content and visual impact of the portal.
Their know-how helped in the further design of the portal. The business area director
noted: Theyre creative people. They had many ideas. And then they worked on it.
When a demo version was ready, Alfa tested it in the wind energy producer customers
wind power park, and the customer provided feedback.
Although several parties were involved in the development, it was not easy to
commit them to the project when the business was still emergent. Alfas business area
director explained this challenge:
Resources for
service
innovation
15
Almost two years passed and nobody was building any wind power. Only some discussions
took place at that time. Therefore, most of the people didnt get interested in the whole thing.
You need to make people convinced that firms are really going to build something, and then
youve got worthwhile business.
4.3 Development of foundation solutions for wind turbine towers

In 2009, a technology firm specialized in concrete connections and composite beams
made a strategic decision to start development work in the wind power business. They
decided to develop a new kind of turnkey solution for wind turbine tower foundations.
This would include tailor-made planning, component production, construction of the
foundations, and taking responsibility for the entity as a whole.
The technology firm needed a partner for engineering and design. They concluded
a development contract with engineering firm Delta that had some experience
in windmill foundations (see the development network in Figure 4). Delta dimensioned,
Engineering firm
Delta
Fastening
technology
firm
University
students
System
configurator firm
Alfas wind
power unit
University
students
Wind turbine
supplier

Figure 4.
Network for the
foundation solutions
development project
JOSM
25,1
16
planned, prepared project documents, and sought solutions. The technology firm
manufactured the product. Most of the ideas came from the technology firm, as Deltas
project manager noted: One of their people is an idea generator. He brainstorms ideas
and I either support them or disagree with them. Delta also hired two university
students to prepare their theses as part of the development process.
A firm focused on system configuration joined the development project later,
providing system level expertise that Delta lacked. The technology firm managed the
entity to ensure that everyone was speaking the same language, as none of them had
attempted an innovation of this kind before.
When the first foundation prototype was ready, the technology firm looked for a wind
park project to test and further develop the prototype. They discovered that Alfa needed
to find a solution for the wind turbine tower foundation at the wind parks where they
acted as the main contractor. Their technology director explained: Alfa needed a
technology partner because they didnt have their own resources to develop a solution.
Alfa and the technology firm sat down to plan the solution Alfa needed.
The technology firms specialists and sales staff, and Alfas foundation planners and
business management, all worked together. When the plans were ready, Alfas
business area manager for wind power contacted the supplier that would deliver the
power plants to the wind parks and sold them the idea of the new foundation solution.
Alfas business area manager explained: The plant supplier wouldnt be liable for the
solution. But had they said no, we wouldnt have been able to realize our plan.
Alfa thus sold the foundation solution to the end customer on behalf of the technology firm.
Alfas wind power unit constructed the foundations onsite. Delta collaborated with
Alfas site personnel during this period. Deltas project manager explained:
We talked with the site supervisors and project managers of Alfa every day on the phone
during the most hectic building phase [. . .] We also developed things further during that time.
The technology firm had received valuable comments from Alfa during the foundation
project. However, the development of the solution was only the beginning. The first four
foundations were just an intermediate goal. The technology director explained: It will
be developed further in various value areas, from single features into total solutions or
new applications.
4.4 Automation solution development at Gamma
An important share of Gammas business comprised machine supplies to the
mechanical engineering industry. But machine sales showed a constant decline and the
industrys future seemed uncertain. Gamma wanted to improve its customers
competitiveness through new services.
Gamma got the idea for a new service while trying to sell machines to small firms in
the metal industry. Their divisional director described the situation:
Some years ago customers often told us it was only worth buying a lathe or a machining
center if we could provide them with a man to run it. Since such employees were either not
available or too expensive, wed provide them with a robot to take the place of the man. Wed
sell an entity with a lathe and a male robot which will probably wear our cap, too.
Gamma would also provide the required life-cycle services for the automation system,
but needed a partner to develop and produce the solution.
A robot systems company had developed an industrial robot concept for materials
handling in the metal industry in 1999. They wanted to start selling the system but
lacked contacts in the metal industry. In 2009, the robot systems firm and Gamma
found each other and began to develop the automation service together (Figure 5).
The senior vice president of the robotics firm explained the reason for their cooperation:
Resources for
service
innovation
We wanted a sales channel and network for our product and technical know-how in the metal
industry. Gamma is one of the best known actors there. But Gammas core capabilities didnt
include automation solutions and projects. Thus, weve got the knowledge that Gamma lacks.
And Gamma has got knowledge and relationships to customers that we dont have.
17
Gammas divisional director described how both parties participated in the

