Open Service Innovation in Industrial Networks - DIVA

Open Service Innovation in Industrial Networks

Per Myhrén


The development of new technologies in a rapidly changing and globalized world decreases product life cycles, time to market is crucial. Firms can no longer rely solely on internal knowledge in new product-/service development. They require external resources to create new knowledge and skills within their organizations. Developing innovative products and services that takes advantage of external knowledge and give access to new market channels is labeled open innovation. Even though the open innovation model is well known and widely spread, there is little research on open service innovation.

The aim of the thesis is to understand and describe how service innovations emerge and evolve in open innovation nets (groups) in industrial networks, and to follow the development from idea to a commercial service. The thesis describes organization for service innovations to emerge and develop in open service innovation nets. It also explains the actors involved and their different innovation roles in the development of service innovations in open service innovation nets.

The present research provide insights how the organization of the development work might differ between incremental and radical service innovation. It suggests that open service innovation can be a strategy not only for radical but also for incremental service innovation.

The thesis also present a new innovator role to add to existing research, The Constitutional Monarch. The Constitutional Monarch has a central position as third-party facilitator catalyzing the innovation process but has no decision power.

LICENTIATE THESIS | Karlstad University Studies | 2019:18

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

Business Administration


ISSN 1403-8099

ISBN 978-91-7867-035-2 (pdf)

ISBN 978-91-7867-030-7 (print)



Per Myhrén

Print: Universitetstryckeriet, Karlstad 2019

Distribution:Karlstad University Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesService Research CenterSE-651 88 Karlstad, Sweden+46 54 700 10 00

© The author

ISSN 1403-8099

urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-72018

Karlstad University Studies | 2019:18

LICENTIATE THESIS

Per Myhrén


WWW.KAU.SE

ISBN 978-91-7867-035-2 (pdf)

ISBN 978-91-7867-030-7 (print)

1

Abstract Constant development of new technologies in a rapidly changing and globalized world decreases product life cycles. Time-to-market is crucial for commercial suc-cess. This development requires resources to create new knowledge and skills within organizations and together in networks with other firms. Open innovation is an alternative for developing innovative products and services that takes ad-vantage of external knowledge and give access to new market channels. Although the service sector is vital for economic growth and fits well with the open innova-tion model, there is little research on open service innovation. The purpose of the thesis is to extend knowledge on how service innovations emerge and evolve in open service innovation nets in industrial networks. It also aims to follow the development from idea to a commercial service. The thesis de-scribes organization for service innovations to emerge and develop in open service innovation nets. It also explains the actors involved and their different innovator roles in the development from idea to commercial services. the present research provides insights how the organization of the development work might differ between incremental and radical service innovation. there is a range of organizing templates (archetypes) that fit different types of development work. Where previous research on open service innovation has focused on radical service innovation present research suggests that open service innovation also can be a strategy for incremental service innovation. Present research shows how actors take on multiple innovator roles in the innova-tion process of open service innovation. The more radical changes, the more roles each actor takes on. Present study adds a new innovator role to previous research, The Constitutional Monarch. The Constitutional Monarch has a central position in all archetypes, but as the name implies, has no decision power. The research also sheds light on how the hub firm deploys not one but a portfolio of network orches-tration processes dependent on the archetype used for open service innovation.

2

Acknowledgements Finally, this journey has come to an end. It started in late 2011 when I meet Jonas Berggren, former CEO of SSG – Standard Solutions Group AB. Thank you Jonas, I admired your visionary thoughts about SSG’s future and your gumption to bring new perspectives (me) into the organization. There is one person more than anybody who I’m so grateful to, my supervisor professor Lars Witell. Thank you so much for your dedication throughout this journey Lars. I also admire how you balanced between challenging my thoughts and at the same time supporting me when obstacles occurred along the way. Without you I wouldn’t been able to complete this work. I would also like to thank the co-authors of the papers, Maria Åkesson, Anders Gustafsson and Heiko Gebauer. Thank you KK-stiftelsen for the financial support of the VIPP, the industrial grad-uate school at Karlstad University. A good initiative to bring practitioners back to the academia to increase the knowledge in the regional industry. I also want to thank Paper Province for giving me the time to complete this the-sis. Annelie, Melker and Albin, my lovely family. Thank you for being part of my life!

3

Table of contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. 3

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 5

1.1. CONTEXT OF THE THESIS – A SERVICE FIRM IN THE SWEDISH PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY

..................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2. STUDY OBJECT OF THE THESIS – OPEN SERVICE INNOVATION ...................................... 8 1.3. PROBLEM FORMULATION .......................................................................................... 9

1.3.1. Organizing for open service innovation ........................................................ 10 1.3.2. Roles and tasks in open service innovation networks .................................. 10

1.4. PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ..................................................................... 11 1.5. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS .................................................................................... 11

Chapter 1 – Introduction ........................................................................................ 11 Chapter 2 – Theoretical framework ........................................................................ 12 Chapter 3 – Research design ................................................................................ 12 Chapter 4 – Summary of appended papers ........................................................... 12 Chapter 5 – Discussion .......................................................................................... 12 Chapter 6 – Contributions and further research ..................................................... 12

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................ 13

2.1. OPEN INNOVATION ................................................................................................. 13 2.2. SERVICE INNOVATION ............................................................................................. 14 2.3. OPEN SERVICE INNOVATION ...................................................................................... 15

2.3.1. The interactive coupled model of open service innovation ........................... 17 2.4. ROLES .................................................................................................................. 17

2.4.1. The role concept .......................................................................................... 17 2.4.2. Innovative actors’ roles in innovation nets and their knowledge provision ... 18

3. RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................................ 25

3.1. CASE STUDY APPROACH ......................................................................................... 25 3.2. DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................. 25 3.3. RESEARCH PROCESS ............................................................................................. 27 3.4. DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 28 3.5. TRUSTWORTHINESS - QUALITY/VALIDITY OF THE RESEARCH ...................................... 29

4. SUMMARY OF APPENDED PAPERS ...................................................................... 32

4.1. PAPER I: INCREMENTAL AND RADICAL OPEN SERVICE INNOVATION .............................. 32

4

4.2. PAPER II: CREATING THE PERFECT MATCH: ROLES AND ARCHETYPES OF OPEN SERVICE

INNOVATION ................................................................................................................. 34

5. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................ 36

5.1. FINAL REFLECTIONS ............................................................................................... 43

6. CONTRIBUTIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH ..................................................... 45

6.1. THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS ............................................................................... 45 6.1.1. Nets and network ......................................................................................... 45 6.1.2. A business model based on the management of nine open service innovation nets in an innovation network ............................................................... 46 6.1.3. Absorptive Capacity, Incremental and Radical Innovation ............................ 47

6.2. MANAGERIAL CONTRIBUTIONS................................................................................. 48 6.3. FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................................................................... 49

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 51

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................... 63

5

1. Introduction

In a rapidly changing and globalized world innovations are needed in a faster pace. Constant development of new technologies decreases product life cycles; therefore, time-to-market (from idea to commercial product/service) is crucial for commer-cial success (Syson and Perks, 2004). Due to a labor mobility increase, plentiful venture capital, and the wide dispersal of knowledge across public and private or-ganizations, firms can no longer rely on internal knowledge to gain competitive advantages (van de Vrande et al., 2009). This development requires resources to create new knowledge and skills within organizations and together in networks with other firms (Araujo and Spring, 2006) to decrease technological and market uncertainties (De Bresson and Amesse, 1991). Open innovation is an alternative for developing innovative products and services that takes advantage of external knowledge and give access to new market channels (Chesbrough, 2004). Open innovation transforms a closed, internally oriented de-velopment process of new products and services into an open, externally oriented one that enables innovations to move easily among organizations (Elmquist et al., 2009), and this change introduces new ways of organizing (Enkel et al., 2011). When manufacturing firms start working with open innovation activities, they of-ten continue with their traditional R&D practices, complemented by external sourcing of technologies throughout the product development process (West et al., 2014). Though customer involvement is key in new service development (NSD) (Alam, 2002; Magnusson et al., 2003; Witell et al., 2014), it is not the same as open innovation. Whereas the former focuses on the customer/the user, the latter fo-cuses on the firm (Vanhaverbekke and Cloodt, 2014). Existing evidence suggests that open service innovation has a higher degree of openness than open innovation for products, with a preference for informal over formal practices (Mina et al., 2014). Although the service sector plays a vital role in economic growth, and the interac-tive nature of business services fits well with the open innovation model, little re-search has been performed on open service innovation (Mina et al., 2014; Chesbrough and Bogers 2014). More than a decade of research on open innovation has resulted in many studies and extensive literature where the attention mostly

6

has been on idea sources and the management of technology transfers across or-ganizations in product innovation processes. The focus has been on earlier stages of the innovation process (R&D projects), with less attention on the roles of various actors and constellations of actors and knowledge flows during the commerciali-zation stage (Vanhaverbekke and Cloodt, 2006). Collaborations in networks with different actors are beneficial for firms (Hsueh et al., 2010; Faems et al., 2005; Koschatzky., 1999; Freytag and Young, 2014). They reduce the development time from idea to commercial service/product, reduce risks and costs, and create competitive advantages that are difficult to imitate (Syson and Perks, 2004; Pittaway et al., 2004; Rampersad et al., 2010). Innovation networks can be described as intentionally created constellations of different ac-tors (Kowalkowski et al., 2013), usually including individuals, organizations, firms, customers, consultants, and universities who deliberately work together to develop businesses. The innovation process within a network requires different resources and skills from idea generation to commercialization. (Aarikka-Stenroos and Sandberg, 2012). The flow of knowledge and skills provided by the involved actors shapes the creation of new ideas or novelty solutions to existing problems (Mu et al., 2008). The resulting service innovations and their degree of innovation depend on the design of the actor constellations, what actors to attract, their roles, and how well they complement one another (Vanhaverbekke and Cloodt, 2006; Åkesson, 2006). Although interactivity and the flow of knowledge play central roles in open inno-vation, there is very little research explicitly about actors’ roles and knowledge flows (Rese et al., 2013). Therefore, a deeper understanding of role constellations with different actors and the roles they are assigned and enact, including their tasks and knowledge contributions in open service innovation networks, is needed (Vanhaverbeke, 2006; West et al., 2006). Since the creation and management of constellations of actors and the resulting knowledge flow constitute innovation networks, theory on open innovation is well-suited to describe the development processes within this context. Previous re-search has mainly been focused on the organizational level, with less emphasis on open innovation grounded in constellations of different actors, often referred to as strategic alliances or innovation networks (Vanhaverbeke, 2006; Vanhaverbekke and Cloodt, 2014). Previous research has also mainly been focused on the earlier stages of the development, while there is scant knowledge about organization and

7

cooperation between firms in later stages of open innovation (Piller and West, 2014). Most studies on open innovation networks describe a central actor - an orchestra-tor who organizes for the “right” actors to be involved, facilitates activities, and coordinates the actions that take place. The orchestrator adopts governance modes (van den Vrande et al., 2006) to effectively run the network, usually with a great power position embedded. Much less research has been done on innovation net-works where the hub firm lacks power or where the central position is divided among multiple entities (Nambisan and Sawhney, 2011). The current thesis builds on empirical data from an innovator firm and its network partners.

1.1. Context of the thesis – A service firm in the Swedish pulp and paper industry

The empirical homestead for this thesis is the pulp and paper industry, which is currently experiencing a pronounced development. Digitalization has changed be-haviors, and less people use printed media in favor of the Internet and other digital platforms. Over the last 26 years, the structure of the pulp and paper industry has changed, with an approximate 43% decrease in the number of mills in Europe (CEPI Key statistics, 2017). Moreover, the number of employees in the European pulp and paper industry have decreased by 57% (CEPI Key statistics, 2017). Yet, production of pulp and paper remains on the same level as 10 years ago, indicating that pulp and paper mills are attempting to produce greater volumes using existing capital equipment and mills and that services have become key to improving their effectiveness and efficiency, including environmental responsibility. These dra-matic changes make the pulp and paper industry an interesting context for under-standing the development of service innovation within industrial open innovation networks. The case company, Standard Solutions Group, SSG (also labeled “innovator firm” in this thesis), is owned by six multinational pulp and paper companies that, in some markets, are fierce competitors. These companies have identified nine areas where they could collaborate through open service innovation: Delivery Contracts, Inventory Database, Structural Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Instrumental Engineering, Pipe Engineering, Surface Protection, and Safety. All but one of the areas have been up and running since the early 1970s.

8

The aim for the case company is to make industrial processes safer, more flexible, less time-consuming, and more cost-efficient.

