Archetypes of Service Innovation

18 Pages·2017·0.35 MB·English

Article
JournalofServiceResearch
1-18
Archetypes of Service Innovation: ªTheAuthor(s)2017
Reprintsandpermission:
Implications for Value Cocreation sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI:10.1177/1094670517746776
journals.sagepub.com/home/jsr
Anu Helkkula1 , Christian Kowalkowski1,2 , and Ba˚rd Tronvoll1,3
Abstract
Service innovation is a key source of competitive differentiation across firms and markets. Despite growing attention from
practitioners and academics alike, systematic scholarly inquiry into service innovation’s diverse theoretical foundations has to
datebeenlimited. Thisarticleexploresdifferent approachestoserviceinnovationandproposesa typologyof fourarchetypes,
each informed by a distinct theoretical perspective and by different underlying assumptions. Process-based and output-based
archetypesfocusonvalue-addingphasesandoutputvalue,respectively.Experientialandsystemicarchetypeshaveattractedless
attentionbutbecomecentralforfirmsseekingtococreatephenomenologicallydeterminedvaluewithintheserviceecosystem.
Thearticlealsocontributestoserviceinnovationresearchandpracticebybringingtogethertheexistingarchetypes,whichwere
previouslytreatedseparately.Juxtaposingthesearchetypesandemphasizingvalueandvaluecocreation,thearticleproposesan
integrativeviewofhownovelvaluecocreationcanbeenhancedinserviceinnovations.Finally,wedevelopanagendaforfuture
research, encouraging researchers and managers to plan service innovations systematically, deploying each archetype in value
cocreation,and combiningthem withinan integrativeapproach.
Keywords
serviceinnovation, value, cocreation, cocreation of value,experience, servicesystems, service-dominant logic
Spurred by accelerating technological advances, the service market offerings (Vargo and Lusch 2004). Increasingly, how-
innovation landscape has undergone radical shifts. Service ever, researchers have come to consider innovation from a
innovation is now seen as the main engine of differentiation valuecocreationperspective.Forexample,LuschandNambi-
and growth, and the body of scholarly research has grown san (2015) cautioned that the product–service distinction
considerably in the past decade (Carlborg, Kindstro¨m, and should not constrain a broader view of innovation. Similarly,
Kowalkowski2014;Witelletal.2016).Serviceinnovationhas Rubalcabaetal.(2012,p.697)notedthat“innovationisnotjust
beenidentifiedasoneofthethreestrategicprioritiesforservice anewofferingbutratherimprovedcustomervaluecocreation.”
research(Ostrometal.2015).Giventheimportanceofservice Onthatbasis,somerecentserviceresearchhasmovedbeyond
innovationandthediversityofactors,situations,andcontexts, traditional output- and process-based archetypes to a more
akeypriorityistobroadenourunderstandingofinnovationand experiential (phenomenological) and systemic understanding
theframework withinwhichit is understood. of value creation (Karpen, Bove, and Lukas 2012; Prahalad
Innovation has been addressed from multiple theoretical and Ramaswamy 2003). Drawing on service-dominant (S-D)
perspectives, which we refer to here as archetypes. In terms logic,theincreasedinterestinresourceintegrationasanaspect
of their salient facets, these archetypes mobilize different ofvaluecocreationhasalsoinspiredexperientialandsystemic
underlying assumptions and epistemologies, grounded in a archetypes of service innovation (Edvardsson and Tronvoll
range of academic fields that include marketing (Nijssen 2013; Helkkula, Kelleher, and Pihlstro¨m 2012), emphasizing
etal.2006),economics(GalloujandSavona2009),operations
(EdvardssonandOlsson1996),andstrategy(Cusumano,Kahl,
and Suarez 2015). With roots in the analysis of technological
innovation for manufacturing (Gallouj and Weinstein 1997), 1Department of Marketing, CERS—Centre for Relationship Marketing and
ServiceManagement,HankenSchoolofEconomics,Helsinki,Finland
service innovation research is characterized by firm centricity
2DepartmentofManagementandEngineering,Linko¨pingUniversity,Linko¨ping,
and traditionally traces innovation in terms of outputs or pro-
Sweden
cesses.Theliteraturehasitsoriginsinthedistinctionbetween 3InlandNorwayUniversityofAppliedSciencesElverum,Norway
product and process innovation (Abernathy and Townsend
1975;Utterback andAbernathy 1975). CorrespondingAuthor:
Anu Helkkula, Department of Marketing, CERS—Centre for Relationship
Todate,innovationresearchhasfocusedprincipallyonout-
MarketingandServiceManagement,DepartmentofMarketing,HankenSchool
put and process, the two archetypes of innovation, and the
ofEconomics,Arkadiankatu22,Helsinki00100,Finland.