development process:
The robot systems partner provided the design know-how and design tools, and took care of
production. We provided the ideas for the robotics system, and the entity between the
machine and robot.
Gamma provided customer intelligence in the metal industry. On the basis of this
knowledge, the partners considered what features the system should have and what
features could be provided as options.
A couple of months after the development project was launched Gamma joined a
research project managed by a public research center. Besides, focused research inside
Gamma, the center provided guidance for documenting the development project.
The divisional director of Gamma noted:
The biggest advantage was that we began to record things. We are used to start working
straight away. Only afterwards we see how things went. And we dont make any notes for
future generations.
Public
research
center
Gamma
Consultant for
service concept
Robot systems
firm
Ready-made machine
and technology suppliers
Figure 5.
Network for the
automation solution
development project
JOSM
25,1
18
The research center also advised them to involve other functions of the firm in the
development process. Gammas divisional director explained: We especially planned
marketing together. Our marketing people were fully involved.
When the sales people met potential customers it became obvious that the solution
had to include a variety of services, from a leasing option to life-cycle services.
The partners decided to turn to a consultant who would help them in planning the
service entity. The senior vice president of the robotics firm explained:
The consultant was involved in productizing the service entity [. . .] Having a consultant was
a good idea since Gamma has sold machines for 100 years. They hadnt to date invested in
services so much.
But when Gamma tried to launch the new robot solution for SMEs in the metal
industry, the attempt to market a completely new solution failed. The divisional
director of Gamma explained:
We should have involved a customer in the development process from the beginning. It would
have been important to have customer experience in the solution during development. And a
good reference customer we could take potential customers to see [. . .] As we are a sales
company we thought that we can sell the system with no problem.
5. Results
The gathered data paint a picture of a broad range of recent service innovation projects
realized within inter-organizational networks. Portraying significant variety with
respect to the involved actors, resources, relationships, and strategies, the data offer a
fertile basis for analytic generalizations (Yin, 2003). The cases relate to different types of
service innovation new services (single services inside the cases), service solutions
(enterprise resources planning system, automation solution, wind turbine foundation
solution), or service packages (wind power service portfolio) developed in an established
business field (automation solution, enterprise resource planning systems) or in a new
field (wind power services). The cases also represent different governance forms used to
manage the networks, i.e. either concentrated (wind power service portfolio) or dispersed
relationship management (automation solution). The next sections present our findings
in terms of the resources companies seek for service innovation, the nature of the
relationships, and the access strategies employed.
5.1 Types of resources sought
We found that focal actors sought various kinds of resources from others for service
innovation (Table IV). Those resources formed four distinct types: general information,
physical and ready-made resources, confidential information, and tacit knowledge.
General information refers to casually expressed views and pieces of information, such
as information on actors needs and challenges, third-party contact information, and
general industry information. Physical and ready-made resources refer to software,
machines, devices, and equipment that the service innovation required and that were
available in the market. Confidential information includes critical or sensitive
information such as new ideas, views, future plans, and customer intelligence that actors
revealed to each other. They could also share important relationships with other actors,
for instance, to facilitate the establishment of new relationships. The fourth resource
category, tacit knowledge, was manifested in various forms of organizational and
Empirical indicators
Resource type
Knowledge, know-how, expertise,

experience, skills, creativity, reputation,
academic research
New ideas, views, future plans, customer
intelligence, trusted relationships to third
parties
Software, machines, devices and
equipment
Thoughts, information on needs and
challenges, contact information, industry
information
Tacit knowledge and

organizational
routines
Confidential
information
Theoretical continuum:
transferability
Low
Resources for
service
innovation
19
Physical resources and

ready-made resources
General information
High
employee knowledge, know-how, expertise, and experience embedded in the

organizational routines and skills of individual people. In particular, technological
knowledge and know-how were frequently mentioned by the interviewees. Reputation
of another party facilitating access to markets or business networks, and academic
research also fall under this category.
The results made it possible to generate a theoretical continuum of the nature of
resources that the companies sought for service innovation. At one end of the continuum,
general information comprises a type of resource that is easy to articulate and transfer from
one actor to another. At the other end of the continuum, tacit knowledge represents
resources that are clearly more difficult to communicate and to pass on. Table IV illustrates
the nature of sought-after resources with empirical examples of each conceptual category.
The studied cases also show that resources may have three different roles in service
innovation. Knowledge-based, tacit human and organizational resources were transformed
(Hakansson and Johanson, 1992, pp. 30-34) into new resources and combined to form the
core services. Ready-made resources, such as machines, devices, equipment, and software
could be connected as such to the core service. Still other resources, such as development
tools, financial resources, relational resources, general information, customer intelligence,
facilities, or management skills could function in a supporting role. They enabled the
innovation process or assisted it.
5.2 Types of network relationships used
Our data demonstrate that the companies collaborated with a range of actors, building
different types of relationships that we could categorize into social contacts,
arms-length relationships, close exchange relationships, and development
relationships (Table V). Any type of relationship might be initiated, or an existing
relationship might be activated for the innovation project.
Social contacts provided general information for service innovation when the
managers participated in various events, such as association meetings, seminars, trade
fairs and conferences. Firms that were innovating new services often contacted actors
with whom they had no prior relationship but who might be able to provide some
important information. The focal firm could resort to arms-length relationships with
suppliers when looking for physical products for service innovation, when such
Table IV.
Types of resources
sought through network
relationships
JOSM
25,1
20
Table V.
Types of relationships
needed for resource
access in service
innovation
Relationship type
Alfa concluded a contract with a software