1.2. Study object of the thesis – Open service innovation

This thesis will rely on the open innovation perspective to investigate nine nets for service innovation within an industrial network in the context of the Swedish pulp and paper industry. Networks can be described as borderless, self-organizing sys-tems, in its broadest sense not manageable for a single actor (Möller and Rajala, 2007; Heikkinen et al., 2007). Where nets have an intentional purpose with a de-liberate structure, negotiated roles, and agreed-upon goals (Möller and Rajala, 2007). The locus of this thesis is nine open service innovation nets, where the point of departure is a service firm that acts as a hub-/innovator firm (Nabisian and Sawhney, 2011) or an innovator intermediary (Howells, 2006), administrating and facilitating the nine nets. In this thesis I define open service innovation net as a well-defined, manageable sub-unit within an innovation network. The net is intentionally created and pur-posely manned with actors from different organizations with a stipulated goal to develop business services. The SSG development organization can be viewed as the platform for this thesis, whereas the nine open innovation nets are included in multiple case studies to in-vestigate how these nets are organized, what different functions and roles are needed for open service innovations to emerge and develop into new or refined commercial services. The case company organizes and facilitates the open service innovation nets and turns the suggested ideas and concepts into commercial services. As per Kindström and Kowalkowski’s (2009) model of the new service development (NSD) process for manufacturing firms, the open service innovation nets perform market sensing and development, while the innovator firm performs the sales and delivery stages. The pulp and paper industry also uses open service innovation. One of the partici-pants describes the practice thusly: “there is a policy that we should help each other in the industry, we like to cooperate.” Another participant continues: “we cooperate instead of doing everything ourselves.” And another states: “We are a larger play in Sweden, but Sweden is just a tiny dot on the world market. We need to cooperate to be competitive in the long run.” This attitude toward cooperation

9

could explain how open service innovation can be used to support the development of services that are not the core offerings for various actors in the industry. In par-ticular, open service innovation nets focus on services such as technical standards, guidelines, education, and business agreements. The business model built on service innovations, generated in open service inno-vation nets, and developed into commercial services within SSG is successful, with a continuing growth of 840% over the last 17 years.

1.3. Problem formulation

In little more than 10 years since the publication of the book Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (Chesbrough, 2003a), where the term “open innovation” was coined, this concept has developed into a research field with broad acceptance both in academia and among practi-tioners. A review of a decade of academic research on open innovation shows that the most prominent categories are management and business, but other areas such as engineering, geography, computer science, and chemistry are also represented (Chesbrough and Bogers, 2014). The same review reveals that the most popular topics on open innovation among the 20 most cited articles are innovation process, strategy, and product development. On a fundamental level, open innovation refers to the idea that knowledge for in-novation is widely spread across society (Hayek, 1945), and it is likely that most smart people work for someone else (Chesbrough, 2003b). Open innovation de-scribes a phenomenon where companies make use of external knowledge in their innovation processes but also share unused ideas and technologies for others to use (Chesbrough and Bogers, 2014). Inevitably, not all R&D activities within a firm result in commercialized outcomes for the investing firm. Due to a misfit with the business model, lack of resources, or limited ability to appropriate the value (Nel-son, 1959), the uncommercialized outcomes from R&D become spillovers. In open innovation, these spillovers are transformed into inflows and outflows of know-ledge between firms that can be purposely managed. Chesbrough and Bogers (2014, p. 17) define open innovation as

“a distributed innovation process based on purposively managed know-ledge flows across organizational boundaries, using pecuniary and non-pecuniary mechanisms in the line with the organization’s business model.”

10

1.3.1. Organizing for open service innovation NSD is a key process in service firms (Edvardsson and Olson, 1996; Johne and Storey, 1998), and its importance in manufacturing firms is increasing (Kindström and Kowalkowski, 2009). The interactive and relational nature of service provision suggests that the open innovation model may be particularly important for service innovation (Mina et al., 2014), as service innovations tend to rely on organizational and human capital factors to a larger extent than more tangible assets do (Gallouj and Savona, 2009; Sirilli and Evangelsita, 1998; Hipp and Group, 2005).

1.3.2. Roles and tasks in open service innovation networks Innovation in networks is not a new research phenomenon. DeBresson and Amesse (1991, p. 364) define innovation networks as

“loose, comparatively informal, implicit, decomposable and recombinative systems of interorganizational relationships with different time focus.” These innovation networks are also defined as “cooperative settings of three or more legally independent organizations that collaborate in one or more steps of the innovation cycle in order to develop and/or market their prod-ucts or services” (Landsperger and Spieth, 2011 p. 1211).

A transition from firm-centric to network-centric innovation with an objective of product/service development involving several actors from different organizations requires management or orchestration processes (Nabisian and Sawhney, 2008). These orchestrating actors have different tasks in the innovation process and are broadly named “intermediaries” (Howells, 2006). Earlier research on the roles of these actors has described them as third parties (Mantel and Rosegger, 1987), in-termediary firms (Stankiewicz, 1995), bridgers (Bessant and Rush, 1995; McEvily and Zaheer, 1999), brokers (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997; Provan and Human, 1999), information intermediaries (Popp, 2000), superstructure organizations (Lynn et al., 1996), agents (Nabisian and Sawhney, 2008), and hub firms (Nabisian and Sawhney, 2011). Howells (2006, p. 720) defines an innovation intermediary as

“An organization or body that acts as an agent or broker in any aspect of the innovation process between two or more parties [ ] helping to provide information about potential collaborators; brokering a transaction be-tween two or more parties; acting as a mediator, or go-between, bodies or organizations that are already collaborating; and helping find advice, funding and support for innovation outcomes of such collaborations.”

11

Their main roles and functions are to scan and gather information and facilitate communication and knowledge exchange (Dienar and Piller, 2010). They are vital actors with important roles in networked-based innovation processes. Although previous studies have described the roles of innovation intermediaries, the under-standing of its implementation in open innovation is limited (Sieg et al., 2010). Thus, more research is needed on roles and the nature of the relationships inter-mediaries are involved in with other supplementing actors (Howells, 2006).

1.4. Purpose and research questions

The purpose of the thesis is to extend knowledge on how service innovations emerge and evolve in open innovation nets in industrial networks. It also aims to follow the development from idea to a commercial service to determine what roles the different actors adopt. The purpose of the thesis can be divided into the follow-ing research questions.

RQ1: How can service firms organize the development of service innova-tions in open service innovation nets? RQ2: What are the different roles of actors and their functions for develop-ing service innovations in open service innovation nets?

Paper I addresses research question (1) and aims to improve the understanding of organization for service innovations to emerge and develop in open service inno-vation nets. Paper II addresses research question (2) and aims to improve the un-derstanding of the actors involved and their different innovation roles in the de-velopment of service innovations in open service innovation nets.

1.5. Structure of the thesis

Chapter 1 – Introduction In this chapter, a background of the current research is provided. Why service in-novation can enhance open innovation. The chapter is concluded with the purpose and research questions of the thesis.

12

Chapter 2 – Theoretical framework This chapter provides the theoretical foundation for the thesis. It combines previ-ous research on open innovation and service innovation with research on collabo-rative innovations in networks. Previous research on actors and their innovation roles in networks is also presented.

Chapter 3 – Research design This chapter describes the design and analysis of the empirical study as well as reflections on trustworthiness.

Chapter 4 – Summary of appended papers Chapter 4 presents the papers that this thesis is built on. Description on the inter-pretations of the data from the empirical study are provided, with an emphasis on the findings related to the research questions.

Chapter 5 – Discussion In this chapter, previous research is linked to the current work. A conceptual model on interactive collaborative innovations described in the theoretical framework is used with respect to the themes in the appended papers: organizing for open ser-vice innovation and actors and innovation roles in open service innovation.

Chapter 6 – Contributions and further research This chapter presents the theoretical and practical contributions and suggestions for further research.

13

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Open innovation

Innovation as a result of internal research and development is labeled the closed model of innovation (Chesbrough, 2003b), and this model is challenged by the success of open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003b). The increased importance of open innovation and growing interest among both researchers and practitioners are explained by shorter innovation cycles driven from enhanced new technology development and shorter product life cycles, industrial research, and develop-ment’s escalating costs and scarce resources (Gassmann and Enkel, 2004). Open innovation suggests an open system (West et al., 2014) and contradicts the tradi-tional model based on vertical integration (Chesbrough, 2006b). Exchanging tech-nologies, ideas, and information allow firms to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and management of risk in innovation processes and create business value (Walin and Von Krogh, 2010; Elmquist et al., 2009).

In that sense, open innovation overlaps with user innovation since both perspec-tives are built on a distributed innovation process. User innovation focuses on the will of (lead) users to freely share their innovations with firms or other users within different communities for the benefit of their own needs without a request or ex-pectation of compensation–this is a decentralized innovation process (von Hippel, 1986; Piller and West, 2014). In open innovation, the firm’s borders are evapo-rated, enabling knowledge to move in and out while maintaining the traditional view with the locus of production within the firm. At least three distinctions be-tween the perspectives can be observed: 1) Intellectual properties (IP): In open innovation, a strong emphasis on appropri-ability and IP enforcement is a prerequisite for success (Chesbrough, 2003c; West, 2006 in Piller and West, 2014). IP management functions not as a lock-up mech-anism but rather as a means of providing profits through technology licensing agreements (Chesbrough, 2003b). User innovation emphasizes a voluntary “sur-render” of the appropriability of innovations since the users benefit from their ideas being developed by companies or other actors as innovations in products or services (Harhoff et al., 2003; Henkel, 2006 in Piller and West, 2014). 2) Private or collective model of innovation: As a result of different approaches tointellectual property, there are two models of how innovations are funded, orga-nized, and controlled. Open innovation advocates the private model, where private control and the return of innovation relate to a private actor (firm), which is the economic incentive for investment and development. User innovation relates to

14

the collective model, which has a cooperative process among many actors who share the benefits (Piller and West, 2014). 3) Incentive for participation – money or social: In open innovation, the primaryincentive for sharing ideas and solutions is of a monetary nature. In user innova-tion, the primary incentive is of a non-monetary nature, such as enjoyment and task achievement (Terwisch and Xu, 2008; Jeppesen and Lakhani, 2010; Bou-dreau et al., 2011 in Piller and West, 2014).

2.2. Service innovation

Schumpeter (1934) argues that innovation is a driver of economic development. His broad definition of innovation is divided into five areas: 1) the introduction of a new good (product innovation); 2) the introduction of a new method of produc-tion (process innovation); 3) the opening of a new market (market innovation); 4) the conquest of a new source of raw materials or half-manufactured goods (input innovation); and 5) The carrying out of the new organization of any industry (or-ganizational innovation) (Schumpeter, 1934, p. 66). He also separates invention from innovation, as invention has no inherent value and must be introduced to the market and create considerable profit to become an innovation (Witell et al., 2015; Snyder et al., 2016). In this view, the customers value creation is intrinsic in the profits from the innovation (Snyder et al., 2016). With the thoughts from Schum-peter, Toivonen and Tuominen (2009, p. 893) defined service innovation as

“a new service or such a renewal of an existing service which is put into practice and which provides benefit to the organization that has developed it; the benefit usually derives from the added value that the renewal pro-vides the customers. In addition, to be an innovation the renewal must be new not only to its developer, but in a broader context.”

It should also demonstrate some generalizable feature(s) that can be repeated in new situations (Sundbo, 1997). Ostrom et al. (2010, p. 5) emphasis even more on the value creation, suggesting that service innovation creates value for customers, employees, business owners, alliance partners, and communities through new and/or improved service offerings, service processes, and service business models.

A well-used taxonomy in service research is presented by Coombs and Miles (2000), who describe three perspectives on service innovation: Assimilation – A perspective of service innovation suggesting that knowledge on product innovation holds for all types of offerings; Demarcation – A perspective of service innovation suggesting that innovation in service industries is unique and needs to be treated differently from other types of offerings; and Synthesis – A perspective of service

15

innovation suggesting that service as a perspective can be used to understand in-novation in all types of offerings (Witell et al., 2015, p. 8). Service innovation as a research field has expanded from a narrow focus on the service sector to service innovation as a perspective of innovation in all sectors (Ostrom et al., 2010; Carl-borg et al., 2014) (from Demarcation to Synthesis), including manufacturing (Coombs and Miles, 2000).

Service innovation can also be categorized by the type of innovation. Snyder et al. (2016) conclude that the degree of change in the offering is the most common foun-dation for categorizing service innovations. This includes the distinction between radical and incremental service innovation that is related to the degree of novelty and newness. Brown and Osbourne (2013) suggest that the novelty of a radical ser-vice innovation can include a new service, a new policy, a transformed process, or a new configuration of an existing service, where newness, according to Tidd et al. (2005), can be described as a radical innovation that is “new to the world” and where incremental innovation is “new to the firm.”

Consistent with Lusch and Nambisan (2015), De Vries (2006) suggest that service innovation tends to be recombinative or “architectural.” According to Gallouj and Weinstein (1997, p. 550) recombinative innovation “exploits the possibilities opened up by new combinations of various final and technical characteristics, de-rived from an established stock of knowledge, and a given technological base or existing within a defined technological trajectory.” Gremyr et al. (2010) indicate that most industrial services are based on recombinative innovation, suggesting that a wide range of competencies are needed (De Vries, 2006). In align with above service innovation is a new or improved offering/process/busi-ness model that is beneficial both for the developer and customers/users. The ben-efits is a result from the value creation in use of the offering/process/business model.