customerhasbeenseenprimarilyastherecipientofpredefined Email:[email protected]
2 Journal of Service Research XX(X)
the social aspects of value cocreation. This broadening of the 2007). In the first of these, the development of the movie
scopeofinnovationbeyondfirm-centeredproductionactivities industryrevealsshiftsinmoviewatchingbehaviorsovertime.
and offerings has in turn generated new knowledge and prac- In the second case, we consider how TripAdvisor, an interac-
tical solutions (Lusch and Nambisan 2015; Vargo, Wieland, tiveplatformprovidingaccesstoasystemoftourismandtravel
andAkaka 2015). resources, provides improved outputs (better trips) based on a
In the present study, we consider archetypes as theoretical new process for navigating, viewing, and choosing (before,
prototypes. In the literature to date, the various archetypes of during, and after traveling). Users experience and cocreate
innovationandvaluecocreationhavebeendiscussedseparately valuewithTripAdvisorbymobilizingthisplatform.Addition-
ratherthanlinked.Whilearchetypesmaynotbeisolatedinthis ally, we refer to other minicases to illustrate how different
way in practice, they are of use in characterizing the differing archetypes informservice innovation.
theoretical lenses applied to service innovation (cf. McKelvey Our third contribution is to develop a research agenda for
1975;DotyandGlick1994;Brodie2014).However,Tetherand serviceinnovationtheorydevelopmentandmanagerialpractice
Howells(2007)warnedaboutnarrow,one-dimensional,single- basedonthetypologyofarchetypes.Astheproposedtypology
issue research (focusing, for instance, on service offering or bringstogetherdifferenttheories,itexpandsthescopeofexisting
process), and service researchers haveyet to explicate how the theoriesandmakestheoreticalassumptionsmoreexplicit(Brodie
different archetypes of innovation complement one another or 2014;Brodie,Saren,andPels2011;Weick1989).
createopportunitiesandchallengesforvaluecocreation.
In support of multiple-lens explanations, Okhuysen and
Conceptual Foundation: Archetypes
Bonardi (2011) noted the importance of identifying different
of Service Innovation
theoretical archetypes for fuller knowledge integration. To
meet this challenge, the present article examines different Traditionally,therearethreebroadempiricallydrivenviewsof
archetypesofserviceinnovationandtheirroleinvaluecocrea- service innovation, respectively, emphasizing assimilation,
tion.Insodoing,wecontributetotheexistingliteratureinthree demarcation,orsynthesis(CoombsandMiles2000).Assimila-
ways. First, we propose a typology of four theoretical arche- tion assumes that service activities are generally the same as
types of service innovation—output based, process based, manufacturingactivities.Asaconsequence,differencesbetween
experiential, and systemic—and clarify their role in value product innovation and service innovation are not acknowl-
cocreation.Ofthefour,output-basedandprocess-basedarche- edged,and existingtheoriesand models ofinnovationare con-
types occur most frequently, while experiential and systemic sideredequallyapplicabletotheserviceinnovationcontext(e.g.,
accounts can be characterized as “emerging” archetypes of Nijssenetal.2006;SicotteandBourgault2008).Withconcep-
serviceinnovation.Typologiescommonlypresent“ideal”the- tual roots in the distinction between products and services, the
oretical archetypes, which in practice do not exist in isolation secondviewpoint,demarcation,istheantithesisofassimilation
(Brodie2014;DotyandGlick1994;McKelvey1975).Accord- (Fisk, Brown, and Bitner 1993). Demarcation emphasizes the
ingly, the four archetypes discussed here are not mutually unique characteristics of services and the consequent need for
exclusivebutwhatDotyandGlick(1994)refertoas“multiple specific models and theories to comprehend the nature and
ideal types,”representing viewsandforms thatmight exist. dynamics of service innovation (e.g., Edvardsson and Olsson
Theoretical typologies are useful for business practice, 1996;Gadrey,Gallouj,andWeinstein1995).