firm that the firm will develop them an
asset management system
Delta concluded a contract with a
technology firm for design of a new wind
turbine foundation
Gamma concluded a partnership with a
robot systems firm for joint robot solution
development
Alfa asked their suppliers about suitable
partners for resource management system
development
Gamma discussed with their customers
what kinds of services they would need
for the robot solution
Alfa acquired ready-made software from
several suppliers for their resource
management system
The robot systems firm acquired robots
from manufacturers for the robot solution
The technology firm called firms that
might have the needed information and
went to meet them
Alfa and Delta participated in the
meetings of the wind power association
Gamma presented their development
plans in the business seminars and
discussed them with the audience
Development relationship
strength of relationship
Strong
Close exchange relationship
Arms-length relationship
Social contact
Weak
resources did not require any considerable customization or intensive interaction

between the supplier and the buyer. Close exchange relationships were needed to
access and share confidential information, such as contacts with trustworthy partners
or critical business needs of the customer. Development relationships enabled access to
knowledge-based, tacit resources that were embodied in employee skills or resided in
organizational structures and routines. Those resources were not easy to articulate or
transfer, and therefore required intensive interaction between the parties.
Table V illustrates these relationship types with empirical examples of each
conceptual category. The relationship types can be aligned on a theoretical continuum
ranging from strong to weak relationships. A strong relationship refers here to a
high level of actor bonds, activity links, and resource ties between the parties
(Hakansson and Snehota, 1995, p. 42). Social contacts represent the weakest
relationships and development relationships represent the strongest ones.
5.3 Types of resource access strategies
Our findings provide a rich picture of the strategies firms use to access resources for
service innovation. On the basis of our data, we identified four conceptually distinct
access strategies that we labeled absorption, acquisition, sharing, and resource
co-creation (Table VI). Absorption of resources refers to collecting information from