2.3. Open service innovation

In dynamic environments, managing service innovations refers to continuously re-designing and adapting new services to address emerging opportunities (Carlborg et al., 2014).

The openness of inviting and sharing with others, that is, the use of knowledge and participation of customers in the co-creation of value, should fit such a situation well (Chesbrough, 2011a). Ibid (2011a) emphasizes working closer with customers

16

to develop new services (Urban and von Hippel, 1988), to focus on the utility rather than the product (Alderson, 1957; Shostack, 1977; Grönroos, 1997; Vargo and Lusch, 2004), and to become embedded in the customer’s organization (Oliva and Kallenberg, 2003). Chesbrough (2011b) separates outside-in from inside-out openness in the service context. Outside-in openness refers to the knowledge a firm acquires externally to add to and enhance their service offerings and provide greater economies of scope for their customers. In inside-out openness, the firm leverages its own core processes to create greater economies of scale. Mina et al. (2014) suggest that the more complex the innovation, the more likely it is that a service provider will seek external knowledge. Higher project novelty lev-els in service development demand higher knowledge-sharing and communication intensity (Hsieh and Tidd, 2012). Firms that adopt open innovation reduce their boundaries with the surrounding environment, enabling innovations to move more easily between them (Chesbrough, 2003a; Gassmann and Enkel, 2004; Elmquist et al., 2009). Three alternatives can be used for dealing with the core processes of open innovation: (1) outside-in process, (2) inside-out process, and (3) coupled process (Gassmann and Enkel, 2004). The outside-in process de-scribes firms that cooperate with customers and suppliers to gain and integrate external knowledge via listening posts at innovation clusters, applying innovation across industries, buying intellectual property, and investing globally (Gassmann and Enkel, 2004). Firms choosing the inside-out process focus on externalizing the firm’s knowledge and ideas to decrease the time-to-market compared to internal development, including activities such as profiting from licensing IP and/or mul-tiplying technology by transferring ideas to other firms (Gassmann and Enkel, 2004). A combination of the two is called the coupled process (Piller and West, 2014). To manage both processes, firms need to cooperate in strategic networks (Gassmann and Enkel, 2004). Such cooperation is often characterized by profound interac-tions among partners over a longer period, resulting in an improved competitive position and risk minimization (Gassmann and Enkel, 2004). This cooperation for knowledge development refers to relations with 1) external actors, such as compet-itors, suppliers, customer associations, joint ventures, alliances, universities, and research institutes; 2) the identification of typology, that is, the relationship to the external actors, such as dyadic or network collaborations; 3) the direction of the impetus for collaboration, whether initiated from management or from employees or customers; and 4) the locus of the innovation process, that is, the bidirectional

17

process in which the innovation process takes place separately in different organi-zations with shared knowledge as a result of interactive collaboration, where knowledge is co-created outside a particular firm in collaborative activities where all parties are involved (Piller and West, 2014).

2.3.1. The interactive coupled model of open service innovation The relational nature of service supports a model for open service innovation based on interactive collaboration (Mina et al., 2014). Piller and West (2014) further de-velop interactive collaboration in coupled open innovation by dividing it into four stages: (1) defining the task, where the organization provides a description of the rules of the cooperation, contracts, agreements, and strategies of how to control IP rights and secure the organizations involved to allocate a sustainable base of re-sources for this process; (2) finding participants; the identification of participants who have the skills and interest to participate and understand the nature of the participants and their involvement and expertise in a certain field; (3) collaborat-ing; how firms collaborate with external partners for knowledge and benefit ex-change; and (4) exploiting; how an organization should integrate the knowledge and how to commercialize the innovations. In the Discussion chapter of this thesis, the interactive coupled model of open ser-vice innovation will be used to synthesize the appended papers.

2.4. Roles

In open service innovation, several actors are involved. An understanding of the different roles of these actors can be used to explain how they interact, collaborate, and work together to acquire knowledge exchange (Herrmann et al., 2004). This research relies on the symbolic interactions view of roles (Mead, 1934), which as-sumes that society is composed of interactions and these interactions develop roles structure. The roles are formed on the subjective will of the actors (Herrmann et al., 2004).

2.4.1. The role concept A role can be divided into four different characteristics. The Position describes a role in relation to other positions in a social system. The Function/Task describes the documented expectations, rights, and obligations that come with the role (e.g., job descriptions and task assignment). The Behavior/Expectations describe the

18

informal notions and agreements on how to behave. The Social Interaction de-scribes the implicit expectations of how role actors can form their role as a result of negotiations with other actors in a social system where the role expectations transform into concrete behavior (Herrmann et al., 2004).

2.4.2. Innovative actors’ roles in innovation nets and their knowledge provi-sion In an open innovation network, several tasks are performed by actors from within and without the firm. To ensure these processes run smoothly, the objectives of the network and who to perform the different tasks to meet these objectives should be clear. Different actors provide different knowledge in the innovation process. A re-view of previous research describes many actors’ roles in innovation processes (product/service/open innovation), see table 1, Literature review. Author Context Innovator roles Knowledge provision Allen, 1970; Tush-man and Katz, 1980

Product innovation

Gatekeeper Translate external knowledge to enhance sub-unit performance

Schon, 1963; Howell and Higgins, 1990; Howell et al., 2005

Product innovation

Champion Communication knowledge to provide information and enthuse others of an innovation and attract the right people to get together

Witte, 1977; Gemuden et al., 2007

Product innovation

Power promoter Process knowledge of how to run projects, provide resources, and overcome obstacles

Witte, 1977; Gemuden et al., 2007

Product innovation

Expert promoter Specific technical knowledge for the innovation process

Hausschildt and Chakra-barti, 1988; Gemuden et al., 2007

Product innovation

Process promoter Resource knowledge of how to bring different people together for the innovation process

Gemuden et al., 2007 Product innovation

Technology-related relationship pro-moter

Relationship knowledge with external collaboration partners (technical cooperation)


Marked-related re-lationship pro-moter

Relationship knowledge related to market know-how (customer demands)

19


Project manager Knowledge of how to plan, control, cooperate, and run/manage innovative projects

Heikkinen et al., 2007 Service innovation Webber Knowledge on what actors to engage for development process

Heikkinen et al., 2007 Service innovation Instigator Supportive knowledge to encourage actors to take on new tasks in a development process if needed

Heikkinen et al., 2007 Service innovation Gatekeeper Technology and resource know-ledge and power to make decisions on net level in a development process

Heikkinen et al., 2007 Service innovation Advocate Communication knowledge to distribute information about the innovation to actors outside the development group

Heikkinen et al., 2007 Service innovation Producer Specific knowledge for the development process

Heikkinen et al., 2007 Service innovation Planner Provide specific knowledge to the development process (intangible resources)

Heikkinen et al., 2007 Service innovation Entrant Knowledge on the protec-tion of its own rights and ownership that intervenes in the development process

Heikkinen et al., 2007 Service innovation Auxiliary A contributor of specific incremental knowledge during later stages of the development process

Heikkinen et al., 2007 Service innovation Facilitator Resource knowledge without intervening in the development process

Heikkinen et al., 2007 Service innovation Compromiser Relationship knowledge to avoid contradictions or conflicts

Heikkinen et al., 2007 Service innovation Aspirant Specific knowledge from an outsider, not always welcome among other members to be part of development process

20

Heikkinen et al., 2007 Service innovation Accessory provider Specific knowledge related to promoting their own products, services, and/or expertise within the development process

Nambisan and Sawhney, 2008

Open innovation Architect Resource knowledge of how to design the innovation network and process knowledge to build struc-ture and co-herence in the activities, which envisions and directs the innovations


Open innovation Adapter Provides specialized knowledge in the development process


Open innovation Agent Relationship knowledge to mediate interactions and a knowledge provider about the innovations to different actors

Nyström et al., 2014 Open innovation Coordinator An organization or individual with relationship knowledge to coordinate a network

Nyström et al., 2014 Open innovation Builder Knowledge of how to estab-lish and promote relation-ships among participants

Nyström et al., 2014 Open innovation Messenger Communication knowledge, forwards and disseminates information in the network, does not join the innovation development

Nyström et al., 2014 Open innovation Facilitator Coaching knowledge to di-rect participants in a certain direction and help actors to reach desired goals

Nyström et al., 2014 Open innovation Orchestrator Leadership knowledge to orchestrate the whole network

Nyström et al., 2014 Open innovation Integrator Coordination knowledge of how to integrate heteroge-neous know-ledge, ideas, and technologies

21

Nyström et al., 2014 Open innovation Informant Bring users’ knowledge into the development process on prototypes in a closed laboratory environment

Nyström et al., 2014 Open innovation Tester Provide user knowledge of the innovation from real-life environment

Nyström et al., 2014 Open innovation Contributor Innovation-related user knowledge

Nyström et al., 2014 Open innovation Co-creator Specific knowledge (user) when co-designing with the firms’ R&D teams

Mantel and Rosegger, 1987

Product innovation

Third parties Knowledge on decision making, resources, technology, and evaluation

Stankiewicz, 1995 Product innovation

Intermediary firms

Translate external available know -ledge into standard solutions to the needs of individual users

Bessant and Rush, 1995; McEvily and Za-heer, 1999

Product/service innovation

Bridgers Relationship knowledge, act as connectors between subclusters

Hargadon and Sutton, 1997; Provan and Hu-man, 1999; Winch and Courtney, 2007

Product innovation

Brokers Market knowledge on actors in various industries as a base for knowledge provision of existing tech-nological solutions

Lynn et al., 1996 Product/service innovation

Superstructure organizations

Coordination knowledge for provision of collective goods to their members

Howells, 2006 Product/service innovation

Intermediaries Knowledge on resources, coordination, collaboration, and market opportunities for the innovation outcomes


Product innovation

Hub firm Resource knowledge to de-fine the basic architecture for the core innovation and relationship knowledge to attract network members for the design and development

Table 1: Literature review on Innovator actors’ roles in innovation networks and their know-ledge provision

22

Some of these studies overlap and can be condensed into seven groups of innovator actor roles regarding the type of knowledge the actors provide, see the overview below. The names of the roles are chosen as representative of the seven groups.

Roles: Their descriptions and references The Gatekeeper - Translation, information, and communication The knowledge provision from this group of innovator actors concerns the ability to collect and interpret external knowledge to convince the potential of an idea, provide energy, and enthuse the participants to enhance the network’s performance. Gatekeeper (Allen, 1970; Tushman and Katz, 1980), Champion (Schon, 1963; Howell and Hig-gins, 1990; Howell et al., 2005), and Intermediary firms (Stankiewicz, 1995), but also, the abil-ity to communicate about the innovation process to external actors outside the network. Advo-cate (Heikkinen et al., 2007). The Orchestrator - Task master, leadership/management, resource allocation, and recruitment Actors in this group are task masters. They have technological knowledge to identify and artic-ulate problems of interest for further development, knowledge of what resources the develop-ment requires, and knowledge of how to set the agenda and design the innovation network. The Orchestrator has leadership knowledge; they act as an example through their own operations as a trigger and catalyzer to encourage others to follow. They build structure and coherence in the activities by envisioning and directing the innovations, have the power to overcome obsta-cles/barriers, and have the power to make decisions. The Orchestrator also provides a nurturing environment to make the network flourish and coaches, supports, and encourages the partici-pants to reach a desired goal. Orchestrator (Nyström et al., 2014), Champion (Schon, 1963; Howell and Higgins, 1990; How-ell et al., 2005), Power promoter (Witte, 1977; Gemuden et al., 2007), Process promoter (Hauss-childt and Chakrabarti, 1988; Gemuden et al., 2007), Project manager (Gemuden et al., 2007), Webber (Heikkinen et al., 2007), Gatekeeper (Heikkinen et al., 2007), Instigator (Heikkinen et al., 2007), Architect (Nambisan and Sawhney, 2008), Facilitator (Nyström et al., 2014), Inter-mediary (Howells, 2006), and Hub firm (Nambisan and Sawhney, 2011). The Producer - Specific technological, market, or user knowledge (for the devel-opment process) This group has a more remote position in the network but is nevertheless important since they contribute a significant amount of time, work, and other resources. In particular, this group of actors is built on the provision of a different kind of specific technical or highly specialized knowledge in different stages of the development process. Producer (Heikkinen et al., 2007), Expert promoter (Witte, 1977; Gemuden et al., 2007), Plan-ner (Heikkinen et al., 2007), Auxiliary (Heikkinen et al., 2007), and Adapter (Nambisan and Sawhney, 2008), but they can also provide insights on user knowledge as an Informant (Nys-tröm et al., 2014), Tester (Nyström et al., 2014), Contributor (Nyström et al., 2014), Co-creator

23

(Nyström et al., 2014), or important market knowledge for the commercialization stage as Bro-kers (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997; Provan and Human, 1999) and Intermediaries (Howells, 2006). The Bridger - Relationship knowledge The knowledge provision from this group of actors focuses on relationships. They balance the actions in the network to establish and promote the emergence of relationships among partici-pants as an Agent (Nambisan and Sawhney 2008), Builder (Nyström et al., 2014), or relation-ship knowledge to establish collaborations and mediate interactions as Bridgers (Bessant and Rush, 1995; McEvily and Zaheer, 1999), Intermediaries (Howells, 2006), and Hub firms (Nam-bisan and Sawhney, 2011), and promote the innovation project to external partners either from a technical-/technology-related relationship promoter (Gemuden et al., 2007) or market know-how perspective as a market-related relationship promoter (Gemuden et al., 2007). The Compromiser - Relationship knowledge (building coherence to avoid con-tradictions and conflicts) The knowledge provision from this group focuses on relationships. It has similarities to the Bridger but with an emphasis on building coherence among the participants to avoid contra-dictions and conflicts. Compromiser (Heikkinen et al., 2007). The Integrator - Coordination knowledge This group of actors identified from the literature review involved in innovation networks are those with coordination knowledge who have the ability to provide, facilitate, and coordinate the flow of heterogeneous competence, developing technologies and bringing different ideas together. Integrator (Nyström et al., 2014) and Superstructure organization (Lynn et al., 1996). The Messenger – Passive coordination knowledge The last group of actors is engaged from outside the innovation network to communicate spe-cific knowledge important for the group. They collect external ideas and distribute them to the participants in the network. They want to but are not allowed to be part of the development process. Messenger (Nyström et al., 2014) and Aspirant (Heikkinen et al., 2007).