enablingcombinationandexplicationoftheoreticalassumptions Thetwoschoolsofthoughtareunifiedbytheirsharedcon-
inrelationtoempiricalphenomena;amoredevelopedtheoretical ceptualfoundationingoods-dominant(G-D)logic,manifesting
apparatusfacilitatesanalysisandeventuallyprediction.Acom- in an emphasis on individual firms as service producers, cus-
bined view enables both researchers and managers to analyze tomersasserviceconsumers,andstudiesthatprivilegeproduct
serviceinnovation,todiagnoseproblemsinvaluecocreation,and and process innovation (cf. Lusch and Nambisan 2015). As a
toimplementserviceinnovationsthatwillfostervaluecocreation. result, this strand of research has concerned itself primarily
Oursecondcontribution,then,istoaddressthecallfortheoretical withfirm-centricattributes(Carlborg,Kindstro¨m,andKowalk-
integration (McInnis 2011). Adopting the perspective of S-D owski2014),focusingeitherontheserviceofferingitselforon
logic, we focus here on understanding service innovation from theserviceprocess(Ostrometal.2015).Inasystematicreview
theperspectiveofvaluecocreation.Thisnecessarilydependson of service innovation research, Droege, Hildebrand, and For-
thecombinedview,asnosingletheoreticalarchetypealonecan cada (2009) confirmed this focus on success factors for new
capturethecomplexityofvaluecocreationinserviceinnovation serviceofferings.Whetherdealingwithgoodsorwithservices,
because of its phenomenological appearances. The combined then, innovation research has tended to privilege firm-centric
typologyofarchetypesinserviceinnovationdistinguishestheo- productionactivities andofferings.
reticallenses,facilitatingtheirpracticalapplicationandsobrid- Inthepresentstudy,wedrawonthethirdapproach:synth-
ging theory and practice in pursuit of novel value cocreation esis,whichemphasizesvalueandcharacterizesserviceinnova-
(Brodieetal.2011;DotyandGlick1994). tion as multidimensional, with no dominant paradigm (e.g.,
We discuss the theoretical archetypes in relation to two Michel, Brown, and Gallan 2008; Ska˚le´n et al. 2015; Yu and
minicaseexamples,which servetoillustratehowthisconcep- Sangiorgi 2017). On that basis, Carlborg, Kindstro¨m, and
tualization might be applied in empirical settings (Siggelkow Kowalkowski (2014) noted the need for a service innovation
Helkkula et al. 3
typology,whileGalloujandDjellal(2010),GalloujandSavona project level (i.e., success of a new service offering) and the
(2009),and Rubalcabaet al. (2012)have called for the devel- programlevel (i.e.,success of serviceinnovation over time).