other actors in a unilateral manner. Absorption was used to access general information
from other actors through limited and occasional interaction. Acquisition of resources
took place through market transactions in which the ownership and risk attached to the
resource are transferred to the purchaser, i.e. the innovating actor. This was possible
when the resource was physical and quite easily transferable, such as a tangible product.
Sharing of resources refers to a situation where actors offer each other access to their
confidential or valuable resources. Sharing occurred when actors exchanged
confidential information or other resources such as relationships. For example,
customers could propose new service ideas to suppliers who had the habit of regular
discussions with customers and listened to their needs. Working at the customers
Resource access strategy
The ERP partner provided their knowhow and expertise for the development of
the enterprise resource planning system at
Alfa. Alfas IT department determined the
required attributes and tested and
commented on the system during the
development process
Delta designed a wind turbine foundation
together with the technology firm and the
system configuration firm. The
technology firm provided ideas, and Delta
evaluated them and further developed the
most promising ones with the system
configuration firm. The technology firm
managed the innovation project,
commented on it, and produced the
prototypes and service concept around it
Alfas wind power portal originated from
discussions with trusted long-term
customers. Their customers told them
about the problems they are facing in their
wind power business
A business partner presented Gammas
group president to a robot systems firm
that was looking for a partner for robot
solution development
Alfa acquired a dozen ready-made
software packages from suppliers for a
resource management system without any
customization
When Gammas salesperson marketed
machines, the potential customers
explained that they cannot buy one
because they did not have the personnel to
run it. Gamma used this information later
when they ideated the robot solution
Resource co-creation
Resources for
service
innovation
21
intensity of collaboration
high
Sharing
Acquisition
Absorption
low
Table VI.
Types of resource access
strategies in service
innovation
JOSM
25,1
22
premises also allowed the supplier to learn and sometimes to test a new service. Another
example of sharing was helping business partners establish relationships with third
parties for service innovation purposes.
Finally, co-creation of resources took place through intense interaction between actors
who brought together their tacit resources, resulting in joint creation of transformed
resources. The innovator needed to engage in resource co-creation to access the tacit
knowledge of other actors, which was embedded in organizational routines and individual
skills. Resource co-creation took place among suppliers and partners who added their
knowledge and expertise to the innovation process. Consultants were hired to provide,
for example, technical know-how that was needed only for a short time. One of the suppliers
could also take care of the innovation project management bringing ones experience
to the project. Universities and a public research center provided new ideas, scientific
knowledge and focused research, and expertise for the service innovation process. These
resources were not attainable without intensive collaboration between the parties.
Resource co-creation also took place with customers, who in many service innovation
projects participated in the actual innovation process, for example, by contributing
employee knowledge and expertise. Customers could also handle process management,
or test and comment on the service during the process. Intensive collaboration with
customers made it possible for the innovator to make use of the customers reputation
and relationships, as they could use their customers as a reference when launching the
service, or use their contacts to access new markets.
Table VI illustrates the identified resource access strategies with empirical examples
of each conceptual category. The four strategies vary in terms of the intensity of
collaboration needed between the parties. On the polar ends of this continuum are
absorption, which does not require much collaboration, and resource co-creation, which
necessitates intensive joint efforts.
6. Discussion
6.1 Theoretical implications and contribution
This paper explored how companies access resources through network relationships
for service innovation. Reflecting theoretical literature with the empirical findings of a
multiple-case study, we derive a three-dimensional theoretical model that characterizes
service innovation resources accessible through different types of relationships and
access strategies (Figure 6).
Relationship types shown in Figure 6 refer to the minimum level of relationship
needed to access specific resources for service innovation, and the resource access
strategies refer to the type of strategy an actor needs to implement within the required
relationship type to access each type of resource. While the types of resources,
relationships, and strategies represent nominal categories, they can be positioned along
continuous dimensions characterizing the nature of the resource, the relationship, and
the access strategy at a more abstract level. The theoretical model thus specifies
connections between the transferability of the resources needed for service innovation,
the required strength of the relationship between business actors, and the intensity of
collaboration needed to access the resource. Despite increasing attention paid to network
relationships, collaboration, and external resources in innovating, previous research has
not attempted to link these issues nor studied their mutual contingencies.
Type of resource access strategy
Intensity of
collaboration
Transferability
of the resource
high
tacit knowledge
co-creation
confidential
information
sharing
acquisition
low
Resources for
service
innovation
23
ready-made
resources
general
absorption
information
low
weak social
contact
Strength of
relationship
arm's
close development
length
exchange
relation
strong
relation
relation
Type of relationship
The findings of the study show that firms use network relationships to gain access to a
broad range of versatile innovation resources such as know-how, contact information,
learning environments, financing, software, management skills and reputation. These
findings contribute to the service innovation literature, where only anecdotal evidence
is available regarding resources sought through network relationships (Syson and
Perks, 2004). Our findings broaden the understanding of resources sought from
external parties for the purpose of service innovation, as the extant literature has
primarily discussed only information, knowledge, and technology (Goes and Park,
1997; Leiponen, 2006; Essen, 2009). So far the innovation literature has discussed
external resources without paying much attention to their role in innovation. Our
findings indicate that resources may support the innovation process or they may
become part of the new service when combined or connected to it.
The findings of this study clearly show that firms seek access to important resources for
service innovation from a variety of actors, such as customers, suppliers, social contacts,
consultants, and universities. While the previous service innovation literature has focused
on studying intra-organizational actors and customers as sources of development
resources (Froehle et al., 2000; Zomerdijk and Voss, 2011), our study demonstrates the
importance of broadening the perspective to cover the wider network of a firm.
Our study created new knowledge regarding the network relationships used to
access innovation resources. The extant literature refers to formalized partnerships,
such as alliances, joint ventures, and interlocking ties, as typical relationships in
service innovation (Goes and Park, 1997; Eisingerich et al., 2009). In contrast, only a
fraction of the relationships used to access innovation resources could be characterized
as formal partnerships in our study. We instead found four relationship types in
service innovation: social contacts, arms-length relationships, close exchange
relationships, and development relationships. Those relationships are activated or
established in networks for a shorter or longer time, with a formality ranging from
occasional meetings to full developmental relationships. These findings clearly add to
the earlier findings.
Figure 6.
A theoretical model of
resource access in service
innovation
JOSM
25,1
24
Furthermore, existing research provides little elaboration on the characteristics of