Table 2: An overview of different roles condensed from literature review The knowledge providers can represent more than one actor role. The Gatekeeper interprets external information, assimilates, and translates it before diffusion to the network (Allen, 1970; Tushman and Katz, 1980). The Orchestrator uses know-ledge and experience to evaluate and decide how to problematize and use the re-ceived information. The Orchestrator knows what network design is best and has the power to execute the preparation of an innovation project (Nambisan and

24

Sawhney, 2008). With information from the Gatekeeper and the Orchestrator, the Integrator knows what competencies to look for and suitable personal resources and developers/performers to engage. In the development stage, a development team of Producers is formed. The Producers are recruited for their specific or spe-cialized knowledge necessary for the development process (Heikkinen et al., 2007). They use the prerequisites from the Orchestrator as input values for their work. During the process, there is an ongoing flow of knowledge from the Gatekeeper, the Integrator, and the Orchestrator to fertilize the development process. In this stage, additional actors are included, the Bridger and the Compromiser. The Bridger coordinates the knowledge flows among the involved actors to foster the development of the innovation but also provides knowledge about the project to external partners. The Compromiser is responsible for ensuring the innovation project is coherent among the participants to avoid contradictions and conflicts. This ends the theoretical framework. Next follows a methodological presentation of our empirical study of nine open service innovation nets.

25

3. Research design

3.1. Case study approach

Based on the purpose of the thesis to examine how service innovations emerge and evolve in open service innovation nets within an industrial network, a qualitative case study approach was chosen. Since the author wants to obtain new knowledge on a phenomenon in a real-life context and build a conceptualization of open ser-vice innovation, a case study approach is suitable (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2014). Yin (2014, p. 16) defines a case study as:

“an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the “case”) in depth and within its real-world context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident.”

The case is the “heart” of the study, the unit of analysis, and a somewhat imprecise boundary defines the demarcation of what to investigate (Miles et al., 2014). In the current study, a network of nine open service innovation nets hosted by a service firm was identified. The service firm can be used as the platform, whereas the nine open service innovation nets are individual cases in a multiple-case design; i.e., the open service innovation nets are the “heart” and the firm is the “boundary.” At the time of study, the author was employed at the innovator firm with full access to the open service innovation nets including interviews, observations, and inter-nal documentation. This enabled access to data that normally is not available to researchers. Due to this a study conducted at one firm is deemed suitable, rather than a multi-setting, comparative study. For each open service innovation net (case), a nested sampling design was used. Representatives from each net were selected to get credible comparisons between the member in each subgroup (net) to describe each case (Miles et al., 2014; Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2007). When choosing this sampling design, the selec-tion of each key informant is crucial, since they generate a significant part of the data (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2007).

3.2. Data collection

The empirical study was comprised of three phases. Phase 1: Seven in-depth interviews were conducted with project managers at the innovator firm that coordinated the open service innovation nets. The in-depth in-terviews followed a semi-structured interview protocol (see appendix). The inter-

26

viewees reflected on the nets’ service innovations. They were asked about the dis-cussion climate for ideas to emerge, idea generation, idea management, and how to set up the innovation nets to include the right skills and knowledge. They were also asked about the different roles of the participants, including themselves, throughout the development process. With the knowledge acquired from the inter-views, the project managers were asked to choose representative key informants from each case (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2007) with adequate knowledge and ex-perience about their net and how it performs. Phase 2: During 20 site visits to 13 Swedish companies, the author performed 38 in-depth interviews with participants with different roles and perspectives on the open service innovation nets (33 senior participants from the pulp and paper in-dustry, one senior participant from the steel industry, one paint manufacturer, one surface protection inspector, and two technical consultants) (see table 3 Data col-lection).

Data collection Interview in-novator firm representa-tive

Interview partic-ipants

Observations (video + notes)

Observations (notes)

Delivery Contract (DC)

1 4 1 -

Inventory Database (IB)

1 4 1 -

Mechanical Engin- eering (ME)

1 4 1 -

Instrument Engin-eering (IE)

1* 4 - -

Electrical Engin-eering (EE)

1* 5 - -

Pipe Engineering (PE)

1 4 1 -

Structural Engin-eering SE)

1** 4 - -

Surface Protection (SP)

1** 5 - 1

Safety (S) 1 4 - 1 Table 3: Data collection - Compilation of interviews and observations. *One interview with in-novator firm representative for IE and EE (same person in both teams), ** One interview with innovator firm representative for SE and SP (same person in both teams)

27

The in-depth interviews followed the same semi-structured interview protocol as phase 1, with minor modifications of the questions to suit the target group. The interviews lasted 50 to 90 minutes and were recorded. An individual not involved in the research team transcribed the interviews (phases 1 and 2) verbatim, result-ing in 689 pages of written text. Secondary sources were also used to increase the understanding of the open service innovation nets, such as historical documenta-tion on the development of the open service innovation nets, strategy documents of the innovator firm and open service innovation nets, and web page information. Because the author was employed at the innovator firm during the period of study, further information was accumulated over time. This resulted in profound know-ledge of the study object. The publicly accessible information and internal docu-ments combined with the data gathered through the interviews offered opportuni-ties for data source triangulation (Miles et al., 2014; Yin, 2014). Phase 3: Six open service innovation net meetings were observed to obtain a third perspective (the researcher) on the innovation process and to understand how open service innovation functions in practice. After the first observation of the Safety (S) net, a decision was made to use a video camera to record the meetings. Before the observations, the participants were informed by the innovator firm rep-resentative about the observer and the video camera to obtain approval. In Surface Protection (SP), one participant did not approve of video recording, resulting in only notes taken. The 45 (7+38) in-depth interviews and six observations were con-ducted by the author.

3.3. Research process

In 2012, I entered the VIPP (Values created In fibre-based Processes and Products) graduate school at Karlstad university as an industrial PhD candidate employed by SSG, the case company in the study for this thesis. Because they financed my stud-ies, they also had an idea of what my research could/should contribute to further-ing the development of the company. This circumstance guided and directed me toward the purpose of the thesis. Except for this I was free to set up the research questions to design my research studies. The focus was originally on nine innova-tion groups (later to become the open service innovation nets) and their work. The research began with a literature review on service innovation in manufacturing firms and industrial networks. This was also the starting point for an iterative pro-cess between theory and practice. I initially focused on servitization toward cus-tomer-driven NSD and service innovation, which was my point of departure once the data collection in the empirical study began. With the empirical findings, my

28

knowledge on the study object increased when I went through the three phases of the data collection in sequential order 1 to 3, and every phase added a new perspec-tive. The knowledge also expanded when I could relate more relevant theories from the existing literature to the study object - what Dubois and Gadde (2002) referred to as systematic combining. This iterative process evolved the research framing, so by the end of the empirical study and beginning of the interpretation of the inter-views, it became clear that something other than customer-driven NSD needed to be analyzed. Thus, I inquired as to whether open innovation can be used as a the-oretical perspective to explain how service innovation emerge and evolve in indus-trial networks.

3.4. Data analysis

The thorough procedure in the three-phase data collection, the selection of key in-formants, and multiple sources of information provided the analysis phase of the research process with a “thick description” of the cases (Geertz, 1973).The tran-scribed interviews were inductively coded in QSR NVivo 10 with a mixture of in vivo and descriptive coding (Miles et al., 2014) for each case (open service innova-tion net) and for the innovator firm-representative categories individually. Analysis Paper (I). The next step of data interpretation was the within-case analysis (Yin, 2014; Miles et al., 2014). The nine cases were separately scrutinized to be intimately understood (Eisenhardt, 1989) and to explain each net in the search for data patterns and category construction. In addition, the author used memos, notes from the interviews, and information from secondary sources. Dis-plays and tables were also built to support this work. It was an iterative process between the author and the members of the research team (co-authors of the pa-pers) to test the findings’ credibility (Hirschman, 1986). The same logic was repli-cated in all nine cases (Yin, 2014). The research process continued with a cross-case analysis (Yin, 2014; Miles et al., 2014). The nine cases were matched for in-group similarities with cross-case dif-ferences (Eisenhardt, 1989) and cross-case similarities. Three critical dimensions were found: Competence, Ties, and Organization of development. These were then contrasted and ordered in a set of tables, displays, matrices, and typologies (Miles et al., 2014), which resulted in pairing and clustering three archetypes: Internal Group Development, Satellite Team Development, and Rocket Team Develop-ment. The innovator firm representatives were also repeatedly contacted in this process to confirm the findings and assure internal validity.

29

Analysis Paper (II). Since the empirical study aimed to cover the whole inno-vation process and the different actors involved from idea generation to commer-cialization for the nine cases, only some of the findings were used for Paper (I). As more empirical data and current literature were uncovered during the produc-tion of Paper (I), embryotic thoughts with points of departure in the coded and categorized data started to develop for Paper (II). Support from role theory with characteristics from the role concept (Hermann et al., 2004) were used to catego-rize the coding in a within-case analysis to understand the actors’ involvement in the innovation process in each case. Next, the three developed archetypes in Paper (I) (Internal Group Development, Satellite Team Development, and Rocket Team Development) were used to compare, match, contrast, and categorize the nine cases in a cross-case synthesis. To understand the role constellations with actors, their roles, and knowledge provision going from idea generation to commerciali-zation in open service innovation, the innovator firm was revisited several times during the analysis process to confirm the findings.

3.5. Trustworthiness - Quality/validity of the research

When attending a graduate school as a PhD student, you learn how to become a researcher. The mental journey along the way is a learning curve (Miles et al., 2014), and new knowledge is acquired in PhD-courses and tested in your research project. During this process, I have held a continuously ongoing, open-hearted di-alogue about the research with my supervisor, who has supported and challenged me all the way. He has also been a co-author to the appended papers, where he has guided me into the craft of how to write papers. Therefore, in a subjective reflection of the quality of the research, I feel confident. A decision that may have affected the results of my research is the exclusion of all research performed by Ulrich Lichtentahler due to at least 12 confirmed cases of research misconduct (West, 2012). As a result, some nuances may be missed in the results and conclusions of my research. However, I am of a strong belief that this has a very marginalized impact on the outcomes of this thesis, and I feel good knowing that I did not use or give credit to a “doped” researcher. To objectively scrutinize the presented research in this thesis, the trustworthiness can be evaluated by four criteria: confirmability, dependability, credibility, and transferability (Lincoln and Cuba, 1985; Miles et al., 2014).