opment of an integrative and overarching framework to guide Intermsoftheroleofcustomersinrelationtoserviceinno-
serviceinnovation researchers andpractitioners. vationoutputs,wecandiscerntwodistinctviews.Intraditional
The increasing interest in customer experiences, service assessments, the firm serves as an active developer of service
ecosystems, and resource integration as part of value cocrea- innovationswhilecustomersarepassiveadopters—thatis,they
tion—especially in studies informed by S-D logic—has buythenewserviceofferingandmakeitprofitableforthefirm
prompted the emergence of experiential and systemic arche- (Sundbo 2001). This view is rooted in the neoclassical
typesofserviceinnovation.Alongwiththeestablishedoutput- economicviewinwhichtheseparationofproductionandcon-
based and process-based archetypes, these are needed for a sumptionresonateswiththeearly,unidirectionalSchumpeter-
fuller understanding of how firms seek to cocreate value with ian innovation model of “the lone entrepreneur bringing
differentactorsintheserviceecosystem.TheshifttoS-Dlogic innovationstomarkets”(LaursenandSalter2006,p.132).This
means that diverging views of service innovation can be uni- alsorelatestoKuznets’systemofnationalaccountsanditsuse
fied, offering a more dynamic and holistic lens for exploring during the World War II to measure productivity and to set
valuecocreation(Vargo,Wieland,andAkaka2015).S-Dlogic production targets for both the military and civilian sectors of
offersan overarching view ofhow valueis cocreated, andthe the economy (Fogel 2000). However, this view has attracted
emphasis on innovation as synthesis facilitates the integration increasing criticism, especially for its failure to consider the
ofdiverseviewsandarchetypes(CoombsandMiles2000).The emergence of service innovations (Gallouj and Weinstein
proposedapproachrequiresthearticulationofexistingtheore- 1997)—for instance, internal R&D departments and central
tical archetypes and their epistemological grounds. We will developmentprojectsarelessimportantforserviceinnovation
firstdiscussthedominantoutput-andprocess-basedarchetypes than for conventional product innovation (Tether 2005).
of service innovation before turning to the newer experiential Furthermore,thereisevidencethatcustomerparticipationcan
and systemic archetypes, which are not colored by traditional have a positive effect on performance and other service inno-
product-orprocess-based assumptions. vation output criteria (Edgett 1994), and this is increasingly
Withconceptualrootsinphenomenology(Husserl1970),the acknowledged as akeycomponentofservice innovation.
experientialarchetypehasbeenactivelydiscussedinvalueand Tounderstandhowthefourtheoreticalarchetypesrelateto
value cocreation research informed by S-D logic (Vargo and empirical phenomena, we will begin by examining how firms
Lusch2008)andservicelogic(Gro¨nroosandVoima2013).The in the movie industry provide access to movies and how cus-
systemic archetype is grounded in system theory (von Berta- tomerswatchthem.Adoptingalongitudinalapproachtoreveal
lanffy 1971) and industrial network theory (Ha˚kansson et al. changes over time (Siggelkow 2007), we can identify three
2009). Highlighting contrasts and parallels among the four major shifts in movie watching behavior: (1) from watching
archetypes,ouranalysisfocusesonthepotentialofanintegrative moviesatthecinematowatchingmoviesontelevision(TV)at
value-centric view for enhancing value cocreation in service home,(2)fromwatchingbroadcastmoviestowatchingrented
innovation.Wegoontoarticulateanagendaforfutureresearch. movies at home, and (3) from physically renting movies to
renting/watching movies online. According to output- and
process-based approaches, such shifts represent technological
product innovations. The output-based archetype would focus
The Output-Based Archetype of Service Innovation
onserviceinnovationsofferingnewwaysofwatchingmovies.