relationships used to access the resources of others, mainly highlighting the division of
relationships in terms of their newness (Chou and Zolkiewski, 2012). We found that
strength is the most significant feature of a relationship in connection with resource
access for service innovation. Also existing network literature provides some indication
of the importance of weak and strong relationships in innovating (Elfring and
Hulsink, 2003). According to our findings, weak relationships provide access to
resources that are easy to articulate and transfer, whereas strong relationships are
required when the focal actor wishes to access tacit and ambiguous resources. Elfring
and Hulsink (2003) also refer to strong relationships in connection with tacit resources.
The findings of the study suggest that resources can be accessed from other actors
using four different strategies: absorption, acquisition, sharing, and resource
co-creation. These findings add to the existing knowledge in two important ways.
First, although networks are often cited as important resources for innovating
(Tether, 2002; Perks and Moxey, 2011), extant research provides little insight into how
resources actually become available to the innovator through relationships. Our study is
among the first to identify and analyze alternative strategies for accessing resources.
Second, the current literature discusses acquisition and mobilization as the means to
access the resources of other actors (Coviello and Cox, 2006). In light of the empirical
evidence, these cannot be seen as alternative means to access resources but rather as two
consecutive steps in the process of resource access. Acquisition can be seen as one of
the resource access strategies available for a firm, whereas resource mobilizing takes
place when the attained resource becomes part of the new service or innovation process.
This emphasizes the fact that getting access to resources does not inevitably lead to
innovation, but an additional process of mobilization is needed to integrate resources as
part of the service or the innovation process.
To conclude, the study provides a comprehensive picture of resource access for
service innovation. The in-depth examination of resource access adds in several ways
to the scant and scattered knowledge of resource access and networks in service
innovation. It deepens existing knowledge through abductive reasoning in a multiple
case study, and as a result, provides a theoretical model of resource access through
network relationships in service innovation. The theoretical model shows how easily
transferable innovation resources can be accessed through weak relationships and
low-intensity collaboration. Access to resources that are difficult to transfer, instead,
necessitates strong relationships and high-intensity collaboration.
6.2 Managerial implications
For managers, our study highlights the importance of various network relationships in
the innovation process. Our results demonstrate that important resources for
innovation may be accessible through a variety of actors and relationships ranging
from miscellaneous social contacts to formal development relationships. Managers
should maintain a broad perspective when looking for potential sources. For example,
in evaluating their existing and potential customer and supplier relationships, firms
can also take into account an actors potential for resource provision in innovation.
Relationships also serve as a vehicle to access new relationships.
When seeking resources, managers should evaluate the nature of the relationship
and the intensity of collaboration that is required to access the resource. We direct
managers attention to our finding that resource sharing for service innovation can
take place with parties that do not participate in the actual innovation process, such as
social contacts, suppliers, and customers. However, to make use of what are perhaps
the most important resources for innovation creativity, knowledge, experience, and
skills firms need to engage in committed and interactive collaboration in the
development work. To succeed in service innovation, firms should develop routines
and platforms that facilitate such collaboration.
7. Limitations and future research
This study is subject to some limitations that also provide opportunities for further
research. Empirically, the study focuses on service innovation in three technical
business service firms and their networks. These three firms and four embedded service
innovation cases offered relatively rich data on which to base the model on resource
access in service innovation. The generalizations made are, however, theoretical in
nature and based on finding similarities and differences within the studied cases. The
proposed model might be further enriched by conducting empirical studies in other
business service sectors and even in consumer service settings. The model can also be
used to derive hypotheses to be tested by applying quantitative research methods.
The study provides findings on technical business service development
characterized by service entities that often include both services and physical
products. The studied service development projects thus might include the development
of physical products as part of the service offering. This should be taken into account
when interpreting the results. This also allows us to propose that our theoretical model
might potentially be applicable to collaborative innovation beyond the service context.
Future empirical research is, nevertheless, needed to validate the model in different
product and service contexts in order to demonstrate its general applicability.
This study focused on resource access through networks. Supporting the suggestion
of Story et al. (2009), the findings showed that accessing new kinds of resource for
innovation often requires establishing new relationships. Thus, an interesting question
for future research is how and with whom relationships are formed, regarding actors
new to the service innovator in particular. This implies that parties need to be able to
form high-performing partnerships in a short time-frame and potentially even before
they have learned to know each other more deeply and been able to build strong
relationships. Further research is also needed on the resource integration process that
occurs in business networks for service innovation. We strongly support the recent call
by Russo-Spena and Mele (2012) on moving the focus of innovation research from the
outcomes to the process of innovating. Further longitudinal research would yield
important insights on both important topics: relationship establishment and resource
integration.
References
Aaboen, L., Dubois, A. and Lind, F. (2012), Capturing processes in longitudinal multiple case
studies, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 235-246.
Alam, I. (2006), Removing the fuzziness from the fuzzy front-end of service innovations through
customer interactions, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 468-480.
Resources for
service
innovation
25
JOSM
25,1
26
Baraldi, E. and Stromsten, T. (2009), Controlling and combining resources in networks from
Uppsala to Stanford, and back again: the case of a biotech innovation, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 541-552.
Cassiman, B. and Veugelers, R. (2006), In search of complementarity in innovation strategy:
internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition, Management Science, Vol. 52 No. 1,
pp. 68-82.
Chi, T. (1994), Trading in strategic resources: necessary conditions, transaction cost problems,
and choice of exchange structure, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 271-290.
Chou, H. and Zolkiewski, J. (2012), Managing resource interaction as a means to cope with
technological change, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 188-195.
Coviello, N.E. and Cox, M.P. (2006), The resource dynamics of international new venture
networks, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4 Nos 2/3, pp. 113-132.
den Hertog, P. (2000), Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation,
International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 491-528.
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, Vol. 21
No. 4, pp. 490-514.
de Vries, E.J. (2006), Innovation in services in networks of organizations and in the distribution
of services, Research Policy, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 1037-1051.
Droege, H., Hildebrand, D. and Forcada, M.A.H. (2009), Innovation in services: present findings,
and future pathways, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 131-155.
Dubois, A. and Gadde, L. (2002), Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case
research, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 553-560.
Easton, G. (1992), Industrial networks: a review, in Axelsson, B. and Easton, G. (Eds), Industrial
Networks: A New View of Reality, Routledge, London, pp. 3-27.
Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A. and Witell, L. (2010), Service innovation and customer
co-development, in Maglio, P.P., Kieliszewski, C.A. and Spohrer, J. (Eds), Handbook of
Service Science, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 561-577.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Eisingerich, A.B., Rubera, G. and Seifert, M. (2009), Managing service innovation and
interorganizational relationships for firm performance: to commit or diversify?, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 344-356.
Elfring, T. and Hulsink, W. (2003), Networks in entrepreneurship: the case of high-technology
firms, Small Business Economics, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 409-422.
Essen, A. (2009), The emergence of technology-based service systems: a case study of a
telehealth project in Sweden, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 98-121.
Freel, M. (2006), Patterns of technological innovation in knowledge-intensive business services,
Industry and Innovation, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 335-358.
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 choices,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 3-17.
Gephart, R.P. Jr and Rynes, S. (2004), Qualitative research and the Academy of Management
Journal, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 454-462.
Glover, T.D. and Parry, D.C. (2005), Building relationships, accessing resources: mobilizing
social capital in community garden contexts, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 450-474.
Goes, J.B. and Park, S.H. (1997), Interorganizational links and innovation: the case of hospital
services, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 673-696.
Gummesson, E. (2003), All research is interpretive!, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 482-492.
Gummesson, E. and Mele, C. (2010), Marketing as value co-creation through network interaction
and resource integration, Journal of Business Market Management, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 181-198.
Hakansson, H. and Ford, D. (2002), How should companies interact in business networks?,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 133-139.
Hakansson, H. and Johanson, J. (1992), A model of industrial networks, in Axelsson, B. and