30

Conformability addresses the decisions made in the research process. An honest description of any biases that might have been caused by the researcher should be provided, and the data should be retained and available for a reanalysis by others (Miles et al., 2014). As mentioned, previously, during data collection, I was em-ployed at the study object with a unique insight into the network of innovation nets. Although I did not have a close relationship with the respondents, it was cer-tainly easier to gain acceptance for the in-depth interviews, access the innovation nets, and participate in and record group meetings. However, this might have some disadvantages. The project managers (Innovation Firm Representatives [IFR]) at the innovator firm were my colleagues. Did they answer honestly on all the ques-tions, or did they hide information? They were also asked to select relevant candi-dates from the innovation nets who could give a justice description of each group. Did they do so, or did they pick candidates more favorable for them? Was it a dis-advantage for me to be a colleague of the IFRs when conducting interviews with participants in the innovation nets since some of the questions concerned the IFRs acting in the nets? To prevent/minimize this occurrence, I gave clear instructions about anonymity in advance of every interview. No employee (my colleagues) at the innovator firm had access to any of the collected data. Since I was also an ob-server in group meetings, it was possible for me to check for any biases in the in-terviews, but I did not spot any. Rather, it strengthened my perceptions of the in-terviews Dependability relates to how well the research process is documented and requires an explicit description of the chosen methods and procedures of the data collection and analysis (Lincoln and Cuba, 1985). It was decided to collect data from multi-fold data sources, including project managers (IFR), chairmen/senior participants, and specialists. In addition, the researcher offered a first-person opinion as an ob-server at the meetings to ensure full coverage of the study object. Memos were re-peatedly used to collect thoughts and improve the analysis. Parts of this thesis (Pa-per I) have been published in a peer review journal; thus, an external examination of the research was conducted. Furthermore, parts of the collected data were used as working material in PhD courses and were thereby peer reviewed by senior re-search colleagues. Credibility is about the confidence in the findings and ensuring that the findings make sense (Miles et al., 2014). In the study, all 45 interviews were conducted by the author, which resulted in a deep and thorough understanding of the context.

31

The interviews were performed in a one-to-one setting in separate, relaxed spaces at the interviewees’ workplace. The interview protocol was continuously fine-tuned after each interview to prevent loss of nuances until no further changes were re-quired. In addition to the three perspectives collected in the interviews (IFRs, chairmen/senior participants, and specialists), the author also observed group meetings to confirm the information collected in the interviews and to add further information. The procedures regarding data collection with a triangulation of dif-ferent actors and their perceptions (including the researcher’s) of the innovation processes ensured a “thick” and context-rich description of the case (Geertz, 1973). All interviews were transcribed by one person (external, outside the research team). In the data analysis, the author revisited the audio files when necessary to clarify uncertainties in the transcriptions. The author also repeatedly consulted the project managers (colleagues) to straighten out ambiguities. Most of the data anal-ysis was conducted by myself with support from my supervisor and the co-authors of the papers, who questioned and challenged my thoughts. Transferability deals with how well findings from a study are transferable to other studies in other contexts. Lincoln and Cuba (1985) suggest that the person who wants to use the results decides if it fits and can be transferred to other contexts. A goal of this thesis was to be as transparent as possible when describing the research process. In Paper I, we provide suggestions of how the results can be used in other contexts to further develop the research field.

32

4. Summary of appended papers

This chapter summarizes the two papers that is the foundation of this thesis. Paper I addresses research question (1): How can service firms organize the development of service innovation in open service innovation nets? The paper has passed through a more than three-year peer review process before publication in the Jour-nal of Services Marketing. During this process, several adjustments were made ac-cording to the reviewer’s recommendations. The concepts are presented to align with the scope of the journal, and some concepts may differ slightly from the ter-minology used in the framework of the thesis. In paper I the author alone did the data collection and the initial analyses. Author 1 and 2 contributed equally in the writing of the paper. Author 3 and 4 mainly contributed with suggestions for the theory. Paper II addresses research question (2): What are the different roles of actors and their functions for developing service innovation in open innovation nets? This manuscript is a chapter in the book Service innovation for sustainable business. This paper is not peer reviewed, and the concepts used in the chapter are the same as for the thesis. Paper II is built on the same data as in paper I. The author alone did initial analyses before author 2 and 3 joined the process. Author 1 and 2 con-tributed equally in the writing of the paper. Author 3 contribute with suggestions and writing in the theory part of the paper, especially on roles and roles constella-tions.

4.1. Paper I: Incremental and radical open service innovation

Authors Myhren, P., Witell, L., Gustafsson, A., & Gebauer, H. (2018). Incremental and radical open service innovation. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(2), 101-112. The purpose of this paper is to identify and describe relevant archetypes of open service innovation. It uses open innovation as a point of departure to describe ser-vice innovation in an industrial network. More specifically, nine innovation groups were investigated to understand how to organize for open service innovation. The study was based on a nested case study. An innovator firm with nine open service innovation nets was used. 45 interviews with participants from all nine groups were performed. Within-case and cross-case analyses were performed to explore the similarities and differences between the open service innovation

33

groups. Based on the analyses, three platforms/archetypes for organizing open ser-vice innovation were identified: Internal Group Development, Satellite Team De-velopment, and Rocket Team Development. Each archetype was built on three di-mensions: competence, ties among the participants, and organization of the devel-opment. Archetypes 1 and 2 are preferably used for incremental innovation, while archetype 3 is recommended for radical innovation.

Figure 1: Archetypes of open service innovation (Myhren et.al., 2018, p. 106) The main contributions of the paper are three suggestions for organizing for open service innovation, as the paper also shed light on later phases of the innovation process (market introduction and commercialization). The paper also presents how a firm can deliberately organize for both incremental and radical innovation simultaneously.

34

4.2. Paper II: Creating the perfect match: Roles and archetypes of open ser-vice innovation

Authors Myhrén, P., Witell, L., Åkesson, M. (2018) Creating the perfect match: Roles and archetypes of open service innovation. Kristensson, P., Magnusson, P., Witell, P. (Eds.) Service innovation for sustainable business, ch. 8, pp. 133-160, World Scientific. This book chapter builds on the archetypes in Paper I when identifying the roles of actors in role constellations and illustrates how the roles influence knowledge pro-vision in the innovation process from idea generation to commercialization in open service innovation. The data from Paper I were used. With support from role the-ory deductive coding (Miles et al., 2014), a within-case analysis for each group and a cross-case analysis using the three archetypes for open service innovation were performed. With characteristics from the role concept (Hermann et al., 2004), each identified actor was compared to the actor’s position, task, behavior, and so-cial interaction to single out their innovator roles in the innovation process. The findings of this paper deepen the understanding of how to organize for open service innovation and illustrate that the more complex the innovation process is, the more innovation roles each actor enacts. The main contribution is the description of an innovator firm with a central posi-tion as the organizer of an open service innovation network. What differs the most from previous research is the fact that the innovator firm lacks decision power in the idea generation and development phases. It is a deliberate, long-lasting, and prosperous strategy from the innovator firm. This can be explained by the value creation from the collaborative innovation processes. Value is created for individ-ual participants due to increased knowledge from access to the collective knowledge in the innovation groups. Value is created for the participants’ organi-zations, since the outcomes from the open service innovation, such as new service solutions, are less costly than an internal, closed-development process in each par-ticipating organization. And finally, value is also created for the innovator firm in terms of revenues. From the discussion above, a new innovator role can be identified. - the Constitu-tional Monarch - which can be described as a performer with relational skills to promote and market the net externally and who is responsible for information

35

transfer to and from the net, actively participates in the organization and admin-istration of activities, and is largely involved in the coordination and facilitation of the actors in the net. However, when it comes to decision making, the Constitu-tional Monarch has no power due to the constitution of the network.

36

5. Discussion

This chapter synthesizes the appended papers in the thesis. Paper I illustrates how a service firm facilitates an open service innovation network comprised of nine in-novation groups. The firm has a deliberate strategy of organizing the innovation groups differently to manage both incremental and radical open service innova-tion. The innovation groups within the network are grouped and divided into three archetypes: Internal Group Development, Satellite Team Development, and Rocket Team Development; the first two focus on incremental innovation, and the third focuses on radical innovation. Each archetype is comprised of innovation groups with respect to the participants’ educational background, the ties between them, and how the development work is accomplished. The locus of Paper II is the same innovation network as described in Paper I. In Paper II, the focus is on the actors in the innovation groups and what innovator roles they take in the different phases of the innovation process. The same arche-type templates are used as mentioned above. Each innovation group has a basic set of actors: chairmen, senior participants, and IFRs. The innovation groups also have complementary actors such as specialists, external experts, and/or develop-ers. To synthesize the papers, the model described in section 2.3.1 based on interactive collaboration in coupled open innovation processes (Piller and West, 2014) is used.

Figure 2: Interactive coupled open innovation

37

Coupled open innovation is the management of the combination of outside-in pro-cesses (external knowledge used for innovation inside the company) and inside-out processes (innovations exploited outside the company), figure 2. The emphasis is on organizing for open service innovation and what roles the in-volved actors enact in the co-creation of interactive coupled open innovation from idea generation to commercialization. The interactive innovation processes occur outside the firms’ boundaries on neutral ground divided into four stages: defining the task, finding participants, collaboration, and exploiting the results. Table 4.1 and 4.2 illustrate the synthetization of Papers I and II in the interactive collabora-tion in the coupled open innovation model as described below.

38

Org

aniz

ing

Pro

cess

sta

ges

Key

Act

ivit

ies

Incr

emen

tal

Rad

ical

D

efin

ing

the

task

Pr

oble

m fo

rmul

atio

n R

ules

, con

trac

ts, I

P R

esou

rce

allo

catio

n

Foun

datio

n of

the

inno

vatio

n ar

ena:

C

ode

of c

ondu

ct

Agr

eem

ent w

ith r

ules

of p

artic

ipa-

tion

Foun

datio

n of

the

inno

vatio

n ar

ena:

C

ode

of c

ondu

ct

Agr

eem

ent w

ith r

ules

of p

artic

ipat

ion

Fin

din

g

part

icip

ants

R

ight

cha

ract

eris

tics

Mot

ivat

ing

Se

lect

ing

Hom

ogen

ous

educ

atio

n

Dee

p tie

s H

eter

ogen

ous

educ

atio

n W

ide

ties

Col

labo

rati

on

Gov

erna

nce

Inte

ract

ion

plat

form

to

ols

Inte

rnal

or

sate

llite

dev

elop

men

t pr

oces

ses

Dec

isio

ns a

re ta

ken

with

in th

e in

no-

vatio

n ne

t

Inte

rnal

and

sat

ellit

e de

velo

pmen

t pro

-ce

sses

D

ecis

ions

are

take

n w

ithin

the

inno

va-

tion

net

Exp

loit

ing

Inte

grat

ing

inte

rnal

kn

owle

dge

Com

mer

cial

izin

g pr

oduc

ts/s

ervi

ces

The

inno

vatio

n ne

ts d

eliv

er to

the

in-

nova

tor

firm

for

pack

agin

g an

d co

m-

mer

cial

izat

ion

The

inno

vatio

n ne

ts d

eliv

er to

the

inno

-va

tor

firm

for

pack

agin

g an

d co

mm

er-

cial

izat

ion

Tabl

e 4.

1: P

roce

ss m

odel

for

inte

ract

ive

coup

led

open

inno

vatio

n, D

evel

oped

from

Pill

er a

nd W

est (

2014

; p. 4

0.)

39

Act

ors

Rol

es

Pro

cess

sta

ges

Key

Act

ivit

ies

Incr

emen

tal

Rad

ical

In

crem

enta

l R

adic

al

Def

inin

g th

e ta

sk

Prob

lem

form

ulat

ion

R

ules

, con

trac

ts, I

P,

Res

ourc

e al

loca

tion

IFR

s E

xter

nal e

xper

ts

Cha

irm

en

Seni

or p

artic

i-pa

nts

IFR

s E

xter

nal e

xper

ts

Cha

irm

en

Seni

or p

artic

i-pa

nts

Con

stitu

tiona

l M

onar

ch

Mes

seng

er

Gat

ekee

per

Con

stitu

tiona

l Mon

-ar

ch

Mes

seng

er

Gat

ekee

per

Fin

din

g

part

icip

ants

R

ight

cha

ract

eris

tics

Mot

ivat

ing

Se

lect

ing

Cha

irm

en

Seni

or p

artic

i-pa

nts

Cha

irm

en

IFR

s Se

nior

par

tici-

pant

s Sp

ecia

lists

E

xter

nal e

xper

ts

Gat

ekee

per*

* In

tegr

ator

O

rche

stra

tor

Con

stitu

tiona

l Mon

-ar

ch

Inte

grat

or

Gat

ekee

per

Mes

seng

er

Col

labo

rati

on

Gov

erna

nce

Inte

ract

ion

plat

form

to

ols

IFR

s C

hair

men

Se

nior

par

tici-

pant

s Sp

ecia

lists

D

evel

oper

s**

IFR

s C

hair

men

Se

nior

par

tici-

pant

s Sp

ecia

lists

D

evel

oper

s E

xter

nal e

xper

ts

Con

stitu

tiona

l M

onar

ch

Orc

hest

rato

r*

Bri

dger

* G

atek

eepe

r**

Inte

grat

or

Prod

ucer

M

esse

nger

Con

stitu

tiona

l Mon

-ar

ch

Com

prom

iser

O

rche

stra

tor

Inte

grat

or

Gat

ekee

per

Prod

ucer

M

esse

nger

E

xplo

itin

g In

tegr

atin

g in

tern

al

know

ledg

e C

omm

erci

aliz

ing

prod

ucts

/ser

vice

s

IFR

s IF

Rs

Con

stitu

tiona

l M

onar

ch

Con

stitu

tiona

l Mon

-ar

ch

Tabl

e 4.