Output is essentially a matter of quantities resulting from the Rapid improvements in technology between the 1910s and
transformation of inputs such as research and development 1940ssawthe openingof thousandsoflarge and oftengrand-
(R&D;MairesseandMohnen2002),andoutputiswhatmany iosemovietheaters,especially intheUnitedStates.Whenthe
studies of innovation are actually measuring (Leiponen 2012; development of TV allowed movies to be broadcast directly,
Mairesse and Mohnen 2002; Murovec and Prodan 2009; patternsofmovieconsumptioneventuallychanged.Forpeople
Walker,Jeanes,andRowlands2002).Whenserviceinnovation livingoutsidemajorcities,thischangewassignificant,astheir
isviewedasanoutput,thefocustendstobeonattributes,asin supply was previously very limited. Extensive broadcasting
critical success factors or performance indicators. Successful (i.e., more than one channel) allowed customers to watch
serviceinnovation,then,canbeconceptualized(inwholeorin movies from different genres, countries, and time periods. On
part) as one or several multivariable constructs related to the an output-based view, this service innovation shift led to
outputsofserviceinnovationprocesses,suchasthenumberof increasedvaluecreationbecausecustomerswereabletowatch
new service offerings (de Brentani and Kleinschmidt 2004; moremoviesthan before.More recently,the optionofwatch-
Hull2004;SicotteandBourgault2008).Outputgenerallycor- ingmoviesseamlesslyonlineonanysuitabledevicehasfurther
responds to financial performance or value-in-exchange con- increased customer flexibility andchoice.
structs, reflected in measures of success rate, profitability, or Overall,themaincontributionoftheoutput-basedarchetype
salesimpact(e.g.,beingonscheduleandonbudget;seeCooper ofserviceinnovationhasbeencharacterizedserviceinnovation
anddeBrentani1991).StoreyandKelly(2001)acknowledged activity in terms of measurable, valuable achievements. This
that such analyses should encompass both the individual output-based archetype foregrounds how firms innovate
4 Journal of Service Research XX(X)
service offerings for their customers, even where customers Several studies have conceptualized process-based and
participate in those processes (e.g., lead users). Drawing on output-based service innovation as theoretically distinct con-
traditional innovation research, this archetype is rooted in a cepts (e.g.,Barras1986; EdvardssonandOlsson1996;Menor
product development perspective that equates service innova- and Roth 2007; Sirilli and Evangelista 1998; Toivonen and
tion with output, defined as the number of new services Tuominen2009).Thisdistinctionisusefulbecausethesearche-
launched. On this view, service innovation is seen as an eco- typesframeandcontributetothecocreationofvalueindiffer-
nomicconcept—areproduciblepracticethatprovidesabenefit entways.Inpractice,thebeginningandendofaprocessandits
toitsdeveloper(s) (Toivonen andTuominen2009). Thefocus relationtooutputmaybedifficulttodiscern,especiallyinlight
on output means that value is seen to be embedded in the of the interactive and dynamic characteristics of service
service offering, which the customer acquires through a (pre- (Droege, Hildebrand, and Forcada 2009; Gallouj and Savona
defined) value in exchange (Gro¨nroos and Voima 2013) 2009; Miles2008).
regardlessoftheir level ofparticipation. Returning to the example of the movie industry, the
process-based archetype would focus on changes in the pro-
cesses of delivering, accessing, and watching the movie. For
The Process-Based Archetype of Service Innovation
example, the service became more convenient, as people
The process-based archetype appears mainly in new service could watch movies from home and no longer had to drive
development (NSD) research, which views service as a pro- tothemovietheater,bookinadvanceorqueuefortickets,or
cess(Edvardsson,Gustafsson,andRoos2005).Thisperspec- worry about getting good seats. With the advent of movie
tive emphasizes the architectural elements or phases of the rentals, customers no longer had to watch the entire movie