Easton, G. (Eds), Industrial Networks: A New View of Reality, Routledge, London, pp. 28-34.
Hakansson, H. and Snehota, I. (Eds) (1995), Developing Relationships in Business Networks,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Hakansson, H. and Waluszewski, A. (Eds) (2007), Knowledge and Innovation in Business and
Industry: The Importance of Using Others, Routledge, London.
Hakansson, H., Ford, D., Gadde, L., Snehota, I. and Waluszewski, A. (2009), Business in Networks,
Wiley, Chichester.
Halinen, A. and Tornroos, J. (2005), Using case methods in the study of contemporary business
networks, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 9, pp. 1285-1297.
Halliday, S.V. and Trott, P. (2010), Relational, interactive service innovation: building branding
competence, Marketing Theory, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 144-160.
Harrison, D. and Hakansson, H. (2006), Activation in resource networks: a comparative study of
ports, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 231-238.
Hunt, S.D. (1997), Resource-advantage theory: an evolutionary theory of competitive firm
behavior?, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 59-77.
Hunt, S.D. and Morgan, R.M. (1995), The comparative advantage theory of competition,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Hunt, S.D., Lambe, C.J. and Wittmann, C.M. (2002), A theory and model of business alliance
success, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 17-35.
Johanson, J. and Mattsson, L. (1987), Interorganizational relations in industrial systems:
a network approach compared with the transaction-cost approach, International Studies
of Management & Organization, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 34-48.
Kandampully, J. (2002), Innovation as the core competency of a service organisation: the role of
technology, knowledge and networks, European Journal of Innovation Management,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 18-26.
Knights, D., Murray, F. and Willmott, H. (1993), Networking as knowledge work: a study of
strategic interorganizational development in the financial services industry, The Journal
of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 975-995.
Koch, A. and Strotmann, H. (2008), Absortive capacity and innovation in the knowledge
intensive business service sector, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 17
No. 6, pp. 511-531.
Resources for
service
innovation
27
JOSM
25,1
28
Kristensson, P., Johansson, N. and Matthing, J. (2008), Key strategies for the successful
involvement of customers in the co-creation of new technology-based services,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 474-491.
Lefaix-Durand, A. and Kozak, R. (2009), Integrating transactional and relational exchange into
the study of exchange orientation in customer relationships, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 1003-1025.
Leiponen, A. (2006), Managing knowledge for innovation: the case of business-to-business
services, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 238-258.
Lievens, A. and Moenaert, R.K. (2000), New service teams as information-processing systems:
reducing innovative uncertainty, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 46-65.
Love, J.H. and Mansury, M.A. (2007), External linkages, R&D and innovation performance in
US business services, Industry & Innovation, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 477-496.
Lundgren, A. (1992), Coordination and mobilization processes in industrial networks,
in Axelsson, B. and Easton, G. (Eds), Industrial Networks: A New View of Reality,
Routledge, London, pp. 144-165.
Matthing, J., Sanden, B. and Edvardsson, B. (2004), New service development: learning from and
with customers, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 15 No. 5,
pp. 479-498.
Moller, K., Rajala, A. and Svahn, S. (2005), Strategic business nets their type and
management, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 9, pp. 1274-1284.
Mouzas, S. and Naude, P. (2007), Network mobilizer, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 62-71.
Nieto, M.J. and Santamaria, L. (2007), The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the
novelty of product innovation, Technovation, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 367-377.
Oerlemans, L.A.G., Meeus, M.T.H. and Boekema, F.W.M. (1998), Do networks matter for
innovation? The usefulness of the economic network approach in analysing innovation,
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie ( Journal of Economic & Social
Geography), Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 298-309.
Perks, H. and Moxey, S. (2011), Market-facing innovation networks: how lead firms partition
tasks, share resources and develop capabilities, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 1224-1237.
Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W. and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996), Interorganizational collaboration and the
locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 116-145.
Russo-Spena, T. and Mele, C. (2012), Five co-s in innovating: a practice-based view, Journal of
Service Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 527-553.
Schilling, A. and Werr, A. (2009), Managing and Organizing for Innovation in Service Firms.
A Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography, Stockholm School of Economics,
Stockholm.
Scholz, R.W. and Tietje, O. (2002), Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and
Qualitative Knowledge, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Smith, A.M. and Fischbacher, M. (2005), New service development: a stakeholder perspective,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 9, pp. 1025-1048.
Story, V., Hart, S. and OMalley, L. (2009), Relational resources and competences for radical
product innovation, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 25 Nos 5/6, pp. 461-481.
Syson, F. and Perks, H. (2004), New service development: a network perspective, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 255-266.
Tether, B.S. (2002), Who co-operates for innovation, and why an empirical analysis,
Research Policy, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 947-967.
Tether, B.S. (2005), Do services innovate (differently)? Insights from the European
Innobarometer Survey, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 153-184.
Tether, B.S. and Hipp, C. (2002), Knowledge intensive, technical and other services: patterns of
competitiveness and innovation compared, Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 163-182.
Tether, B.S. and Tajar, A. (2008), Beyond industry-university links: sourcing knowledge for
innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base,
Research Policy, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 1079-1095.
van de Vrande, V., Lemmens, C. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006), Choosing governance modes for
external technology sourcing, R&D Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 347-363.
Vega-Jurado, J., Gutierrez-Gracia, A. and Fernandez-de-Lucio, I. (2009), Does external knowledge
sourcing matter for innovation? Evidence from the Spanish manufacturing industry,
Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 637-670.
Warren, C. (2002), Qualitative interviewing, in Gubriem, J.F. and Holstein, J.A. (Eds), Handbook
of Interview Research: Context and Method, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 83-102.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zomerdijk, L.G. and Voss, C.A. (2011), NSD processes and practices in experiential services,
The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 63-80.
About the authors
Helena Rusanen is a doctoral student at the Department of Marketing and International
Business, Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Finland. Her current research
interests focus on service innovation in networks and the role of resources and relationships
in service innovation. Helena Rusanen is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
helena.rusanen@utu.fi
Dr Aino Halinen is a Professor of marketing at the Department of Marketing and
International Business, Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Finland. She has
published articles on professional service marketing, relationship marketing, business network
dynamics and longitudinal research methodology in acknowledged international books and
journals including Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Business Research, Industrial
Marketing Management and International Journal of Service Industry Management. Her current
research focuses on new service development and qualitative methodology for the study of
network dynamics.
Dr Elina Jaakkola is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Department of Marketing and
International Business, Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Finland. Her current
research interests focus on knowledge intensive services, new service development, and the role
of networks in service businesses. Her articles have been published in, e.g. the Journal of Service
Management, Industrial Marketing Management, Marketing Theory and the Journal of
Marketing Management.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Resources for
service
innovation
29
This article has been cited by:

1. Christian Kowalkowski, Heiko Gebauer, Rogelio Oliva. 2016. Service growth in product firms: Past,
present, and future. Industrial Marketing Management . [CrossRef]
2. Sharon Purchase, Christina Kum, Doina Olaru. 2016. Paths, events and resource use: New developments
in understanding innovation processes. Industrial Marketing Management 58, 123-136. [CrossRef]
3. Julia M. Jonas, Angela Roth, Kathrin M. Mslein. 2016. Stakeholder Integration for Service Innovation
in German Medium-Sized Enterprises. Service Science 8:3, 320-332. [CrossRef]
4. Ville Eloranta, Lauri Orkoneva, Esko Hakanen, Taija Turunen. 2016. Using Platforms to Pursue Strategic
Opportunities in Service-Driven Manufacturing. Service Science 8:3, 344-357. [CrossRef]
5. A. Nanggong, N. IndartiThe effect of intangible resources on innovation in service firms with the role
of absorptive capacity as a moderating variable 7-12. [CrossRef]
6. Kaisa Koskela-Huotari, Bo Edvardsson, Julia M. Jonas, David Srhammar, Lars Witell. 2016. Innovation
in service ecosystemsBreaking, making, and maintaining institutionalized rules of resource integration.
Journal of Business Research 69:8, 2964-2971. [CrossRef]
7. Marko Kohtamki, Risto Rajala. 2016. Theory and practice of value co-creation in B2B systems. Industrial
Marketing Management 56, 4-13. [CrossRef]
8. Min Li, Zhaoquan Jian, Rui QinThe impact of organizational learning and network competence on service
innovation performance 1-6. [CrossRef]
9. Ville Eloranta, Taija Turunen. 2016. Platforms in service-driven manufacturing: Leveraging complexity
by connecting, sharing, and integrating. Industrial Marketing Management 55, 178-186. [CrossRef]
10. Fotis Kitsios, Maria KamariotouThe Impact of Information Technology and the Alignment between
Business and Service Innovation Strategy on Service Innovation Performance 1-5. [CrossRef]
11. Hua Song, Jack Cadeaux, Kangkang Yu. 2016. The effects of service supply on perceived value proposition
under different levels of customer involvement. Industrial Marketing Management 54, 116-128. [CrossRef]
12. Buddhi PathakService Innovation in Business Ecosystem: The Role of Enablers and Formation Cycle
73-78. [CrossRef]
13. Shu-Pei Tsai. 2015. Driving holistic innovation to heighten hotel customer loyalty. Current Issues in
Tourism 1-16. [CrossRef]
14. Albert A. Barreda, Anil Bilgihan, Yoshimasa Kageyama. 2015. The Role of Trust in Creating Positive
Word of Mouth and Behavioral Intentions: The Case of Online Social Networks. Journal of Relationship
Marketing 14:1, 16-36. [CrossRef]