2: P

roce

ss m

odel

for

inte

ract

ive

coup

led

open

inno

vatio

n, D

evel

oped

from

Pill

er a

nd W

est

(201

4; p

. 40.

) *I

nter

nal G

roup

D

evel

opm

ent,

**Sa

telli

te T

eam

Dev

elop

men

t

40

Each step of the model is described followed by the findings in the appended pa-pers. 1) Defining the task, where there is a description of the rules of the cooperation, contracts, agreements, and strategies on how to control IP rights, etc. to meet the purpose and objectives while securing the organizations involved to allocate a sus-tainable base of resources for this process.

Organizing: A formal code of conduct and rules of participation agree-ment stipulates the framework for the innovation nets. The same agreement is used for all nine nets. It sets the foundation for the collaboration, what can and cannot be discussed, the expectations of each participant, and who own the results from the development work. Since the innovation nets are manned with people from competing companies, sometimes fierce compet-itors on certain product and market segments, business models, pricing, and markets are examples of topics not allowed to discuss. This rigorous foun-dation creates a safe and secure setup for the participants to freely share their experiences with competitors at the same table for prosperous idea generation. This basic setup is the same in all three archetypes, with minor differences due to the actual work performed in each innovation net. In ad-dition, each net stipulates the purpose and aims. Roles: The IFR (Constitutional Monarch) plays a vital role. The agreements originate from the innovator firm, where external experts/corporate coun-selors (Messengers) have been activated to form the legal aspects of the agreement. The chairmen and senior participants in this phase both enact the role of Gatekeepers. They support the IFRs to translate the knowledge provided by the external experts. They interpret and discuss the agreements in each group and, if necessary, make slight adjustments to get an agreement as a platform for collaboration. This procedure is performed in the same way for all the innovation nets in the three archetypes.

2) Finding participants, which is the identification of participants who have the skills, interest, and motivation to participate and understanding the nature of the participants and their involvement and expertise in a certain field.

Organizing: The purpose and aims of each innovation net and archetypes foster their actions. In Internal Group Development and Satellite Team De-velopment, the focus is on incremental service innovation. A deep and very thorough understanding of the problem area favors participants from the same field of expertise with the same educational background and deep ties

41

among the participants. In Rocket Team Development, the focus is on radi-cal service innovation. The scope is much wider, with complex problems to solve. This favors participants from different fields of expertise with hetero-genous educational backgrounds and wide ties among the participants. Roles: The different purpose and aims also activate different actors and their actions in the recruiting process in the different archetypes. In Internal Group Development, development occurs within the innovation group, which makes the recruiting process rather simple. A substitution is only needed when a participant wants to leave the group. When this occurs, the chairmen and senior participants enact the role of Integrator to scan within their personal network of contacts for a suitable substitution. In Satellite Team Development, parallel development processes occur that require more actors. The chairmen have a clear picture of their innovation nets and enact the role of Gatekeeper to show the senior participants what competences are needed for the parallel development teams. The senior participants act as Integrators to investigate their personal network of contacts for suitable can-didates. In Rocket Team Development, the challenge is to find a relevant constellation of actors with different backgrounds and perspectives to grasp the breadth of the current objective. This requires the engagement of all par-ticipants in the innovation nets. The chairmen act as Orchestrators, identi-fying what resources are required, and the IFRs act as Constitutional Mon-archs, coordinating information from all other participants. The senior par-ticipants enact the role of Integrators, specialists act as Gatekeepers, provid-ing insights of what competencies to look for, and external experts act as Messengers, supporting the recruiting process with external knowledge.

3) Collaborating is how firms collaborate with external partners for knowledge and benefit exchange.

Organizing: With the structured and deliberate work described above, the innovator firm has created a solid and trustworthy platform for collaborative innovation arenas. All activities and developments are performed outside the participating organizations. In Internal Group Development, the inno-vation process (except commercialization) occurs within the nets. A narrow focus on one incremental service innovation favors this setup. In Satellite Team Development, parallel incremental innovation processes are urged for separate development teams, where the actual development work occurs with instructions from the innovation group. The innovation nets within

42

Rocket Team Development have a flexible setup for their innovation pro-cesses. To handle radical service innovation, they have knowledge and expe-rience to either develop within the innovation group or delegate the work to an external development team, depending on the objective. No matter the archetype, all final decisions regarding a new or refined service are taken within the innovation net. Roles: The actors take on different roles in different phases of the innova-tion process from idea generation to commercialization. In Internal Group Development, the chairmen act as Orchestrators in idea generation by iden-tifying problems and providing ideas to develop. In the development phase, chairmen act as Bridgers with knowledge of how to establish and foster the internal relationship among the participants. The senior participants act as Integrators, providing knowledge from outside the innovation net, as well as Producers, who are actively involved in the development. The specialists provide user knowledge and act as Producers. The IFRs support and coordi-nate the activities during development, enacting the role of Constitutional Monarchs. In Satellite Team Development, the chairmen act as a Gatekeep-ers. They have the technology and resource knowledge to understand the problems each development process faces and how to allocate resources to solve them. The senior participants are typically selected to manage a devel-opment team. They act as Integrators, coordinating the competencies and ideas to reach the objectives. The IFRs’ role as Constitutional Monarchs is vital for collaboration. They facilitate and coordinate the activities in the dif-ferent development teams and spread information on the progress of the de-velopment to concerned actors. The development teams are manned with developers. Typically, they are colleagues of the senior participants. In nets where specialists are engaged, they are also members of the development teams. Developers and specialists both act as Producers, providing extensive technological knowledge. In Rocket Team Development, the chairmen act as Orchestrators to lead and coach the innovation nets to overcome obstacles and set the structure toward agreed-upon objectives. They also act as Inte-grators to identify and find what actors to involve in the development pro-cesses. Since this archetype deals with complex matters resulting in radical innovations, more different actors need to be involved. Therefore, the senior participants also enact the role of Integrators to attract suitable actors for the different phases in the innovation process. They also act as Gatekeepers in the decision phase and when in charge of development teams. The spe-cialists contribute user knowledge as Gatekeepers during idea generation

43

and technical expert knowledge during the decision phase and serve as Pro-ducers during development. Developers are also engaged in the develop-ment phase as Producers. The external experts act as Messengers, providing external knowledge to idea generation, and Integrators, providing useful in-cremental knowledge during the decision phase. As in Satellite Team Devel-opment, the IFRs act as Constitutional Monarchs in Rocket Team Develop-ment. They have a central position in the innovation process vital for coor-dinating all activities. However, the development of radical innovations is more complex with more actors involved, so the IFRs also enact the role of Compromisers with relationship knowledge to create coherence and avoid conflicts and contradictions.

4) Exploiting is how an organization integrates generated knowledge and com-mercializes the innovations.

Organizing: Once the decision is made in the innovation nets, the founda-tion of a new or refined service is taken to the innovator firm. From that point on, the innovator firm has control over the final layout, framing, and pricing before commercialization on the market. The innovator firm was once founded to capitalize on the outcomes from the innovation nets. The business model and the organization are built around this. Different parts within the innovator firm are activated in the “packaging” to make the new or refined service saleable on the market. This procedure is the same for all three archetypes. Roles: In this stage, there is a transition of decision power and control. In earlier stages of the innovation process, the chairmen, senior participants, and specialists have the decision power from idea generation throughout the development phase. IFRs (Constitutional Monarchs) have actively partici-pated in a coordinating role but do not control the process. From this point on, it´s the reverse, now it´s the IFRs who are responsible for resource allo-cation. They activate internal knowledge within the innovator firm for the finalization of service development before the market introduction. This procedure is the same for all three archetypes.

5.1. Final reflections

The two papers illustrate how to man and manage successful arenas for open ser-vice innovation. In incremental innovation processes with a narrow focus on the refinement of one service, an efficient setup is Internal Group Development. The

44

same educational background enables thorough penetration of the service to re-fine, and deep ties among the participants without the involvement of external de-velopers make this innovation process relatively simple to manage. The actors know their positions and act accordingly with fewer innovation roles than the other archetypes. In Satellite Team Development, there is still an advantage with same educational background, among the participants since they need to have a very good under-standing of the different services to be refined. The deep ties among the partici-pants ease the process to divide the parallel development processes among the sen-ior participants in the innovation nets according to their specialties. However, since several development processes occur simultaneously, management is more challenging. Both the chairmen and senior participants need to enact several inno-vation roles to allocate resources and lead/coach the teams in the development. Also, the IFRs are highly involved in facilitating and supporting each team. In Rocket Team Development, the focus on radical service innovations requires a heterogeneous educational background. Since there is uncertainty about where the development process will end, multiple perspectives are needed. This uncertainty also favors wide ties between the participants, since each development process de-mands a unique set of competencies. This innovation template is the most chal-lenging to manage. The chairmen must understand when they have the right com-petencies within the innovation group to run an internal development process and when there is a need to find external competencies and run the development pro-cess outside the innovation net. The success from this innovation template requires multiple innovation roles of the actors involved in the innovation nets.

45

6. Contributions and further research

6.1. Theoretical contributions

In this section, we will examine how the thesis responds to the research questions and discuss the theoretical contributions, managerial contributions, and sugges-tions for future research. The two research questions stipulated in section 1.4 are:

RQ1: How can service firms organize the development of service innova-tions in open service innovation nets? RQ2: What are the different roles of actors and their functions for develop-ing service innovations in open service innovation nets?

Since interactions and co-creation among different actors are inherent compo-nents in service research, it is well-aligned with open innovation (Mina et al., 2014). This research shows how service innovation and service logic are suited to both product and service innovations to advance open innovation as a research field (Randhawa et al., 2016; Mina et al., 2014). The thesis adds to the knowledge on how firms can gain from deliberate coopera-tion with other firms in strategic alliances in the development of new services, as development occurs outside the firms based on interactive co-creation processes in neutral arenas governed by an innovation intermediary. The interactive coupled open service innovation model (Piller and West, 2014; Gassmann and Enkel, 2004) is used and synthesized with the two appended papers to close the research gap in the collaboration stage (Piller and West, 2014).

6.1.1. Nets and network This research answers the call for a wider approach to the open innovation concept than the traditionally firm-centric aspect that focuses mainly on products, technol-ogy, R&D, and knowledge from the viewpoint of the innovating firm (Randhawa et al., 2016). To understand how to organize the development of service innovations in open innovation nets, this research has used different levels of analysis (Chesbrough et al., 2014; Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt, 2006). We begin at the net level to acquire a

46

thorough understanding of how each net is built and how the development work is performed. Then, we assess the next level, where the nets have been clustered into three archetypes - Internal Group Development, Satellite Team Development, and Rocket Team Development - according to the scope of the development work (one service or multiple services) and the outcome of the work (refinements on existing services as incremental innovations or new services/radical innovations). The competence of participants, organization of co-creation, and ties between the par-ticipants in interactive collaboration outside the firm are governed by the partici-pants, where the innovator firm functions as a catalyst. On a network level, de-scribing an innovator firm, the deliberate strategy and purposeful facilitation of simultaneously incremental and radical innovations in an innovation network nar-rows the research gap on the management of open innovation networks (Randhawa et al., 2016)

6.1.2. A business model based on the management of nine open service in-novation nets in an innovation network The present thesis advances the research field by linking open innovation to firm strategy (Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt, 2014) when describing a focal firm that has deliberately chosen open innovation as a strategy for development. The business model is based on the premise that the innovator firm is without any decision power at all, solely relying on the inbound flow of knowledge. The free access of inbound knowledge flow is derived from approximately 500 senior experts from a whole industry (Swedish pulp and paper) who provide user perspectives for the development of the service firm - strategy that favors open innovation in innova-tion networks rather than internal control of the innovation process. This process is a win-win situation in which the network participants/users have the power to develop the exact services they need for their daily performance in their different workplaces. The innovator firm, on the other hand, gets new or refined services developed free of charge in the open service innovation network. The innovation firm then uses a stand-alone business model (Chesbrough, 2006a; Vanhaverbeke and Chesbrough, 2014) for final preparations before commercialization, where many of the customers are the companies the network participants work for.

Much previous research on open innovation has focused on technical innovation in R&D projects in the earlier phases of the innovation process (Chesbrough and Bogers, 2014), whereas the present thesis also tries to understand and describe the later phases of delivery and sales (Kindström and Kowalkowski, 2009). Thus, this

47

research contributes to an increased understanding of how open innovation cre-ates value (Simard and West, 2006). The deliberate firm strategy based on open innovation and the supporting business model has proven to be prosperous, as the focal firm has showed a continuous growth of 840% over the last 17 years. A busi-ness model built on value capturing from the outputs of the nine innovation nets in the industrial network addresses the research gap on business model innovation stated by West and Bogers (2014) and Afuah and Tucci (2013).