service experience as well as their order (Toivonen, Tuomi- as broadcast but could decide when to stop the video, take
nen, and Brax 2007), which tends to be linearand sequential breaks,orwatchitagain.Withtherequisitetechnology,cus-
(Gallouj and Savona 2009). Transformation or change (such tomerscan nowwatch moviesanywhereand anytime, which
as learning) is also emphasized. Explicitly or implicitly, a represents a major process service innovation. Where any
numberofstudieshaveequatedserviceinnovationwithNSD suchshiftaltersthecustomer’sroleinthevalue-creationpro-
(e.g., Menor, Tatikonda, and Sampson2002),andtherelated cess, Michel, Brown, and Gallan (2008) have suggested that
research addresses such topics as innovation antecedents thechangeconstitutesadiscontinuousinnovation.Theroleof
(Froehle et al. 2000; Ordanini and Parasuraman 2011), suc- customer participation in process-based service innovation
cess factors for new services (de Brentani 1995; Martin and relatestodeliberateandmanageduserparticipationatdiffer-
Horne1995;MeltonandHartline2010),theeffectofservice entstagesoftheserviceinnovationprocess(Alam2006).For
innovationactivitiesonfirmperformance(MansuryandLove instance, Oliveira and von Hippel (2011) highlighted how
2008; Ordanini and Parasuraman 2011; Storey and Hughes lead users can generate service innovations, and Magnusson,
2013),andcustomerparticipation(Alam2002;Blazevic,Lie- Matthing, and Kristensson (2003) concluded that ordinary
vens, and Klein 2003; Carbonell, Rodr´ıguez-Escudero, and usersareoftenmoreinnovativethanemployeesingenerating
Pujari 2009). Beyond service innovation, no other service ideas for new service offerings. Chan, Yim, and Lam (2014)
processes are considered. notedthatcustomerparticipationinserviceprocessescanbea
Analysisofserviceinnovationasaprocessentailsadistinc- double-edged sword. While a high level of customer partici-
tionbetweenaserviceinnovationprocessandaserviceprocess pation may increase customer satisfaction through the cre-
innovation.Whiletheformerpertainstothedeliveryandsuccess ation of economic and relational value, output uncertainty
or failure of a new service, the latter refers to the process of may also increase (Larsson and Bowen 1989) along with
servicecreation;forservicedeliveryinnovation,see,forexam- job-related stress, so undermining job satisfaction (Chan,
ple,Ja-Shen,HungTai,andYa-Hui(2009);fordesignofservice Yim, and Lam 2014).
delivery systems, see Zomerdijk and Voss (2010). Voss and Overall,themaincontributionoftheprocess-basedarche-
Hsuan(2009)suggestedthatservicearchitectureandmodularity typeisitsfocusonserviceinnovationactivityandtimespan,
could support the decomposition of services into smaller units inwhichserviceinnovationisunderstoodasanactivityrather
and more efficient processes. Where the focus is on market than as an output (Toivonen and Tuominen 2009), and the
offerings, process innovation research tends to be firm centric, customer is seen to participate in the production process
emphasizing technology-based process improvements that rather than just at the point of output (Gro¨nroos 1998). For
enhancetheperformanceofexistingservices.Asawell-known these reasons, service processes can vary significantly with
proponentofthisperspective,Barras(1986)proposeda“reverse different patterns of interdependence and division of work
product cycle” to conceptualize services in relation to physical between employees (e.g., front-stage and backstage) as well
goods (see also Ordanini and Parasuraman 2011). More gener- as different degrees of customer participation. Process inno-
ally, a process-based archetype applies to any change in the vations can also affect customers’ behavior in various ways
service creation process that influences the emergence of eitherincreasingcustomers’involvementinvaluecocreation
value-in-use, including shifts in the roles, competences, skills, (e.g., onlinebanking, self-service hotels) orreducing it (e.g.,
practices,orbehaviorsofafirm’semployeesorcustomers(see delegation of service activities enabled by automated back-
alsoGalloujandSavona2009;GalloujandWeinstein1997). stage operations).