Josm 10 2012 0219 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Josm 10 2012 0219 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Journal of Service Management

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Accessing resources for service

Helena Rusanen, Aino Halinen and Elina Jaakkola

Engineering firm (Delta)

Technical trading firm

IT business solutions firm C

Laser technology firm

Robotics systems firm

Business development and

Engineering firm A (Delta)

Automation solutions for mechanical

Foundation solutions for wind turbine

Wind power producer

Business area manager, wind power

IT business solutions firm B

Business development director/head

Construction, maintenance and professional

Resource management system

Position of the interviewee

Principal partner 1 ERP

Principal partner 2 ERP

Mobile system partner

Small works system

(firms where the interviews were conducted

Alfas project manager explained their part:

4.2 Development of wind power service portfolio at Alfa

(firms where the interviews were conducted

4.3 Development of foundation solutions for wind turbine towers

(firms where the interviews were conducted

Gammas divisional director described how both parties participated in the

Knowledge, know-how, expertise,

Tacit knowledge and

Physical resources and

employee knowledge, know-how, expertise, and experience embedded in the

Alfa concluded a contract with a software

Close exchange relationship

resources did not require any considerable customization or intensive interaction

co-creation (Table VI). Absorption of resources refers to collecting information from

Resource access strategy

Type of resource access strategy

Furthermore, existing research provides little elaboration on the characteristics of

Hakansson, H. and Johanson, J. (1992), A model of industrial networks, in Axelsson, B. and

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

This article has been cited by:

S-ar putea să vă placă și