The majority of current open innovation research departs from a focal firm and describes the inbound and outbound flows of technology and knowledge (Chesbrough and Bogers, 2014). This research uses and empirically supports the conceptual interactive collaboration model (Piller and West, 2014) with the point of departure in innovation nets. The thesis describes actors in innovation nets and how their position, task, behavior, and social interactions shape their innovation roles. The present research increases the understanding of the role of the interme-diary. It introduces a new innovator role, the Constitutional Monarch, who repre-sents the innovator firm but acts as an intermediary (Howells, 2006), an actor ac-tively involved in coordinating and governing the development process and guid-ing the whole network but holds no decision power. The innovator firm repre-sented by the Constitutional Monarch not only acts as a third-party facilitator cat-alyzing the innovation process but also capitalizes on the outcomes of the process. An important prerequisite for this scenario is the level of trust among the partici-pants (Simard and West, 2006) as well as a communicated and agreed-upon un-derlying structure, the strategy of the innovator firm (intermediary), and the cor-responding business model. The innovator firm’s positioning as a trusted third part is vital for the management of the innovation network and on the net level to justify the innovator firm representative to act and govern the activities in each net.

The present research shows how different innovation processes are favored by dif-ferent skills/knowledge/ties setups. It explains how different actors are attracted and how the role constellations differ for incremental and radical innovation.

6.1.3. Absorptive Capacity, Incremental and Radical Innovation Ritala and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen (2012) argue that the importance of absorptive capacity and the appropriability regime differ with respect to incremental versus radical innovation. In incremental innovation processes, both absorptive capacity

48

and the appropriability regime are of relevance to the collaboration of improve-ments of existing products and services. In radical innovation processes, the ap-propriability regime is still a relevant factor, whereas absorptive capacity has a nonsignificant effect (Ritala and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2012). One explanation is the emerging market opportunities involved in radical innovation and that the risk of co-created knowledge is eclipsed by the value of the knowledge expropriated (Heiman and Nickerson, 2004).

Current research addresses this topic in the sense that it presents different tem-plates of how to organize for both incremental and radical open innovation. The research deviate from a narrow focus on radical innovation predominant in previ-ous open innovation research and also sheds light upon incremental innovation. It explicitly describes how a service firm deliberately acts to pursue incremental or radical innovation and describes what actors to involve and their different roles in the innovation process for incremental and radical innovation.

With guidance from current research, structured arenas for open innovation can be arranged with emphasis on the organization of role constellations to support the development appropriability regimes, which decrease the risk of knowledge ex-propriation.

6.2. Managerial contributions

During its first decade as a research field, open innovation has grown in popularity in the business world. In newspapers and business magazines, the expression “open innovation” is commonly used among practitioners to describe a change in their R&D activities to cope with the faster-moving, dynamic world that surrounds them. If you as an “annoying” researcher ask for an interpretation of the concept and how they explicitly work with open innovation, the answers are often vague. Open innovation has turned into a “buzz word” to describe a change in innovation processes without using the full potential of what the concept actually stands for.

The results from the research presented in this thesis can serve as a guide for man-agers who need a structure for open service innovation. It offers different setups for organizing open service innovation. The research gives guidance about what kind of competence to look for (heterogeneous/homogeneous), preferable ties among the participants, and how the development should be organized. Depend-ing on the scope and aims of the business, one, two, or three different archetypes can be chosen for both incremental and radical innovation.

49

With the use of the three archetypes, this research describes different actors that need to be involved and how their roles differ and progress from idea generation to commercialization. A combination of both papers can be a point of departure for a firm or organization that wants to organize a structured innovation arena where innovations occur out-side the firm’s/organization’s boundary. This could be a starting point for cluster organizations to foster regional innovation growth by creating a structured arena and involving actors to secure a safe environment with a clear appropriability re-gime where companies, universities, and citizens can meet and share ideas for oth-ers to develop.

6.3. Future research

Previous studies on open innovation lack information about organizing and coop-erating between firms in later stages of open service innovation (Piller and West, 2014). The presentation of the three archetypes in current research closes this gap. However, it needs to be tested in other contexts to increase the generalizability. Are these the only archetypes, or are they complementary to describing how to or-ganize for incremental or radical open service innovation? Further research should also challenge the components of each archetype (competencies, ties, and organiz-ing the development). Can more components be added to better describe how to organize for open service innovation? As mentioned, previously, absorptive capacity is vital for organizations to leverage from open innovation (Ritala and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2012). There is a need to better connect absorptive capacity to open innovation (Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt, 2014) to improve understanding of the ability to diffuse and exploit the knowledge from the innovation nets within the innovator firm and how the in-bound knowledge flow influences the internal organization and innovation process within the innovator firm (Vanhaverbeke and Cooldt, 2014; Nooteboom et al., 2007; Levinthal and March, 1993; Argyres and Silverman, 2004). To recognize, access, and assimilate external knowledge, how should firms develop their organ-izational structures and cultures to alleviate open innovation processes (Dahlander and Gann, 2010; Vanhaverbeke and Cooldt, 2014)? In this research, a new innova-tor role was presented: The Constitutional Monarch. Further research is needed to generalize this role in other contexts. With support from the literature on absorp-tive capacity, an investigation of how an innovator firm develops organizational routines to tap more effectively into external knowledge (Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt, 2014) to perform as an innovation intermediary (Howells, 2006) in the role

50

of a Constitutional Monarch and what effects it will have on the arrangements of structured open innovation arenas should be conducted.

51

References

Aarikka-Stenroos, L. & Sandberg, B. (2012). From new-product development to commercialization through networks. Journal of Business Research, 65 (2), 198-206. Afuah, A., & C. L. Tucci. 2013. Value capture and crowdsourcing. Academy of Man-agement Review. 38(3), 457–460. Alam, I. (2002). An Exploratory Investigation of User Involvement in New Service Development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (3), 250-261. Alderson, W. (1957). Marketing Behavior and Executive Action: A functionalist Approach to Marketing Theory. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Allen, T-J. (1970). Communication networks in R&D labs. R&D Management, 1 (1), 14-21. Araujo, L. & Spring, M. (2006). Services, products, and the institutional structure of production. Industrial Marketing Management, 35 (7), 797-805. Argyres, N.S. & Silverman, B.S. (2004). R&D, organization structure, and the de-velopment of corporate technological knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (8-9), 929-958. Bessant, J. & Rush, H. (1995). Building bridges for innovation: the role of consult-ants in technology transfer. Research Policy, 24 (1), 97-114. Boudreau, K.,J., Lacetera, N., & Lakhani, K. (2011). Incentives and problem uncer-tainty in innovation contests: An empirical analysis. Management Science. 57 (5), 843-863. Brown, L., & Osborne, S.P. (2013). Risk and innovation: Towards a framework for risk governance in public services. Public Management Review, 15 (2), 186–208. Carlborg, P., Kindström, D. & Kowalkowski, C. (2014). The evolution of service in-novation research: a critical review and synthesis. The Service Industries Journal, 34 (5), 373-398.

52

CEPI – Confederation of European Paper Industries, Key Statistics (2017). Chesbrough, H.W. (2003a). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Chesbrough, H.W. (2003b). The era of Open Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44 (3), 35-41. Chesbrough, H.W. (2003c). The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45 (3), 33-58. Chesbrough, H.W. (2004). Managing Open Innovation. Research Technology Management, 47 (1), 23-26. Chesbrough, H.W. (2006a). Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New In-novation Landscape. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Chesbrough, H.W. (2006b). Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In Chesbrough, H.W., Vanheverbeke, W. & West, J. (Eds.) Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1-12. Chesbrough, H.W. (2011a). Bringing Open Innovation to Services. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52 (2), 85-90. Chesbrough, H.W. (2011b). Open service innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Re-searching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chesbrough, H.W. & Bogers, M. (2014). Explication open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In Chesbrough, H., Vanhe-verbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds.) New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford: Ox-ford University Press. 3-28.

53

Coombs, R. & Miles, I. (2000). Innovation, measurement and services: The new problematique. In Metcalfe, J.S., and Miles, I. (Eds.) Innovation Systems in the Service Economy, Measurement and Case Study Analysis. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic. 85-103. Dahlander, L. & Gann, D.M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39 (6), 699-709. de Vries, E.J. (2006). Innovation in services in networks of organizations and in the distribution of services. Research Policy, 35 (7), 1037-1051. DeBresson, C. & Amesse, F. (1991). Networks of innovators: A review and intro-duction to the issue. Research Policy, 20 (5), 363–379. Diener, K. & Piller, F.T. (2010). The Market for Open Innovation: Increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the innovation process. Raleigh, NC: Lulu. Dubois, A. & Gadde, L. (2002) Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55 (7), 553-560. Edvardsson, B. & Olsson, J. (1996). Key Concepts for New Service Development. The Service Industries Journal, 16 (2), 140-164. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550. Elmquist, M., Fredberg, T. & Ollila, S. (2009). Exploring the field of open innova-tion. European Journal of Innovation Management, 12 (3), 326–345. Enkel, E., Bell, J., & Hogenkamp, H. (2011). Open innovation maturity framework. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15 (6), 1161-1189. Faems, D., Van Looy, B. & Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22 (3), 238-250.

54

Freytag, P., & Young, L. C. (2014). Introduction to special issue on innovations and networks: Innovation of, within, through and by networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 43 (3), 361-364. Gallouj, F. & Savona, M. (2009). Innovation in services: a review of the debate and a research agenda. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 19 (2), 149-172. Gallouj, F. and Weinstein, O. (1997), Innovation in services. Research Policy, 26 (4/5), 537-556. Gassmann, O. & Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a theory of open innovation: three core process archetypes. In Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, July 6–9. Geertz, C. (1973) The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gemünden, H. G., Salomo, S., & Hölzle, K. (2007). Role models for radical inno-vations in times of open innovation. Creativity and innovation management, 16 (4), 408-421. Gremyr, I., Nina Löfberg, & Witell, L. (2010). Service innovations in manufactur-ing firms. Managing Service Quality, 20 (2), 161-175. Grönroos, C. (1997). Value-driven Relational Marketing: From Products to Re-sources and Competencies. Journal of Marketing Management, 13 (5), 407-419. Hargadon, A. & Sutton, R.I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (4), 716-749. Harhoff, D., Henkel, J. & von Hippel, E. (2003) Profiting from voluntary infor-mation spillovers: How user benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Research Policy, 32 (10), 1753-1769. Hauschildt, J. & Chakrabarti, A. K. (1988): Arbeitsteilung im Innovations-manage-ment. Forschungsergebnisse, Kriterien und Modelle. Zeitschrift Führung und Or-ganisation, 57 (6), 378–388.

55

Hayek, F.A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35 (4), 519-530. Heikkinen, M. T., Mainela, T., Still, J., & Tähtinen, J. (2007). Roles for managing in mobile service development nets. Industrial Marketing Management, 36 (7), 909-925. Heiman, B. A., and J. A. Nickerson. (2004). Empirical evidence regarding the ten-sion between knowledge sharing and knowledge expropriation in collaborations. Managerial and Decision Economics. 25 (6/7), 401–420. Henkel, J. (2006) Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux. Research Policy, 35 (7), 953-969. Herrmann, T., Jahnke, I. & Loser, K.-. (2004). The Role Concept as a Basis for Designing Community Systems. In Darses, F., Dieng, R.,Simone, C. & Zackland, M. (Eds.) Cooperative System Design: Scenario-Based Design of Collaborative Systems. Amsterdam, NL: IOS Press. 163-178. Hipp, C. & Grupp, H. (2005). Innovation in the service sector: The demand for service-specific innovation measurement concepts and typologies. Research Pol-icy, 34 (4), 517-535. Hirschman, E.C. (1986), Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: Philosophy, method, and criteria. Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (3), 237-249. Howell, J.,M. & Higgins, C.,A. (1990) Champions of technological innovation. Ad-ministrative Science Ouarterly, 35 (2), 317-341. Howell, J.,M. Shea, C.,M. & Higgins, C.,A. (2005) Champions of product innova-tions: Defining, developing, and validating a measure of champion behavior. Jour-nal of Business Venturing, 20 (5), 641-661. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35 (5), 715-728. Hsieh, K. & Tidd, J. (2012). Open versus closed new service development: The in-fluences of project novelty. Technovation, 32 (11), 600-608.