Helkkula et al. 5
The Experiential Archetype of Service Innovation ustowatchmoviesonTV,asrentals,andsubsequentlyonline,
anywhereandanytime.Intheprocess,theindividual’sexperi-
The experiential archetype is informed by a phenomenological
ence in their social context has changed accordingly—that is,
understandingofexperienceasindividualandsubjective.Draw-
theexperienceasawholecanreadilymigratefromsocialand
ing on Husserlian phenomenology (Husserl 1970), the primary
collective to domestic and individual. Since the first movie
focusofanyanalysisbasedontheexperientialarchetypeisthe
theatersappearedintheearly20thcenturyinEuropeandNorth
individualserviceinnovationexperienceandhowthecustomer
America, watching movies has become a significant value
makes sense of it. In this regard, Smith (2007) referred to the
experience for customers—a potential “wow” experience, in
various modes of first-person experience in accessing service
whichindividualslosetheirimmediatesenseoftimeandplace
innovations, including perception, imagination, thought, emo-
(Millard2006).Aseachindividualphenomenologicallydeter-
tion,desire,volition,andaction.Becausetheyinvolveindividual
mines value,service innovations can be seento have changed
sensemaking,such experiencesarenotobjective.Helkkulaand
the service experience for better or worse, depending on the
Holopainen(2011)characterizedserviceinnovationasthesub-
individualuser’s pointofview. Ingeneral,themain contribu-
jective,individualexperienceofaserviceinnovationinasocial
tion of the experiential archetype of service innovation is its
context. Here, subjective experience and sensemaking in the
focusonindividualimprovedcustomervalueexperiences and
customer’s own social context determine what is considered a
valuecocreation.Allengagedactorsexperiencethisvalueindi-
serviceinnovation.Forexample,whileonecustomermayexpe-
vidually and subjectively in their own social context, cocreat-
riencethenewserviceprocessasconvenient,exciting,easy,or
ingvaluethroughexperience (Rubalcaba et al. 2012).
simplynew (Helkkula,Kelleher, and Pihlstro¨m.2012),another
mayfinditdifficultorunpleasant.
Thisconceptualizationofserviceinnovationintermsofthe The Systemic Archetype of Service Innovation
experience of customers, employees, or other engaged actors
Thesystemicarchetypeisinformedbyaholisticbeliefthatthe
israrelythestartingpointforcreatingnewservices.However,
whole is more than the sum of the parts (Sheth, Gardner, and
the archetype has attracted increasing interest precisely
Garrett1988)andthatsomethingislostwhenfocusingonsep-
because of its focus on customer and user experiences and,
arateparts.Inamarketingcontext,thisarchetypedatesbackto
in particular, on how customers (users) experience improved
the 1960s, influenced by contemporary ideas about social and
value cocreation in service innovations (Rubalcaba et al.
livingsystems(Bell1966;Forrester1958).Whileonlymarket-
2012). What each individual subjectively experiences as a
facing resources—that is, as possessed or controlled by the
service innovation requires no merchandizing and need not
firm—would traditionally have been taken into account when
evenbeknown tothefirm. Withinthecustomer’sownsocial
attemptingtounderstandserviceinnovation,asystemicperspec-
networks, resource integration can also occur without any
tiveinvitesconsiderationofawiderrangeofresources.Onthis
direct interaction with the service firm (Gro¨nroos and Voima
view, bothprivate-facingresources(possessedorcontrolledby
2013). In some cases, experiential service innovation may
the individual or customer) and public-facing resources (pos-
even be imaginary (Helkkula, Kelleher, and Pihlstro¨m 2012),
sessedorcontrolledbysociety)becomevitalelementsinservice
asforinstancewhentriggeredbydiscussionswithotherindi-
innovation along with the creation or recreation of norms and
vidualsorbyindirectcommunicationchannelsrepresentinga
rules of the system and the broader social context—that is,
firm’s service, including branding, advertising, news reports,
changesininstitutionsandinstitutionalarrangements.
reviews, or electronic word of mouth (Dube and Helkkula
Intheacademicliteratureonmarketing,thesystemicarche-
2015; Meyer and Schwager 2007).
typeemergedfromAlderson’s(1965)descriptionoforganized
In a service context, academic research on the experiential
behaviorsystemsandhasrecentlyattractedrenewedinterestin
archetypehasfocusedonvalue(Helkkula,Kelleher,andPihl-
the context of service ecosystems (Chandler and Lusch 2015;
stro¨m 2012; McColl-Kennedy et al. 2012; Vargo and Lusch
SpohrerandMaglio2008;Vargo,Wieland,andAkaka2015).
