In this conceptual paper, we suggest that knowledge flows constitute the antecedences of value creation by means of its communication component. Knowledge is increasingly being accepted as a source of value creation and a differentiator between firms. However, to a large extent, current approaches to management and governance of knowledge resources prescribe measurements of the stock of knowledge. Therefore, we suggest a bridge that connects current knowledge sharing understanding with properties from communication theory, to explicate knowledge in use through a communication patterns perspective. Building on the perspective of knowledge as a flow, and postulating that value is based on knowledge use, rather than knowledge possession, this paper addresses the research question: How can we express knowledge in such a way that it can be monetized and made accessible to specific managerial interventions? We explain how communication is instrumental in capturing knowledge value and allows for a connection with monetary value. Extant literature on organizational communication roles emphasizes the role of boundary-spanners in the search for and combination of experience and tacit knowledge. Individual nodes in organizational networks can possess knowledge. However, to be valuable, the knowledge resources need to be deployed and utilized. The use of knowledge will involve the communication of this knowledge through ties to other nodes. The paper proposes that boundary-spanning roles provide a focal point for such monetization efforts. The contribution of this paper is six propositions for future research on how management accounting and control systems can be brought to bear in their governable and calculable aspects if communication functions are given more attention.
Empirical research has confirmed that a positive relationship exists between the implementation of innovation activities and the future performance of organizations. Firms utilize resources and capabilities to develop innovations in the form of new products, services or processes. Some firms prove to be better at reproducing innovation success than others, and the capacity to do so is referred to as innovation capability. However, the term innovation capability is ambiguously treated in extant literature. There are several different definitions of the concept and the distinction between innovation capabilities and other types of capabilities, such as dynamic capabilities, is neither explicitly stated, nor is the relationship between the concept and other resource- and capability-based concepts within strategy theory established. Although innovation is increasingly identified as crucial for a firm’s sustainable competitiveness in contemporary volatile and complex markets, the strategy-innovation link is underdeveloped in extant research. To overcome this challenge this paper raises the following research question: What type of innovation capabilities are required to innovate successfully? Due to the status of the extant research, we chose a conceptual research design to answer our research question and the paper contributes with a conceptual framework to discuss what innovation capabilities firms need to reproduce innovation success. Based on careful examination of current literature on innovation capability specifically, and the strategy-innovation link in general, we suggest that innovation capability must be viewed along two dimensions – innovation novelty and market characteristics. This framework enables the identification of four different contexts for innovation capabilities in a two-by-two matrix. We discuss the types of innovation capabilities necessary within the four different contexts. This novel framework contributes to the understanding of the strategy-innovation link as well as clarifies the conceptual understanding of capabilities within the strategy literature and establishes the relationship between these structures and innovation management theory.
This empirical paper explores the work of employees in charge of service innovation when firms develop and launch new scale-intensive services by addressing two re- search questions: i) How do employees responsible for service innovation work? and ii) what are the related managerial implications when developing and launching new scale-intensive services? To this end, 21 qualitative, in-depth interviews were con- ducted with employees in five large scale-intensive service firms. The findings suggest that the involvement of internal professionals is an asset when new scale-intensive services are developed, and that internal professionals act as intrapreneurs when they are involved in the development of radically new scale-intensive services. This paper integrates understanding from the innovation management literature with knowledge of professionals from extant literature on professional service firms since we find that professionals in scale-intensive firms act as intrapreneurs. Thus, this pa- per extends the theory on determinants of innovation in scale-intensive service firms, blending insights from both findings and theory.
This empirical paper examines a process, starting with the managerial decision to make service design an organizational capability, and follows it as it unfolds over time within one organization. Service design has become an established business practice of how firms create new products and services to promote differentiation in an increasingly uncertain business landscape. Implicit in the literature on service design are assumptions about strategic implications of adopting the prescribed innovation methods and tools. However, little is known about how service design evolves into an organizational capability enabling firms to transform their existing businesses and sustain competitiveness. Through a longitudinal, exploratory case study of service design practices in one of the world’s largest telecommunications companies, we explicate mechanisms through which service design evolves into an organizational capability by exploring the research question: what are the mechanisms through which service design develops into an organizational capability? Our study reveals the effect of an initial introduction of service design tools, identification of boundary-spanning actors and co-alignment of dedicated resources between internal functions, as well as through co-creation with customers. Over time, these activities lead to the adoption of service design practices, and subsequently these practices spark incremental learning throughout the organization, alter managerial decisions and influence multiple paths for the development of new capabilities. Reporting on this process, we are able to describe how service design practices were disseminated and institutionalized within the organization we observed. This study thus contributes by informing how service design can evolve into an organizational capability, as well as by bridging the emerging literature on service design and design thinking with established strategy theory. Further research will have to be conducted to confirm if the same mechanisms are observable across contexts and in other firms, and several future research directions are identified. In addition, the study also has implications for practice as it demonstrates how service design methodology can be implemented and has strategic implications for organizations.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.