56

Hsueh, J.-T., Lin, N.-P., & Li, H.-C. (2010). The effects of network embeddedness on service innovation performance. Service Industries Journal, 30 (10), 1723-1736. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. & Nätti, S. (2018). Orchestrator types, roles and capa-bilities: A framework for innovation networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 74, 65-78. Jeppesen, L.,B. & Lakhani, K.,R. (2010). Marginality and problem solving effec-tiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21 (4), 1016-1033. Johne, A. & Storey, C. (1998). New service development: A review of the literature and annotated bibliography. European Journal of Marketing, 32 (3), 184-251. Kindström, D. & Kowalkowski, C. (2009). Development of industrial service offer-ings: A process framework. Journal of Service Management, 20 (2), 156-172. Koschatzky, K. (1999). Innovation networks of industry and business-related ser-vices: Relations between innovation intensity of firms and regional inter-firm co-operation. European Planning Studies, 7 (6), 737-757. Kowalkowski, C., Witell, L. & Gustafsson, A. (2013). Any way goes: Identifying value constellations for service infusion in SMEs. Industrial Marketing Manage-ment, 42 (1), 18-30. Landsperger, J. & Spieth, P. (2011). Managing innovation networks in the indus-trial goods sector. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15 (6), 1209-1241. Levinthal, D.A. & March, J.G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Manage-ment Journal, 14 (S2), 95-112. Lincoln, Y.,S. & Guba, E.,G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lusch, R.F. and Nambisan, S. (2015), Service innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective. MIS Quarterly, 39 (1), 155-175.

57

Lynn, L.H., Reddy, N.M. & Aram, J.D. (1996). Linking technology and institutions: the innovation community framework. Research Policy, 25 (1), 91-106. Magnusson, P.R., Matthing, J. & Kristensson, P. (2003). Managing User Involve-ment in Service Innovation: Experiments with Innovating End Users. Journal of Service Research, 6 (2), 111-124. Mantel, S.J. & Rosegger, G. (1987). The role of third-parties in the diffusion of in-novations: A survey. In Rothwell, R. and Bessent, J., (Eds.) Innovation: Adaption and Growth. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 123-134. McEvily, B. & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (12), 1133-1156. Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Miles, M.B., Huberman, M.A. & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data handbook, A methods sourcebook. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mina, A., Bascavusoglu-Moreau, E. & Hughes, A. (2014). Open service innovation and the firm's search for external knowledge. Research Policy, 43 (5), 853-866. Mu, J., Peng, G., & Love, E. (2008). Interfirm networks, social capital, and knowledge flow. Journal of knowledge management, 12 (4), 86-100. Myhren, P., Witell, L., Gustafsson, A., & Gebauer, H. (2018). Incremental and rad-ical open service innovation. Journal of Services Marketing, 32 (2), 101-112. Myhren, P., Witell, L., Åkesson, M. (2018) Creating the perfect match: Roles and archetypes of open service innovation. Kristensson, P., Magnusson, P., Witell, P. (Eds.) Service innovation for sustainable business: stimulating, realizing and capturing the value from service innovation. New Jersey: World Scientific. 133-160. Möller, K. & Rajala, A. (2007). Rise of strategic nets: New modes of value creation. Industrial Marketing Management, 36 (7), 895-908.

58

Nambisan, S. & Sawhney, M. (2008). The Global Brain: Your roadmap for inno-vating faster and smarter in a networked world. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Nambisan, S. & Sawhney, M. (2011). Orchestration process in network-centric in-novation: Evidence from the field. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25 (3), 40-57. Nelson, R.R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67 (3), 297-306. Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36 (7), 1016-1034. Nyström, A. G., Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Kortelainen, M. (2014). Actor roles and role patterns influencing innovation in living labs. Industrial Marketing Man-agement, 43 (3), 483-495. Oliva, R. & Kallenberg, R. (2003). Managing the transition from products to ser-vices. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14 (2), 160-172. Onwuegbuzie, A.,J. & Leech, N.,L. (2007) Sampling Designs in Qualitative Re-search: Making the Sampling Process More Public. The Qualitative Report. 12 (2), 238-254. Ostrom, A.L., Bitner, M.J., Brown, S.W., Burkhard, K.A., Goul, M., Smith-Daniels, V., Demirkan, H. & Rabinovich, E. (2010). Moving forward and making a differ-ence: Research priorities for the science of service. Journal of Service Research, 13 (1), 4-36. Piller, F. & West, J. (2014). Firms, Users and innovation: An Interactive Model of Coupled Open Innovation. In Chesbrough, H., Vanheverbeke, W. & West, J. (Eds.) New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press. 29-49. Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence. International journal of man-agement reviews, 5 (3-4), 137-168.

59

Popp, A. (2000). Swamped in information but starved of data: information inter-mediaries in the clothing supply chains. Supply Chain Management, 5 (3), 151-161. Provan, K.G. & Human, S.E. (1999). Organizational learning and the role of net-work broker in small-firm manufacturing networks. In Grandori, A. (Ed.) Inter-firm Networks: Organization and Industrial Competitiveness. Routledge, Lon-don. 185-207. Rampersad, G., Quester, P., & Troshani, I. (2010). Managing innovation networks: Exploratory evidence from ICT, biotechnology and nanotechnology networks. In-dustrial Marketing Management, 39 (5), 793-805. Randhawa, K., Wilden, R. and Hohberger, J. (2016), A bibliometric review of open innovation: Setting a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-ment, 33 (6), 750-772. Rese, A., Gemünden, H. G., & Baier, D. (2013). ‘Too Many Cooks Spoil The Broth’: Key Persons and their Roles in Inter-Organizational Innovations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22 (4), 390-407. Ritala, A. & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2013) Incremental and Radical Innova-tion in Coopetition—The Role of Absorptive Capacity and Appropriability. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 30 (1), 154–169. Schon, D. A. (1963). Champions for radical new inventions. Harvard business re-view, 41 (2), 77-86. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The theory of economic development. An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shostack, G.L. (1977). Breaking Free from Product Marketing. Journal of Market-ing, 41 (2), 73-80.

60

Sieg, J.H., Wallin, M.W. & von Krogh, G. (2010). Managerial challenges in open innovation: A study of innovation intermediation in the chemical industry. R&D Management, 40 (3), 281-291. Simard, C. and West, J. (2006), Knowledge networks and the geographic locus of innovation. In Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J. (Eds.) Open Innova-tion: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 220-240. Sirilli, G. & Evangelista, R., (1998). Technological innovation in services and man-ufacturing; Results from Italian surveys. Research Policy, 27 (9), 881-889. Snyder, H., Witell, L., Gustafsson, A., Fombelle, P. & Kristensson, P. (2016), Iden-tifying categories of service innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Business Research, 69 (7), 2401-2408. Stankiewicz, R. (1995). The role of science and technology infrastructure in the de-velopment and diffusion of industrial automation in Sweden. In Carlsson, B. (ed.) Technological Systems and Economic Performance: The Case of Factory Auto-mation. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer. 165-210. Sundbo, J. (1997). Management of Innovation in Services. The Service Industries Journal, 17 (3), 432-455. Syson, F. & Perks, H. (2004). New service development: A network perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 18 (4), 255-266. Terwiesch, C. & Xu, Yi (2008). Innovation contests, open innovation, and multia-gent problem solving. Management Science. 54 (9), 1529-1543. Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing Innovation: Integrating Tech-nological, Market and Organizational Change. (3. ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Toivonen, M., & Tuominen, T. (2009). Emergence of innovations in services. The Service Industries Journal, 29 (7), 887-902. Tushman, M.L. & Katz, R. (1980) External communication and project perfor-mance: An investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26 (11), 1071-1085.

61

Urban, G.L. & von Hippel, E. (1988). Lead User Analyses for the Development of New Industrial Products. Management Science, 34 (5), 569–582. van de Vrande, V., Limmens, C., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). Choosing govern-ance modes for external technology sourcing. R&D Management 36 (3),347–363. van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J.P.J., Vanhaverbeke, W. & de Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Techno-vation, 29 (6–7), 423-437. Vanhaverbeke, W., & Cloodt, M. (2006). Open innovation in value networks. In Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J. (Eds.) Open innovation: Re-searching a new paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 258-281. Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). The Interorganizational Context of Open Innovation. In Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J. (Eds.) Open Innovation: Re-searching a New Paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 205-219. Vanhaverbeke, W. & Cloodt, M. (2014). Theories of the firms and open innovation. In Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J. (Eds.) New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 256-278. Vanhaverbeke, W. & Chesbrough, H.,W. (2014). Classifying Open Innovation and Open Business Models. In Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J. (Eds.) New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 50-68. Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Market-ing. Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 1-17. Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Manage-ment Science. 32 (7), 791-805. Wallin, M.W. & von Krogh, G. (2010). Organizing for Open Innovation: Focus on the Integration of Knowledge. Organizational dynamics, 39 (2), 145-154.

62

West, J. (2006). Does appropriability enable or retard open innovation. In Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J. (Eds.) Open Innovation: Re-searching a New Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 109-133. West, J. (2012). End to an embarrassing year for OI research. http://blog.openin-novation.net/search?q=Ulrich+Lichtenthaler [2013-11-22]. West, J., & Bogers, B. (2014) Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31 (4), 814–831. West, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: A re-search agenda. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open inno-vation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 285-307. West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W. & Chesbrough, H.W. (2014). Open innova-tion: The next decade. Research Policy, 43 (5), 805-811. Witell, L., Gustafsson, A. & Johnson, M.D. (2014). The effect of customer infor-mation during new product development on profits from goods and services. Eu-ropean Journal of Marketing, 48 (9), 1709-1730. Witell, L., Snyder, H., Gustafsson, A., Fombelle, P. & Kristensson, P. (2015). De-fining service innovation: A review and synthesis. Journal of Business Research, 69 (8), 2863-2872. Witte, E. (1977). Power and innovation: A two-center theory. International Studies of Management Organization, 7 (1), 47-70. Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research, design and methods. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Åkesson, M. (2011). Role constellations in value co-creation: A study of resource integration in an e-government context. Diss. Karlstad University: Faculty of Eco-nomic Sciences, Communication and IT, Business Administration.

63

APPENDIX

Interview guide net members (senior participant, specialist, project man-ager) Preamble: Brief explanation of the interview and practicalities. Background: education, period of employment in the company [xxx] Time as a member of the net and role/function Describe the procedure when you were selected as a company representative for the relevant net Composition of participants - term of office, change of net members? Are there more people from your workplace / company that are active in nets?

If “yes”: Do you meet and discuss and compare the different nets How does your employer view your commitment in the net? Describe the purpose and objectives of the net How do you prepare for a net meeting? Describe a typical net meeting

• The invitation before the meeting • Where do you meet?

o At SSG? o In a neutral place like Stockholm? o At various workplaces of the net members?

• Agenda o Distribution of roles, (chair, secretary, other functions) o Recurring points o Recurring procedures, rituals, etc.

Describe the discussion climate

64

Describe the carrying through of a meeting

• List of speakers • The word is free • Division of labor

Describe your role during the meetings [what do you do? How do you act?] Competitors at the same table (how does that affect the will to speak and discuss?)

• Does the function/person have any role for the opportunity to get their views through? (number of years in the net etc.)

• How do you solve the problem of being constructive / creative on

the one hand to bring the net's work forward but at the same time monitor the interests of your company?

Tell us what happens when a new idea comes up? Describe the process from an idea and the work needed for the idea to become a commercial service / product?

• Who are involved? • Who does what? SSG vs. net participants

Do you have contact with external persons within your special area in the net or in development groups? Describe if/if not you are looking for net members from other industries than pulp and paper

• Why/why not? What happens after the net meeting?

• Your work effort between meetings What happens when you return to your workplace after a net meeting

• Talk about it to your bosses • Talk about it to your colleagues • Talk about it to colleagues at other workplaces within the company

65

How would you like to describe the net?

• Composition of persons • Benefits from the net

How would you like to describe the company SSG?

• What do you expect from SSG? • Does SSG's services create benefits?

Other

• Is there anything further you want to add when it comes to how ideas / innovations arise in the nets?


The development of new technologies in a rapidly changing and globalized world decreases product life cycles, time to market is crucial. Firms can no longer rely solely on internal knowledge in new product-/service development. They require external resources to create new knowledge and skills within their organizations. Developing innovative products and services that takes advantage of external knowledge and give access to new market channels is labeled open innovation. Even though the open innovation model is well known and widely spread, there is little research on open service innovation.

The aim of the thesis is to understand and describe how service innovations emerge and evolve in open innovation nets (groups) in industrial networks, and to follow the development from idea to a commercial service. The thesis describes organization for service innovations to emerge and develop in open service innovation nets. It also explains the actors involved and their different innovation roles in the development of service innovations in open service innovation nets.

The present research provide insights how the organization of the development work might differ between incremental and radical service innovation. It suggests that open service innovation can be a strategy not only for radical but also for incremental service innovation.

The thesis also present a new innovator role to add to existing research, The Constitutional Monarch. The Constitutional Monarch has a central position as third-party facilitator catalyzing the innovation process but has no decision power.

| Karlstad University Studies | 2019:18LICENTIATE THESIS | Karlstad University Studies | 2019:18

ISSN 1403-8099

ISBN 978-91-7867-035-2 (pdf)

ISBN 978-91-7867-030-7 (print)

Open Service Innovation in Industrial Networks - DIVA

Documents

Transcript of Open Service Innovation in Industrial Networks - DIVA