2008). Vargo and Lusch (2008, p. 7) asserted that “value is
Vargo and Lusch (2011) argued the need for an ecosystem
always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the
orientation in order to understand and apply the principles of
beneficiary,”positingthatexperiencedvalueisuniquelydeter-
valuecocreationbecauseoftheirinterconnected,dynamic,and
minedbytheactor—notonlywhileusingtheservicebutalsoin
varying implications. Rubalcaba et al. (2012) contended that
the wider phenomenological context beyond a given ecosys-
theproperunitofanalysisforserviceinnovationresearchisnot
tem. According to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2003, p. 14),
the service offering itself but the service ecosystem. This
value is cocreated through experience, where value and value
echoes the view of Michel, Brown, and Gallan (2008) who
cocreation are defined by “the experience of a specific con-
arguedthatthesystemicarchetypeisapromisinglineofdevel-
sumer,ataspecificpointintimeandlocation.”Thetechnology
opment forservice innovation.
or process is not central but serves merely as a distribution
A service ecosystem can be defined as a “relatively self-
mechanism for serviceprovision,creating no valueper se.
contained,self-adjustingsystem[s]ofresource-integratingactors
As one empirical example of the experiential archetype,
connected by shared institutional logics and mutual value cre-
considerhowmovieviewers’valueexperienceshavechanged
ation through service exchange” (Lusch and Vargo 2014,
byvirtueofserviceinnovation.Innovativeshiftshaveenabled
p.161).Onthisview,aserviceecosystemhastwoprimaryroles
6 Journal of Service Research XX(X)
to enable, facilitate, and guide value cocreation and to foster system. In practice, service ecosystems are created and recre-
service innovation (Edvardsson and Tronvoll 2013). In turn, atedbyactivitiesandinteractions,inwhichactorsintegrateand
firms must design resource integration mechanisms to link use available resources, guided by the norms and rules of the
resources, actors, and institutional arrangements and to enable social context,soenhancing serviceinnovation.
actors to enhance the service innovation. Interactions between
actors in the service ecosystem are primarily social encounters
Discussion and Implications
(Czepiel,Solomon,andSurprenant1985),confirmingthatactors
are at the center of every service ecosystem (Tronvoll 2017). Typologies based on theory can enhance business practice by
Actors are guided by social values and institutional arrange- supportingnewcombinationsoftheoreticalassumptionsabout
ments that determine how resources are to be understood, a given phenomenon, making the theory more explicit. Our
accessed,used,andintegratedinachievingserviceinnovation. study contributes to service innovation theory and practice in
Edvardsson and Tronvoll (2013) described service innova- threeways.First,wehavedevelopedatypologyoffourexist-
tion as involving changes to the structure of the service eco- ingtheoreticalarchetypesofserviceinnovation—outputbased,
system (including resources and institutional arrangements), process based, experiential, and systemic—with a focus on
based either on a new configuration of resources or on a new value and value cocreation. In demonstrating how the arche-
setofnormsandrules,andresultinginnewpracticesthatareof types differ, we also show how this differentiation can add
value tothe actors in a specific context. On this view, service precisiontothinking,supportingmorecomprehensivereason-
innovation can be seen as embedded in social structures and ing about service innovation. Table 1 differentiates the four
occurring within social systems, encompassed and shaped by archetypesofserviceinnovationintermsofthreedimensions:
institutional arrangements that enable or inhibit that service key references and characteristics, contributions to value
innovation (Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka 2015). The systemic cocreation,and actors’roles.
archetypebroadensthescopeofserviceinnovationbyempha- Thetermtypologyreferstoaconceptuallyderived,interre-
sizing this totality and incorporating multiple items—other lated set of ideal types. In practice, the four archetypes in our
actorsinthemarket,regulations,norms,andrules—inseeking typology rarely exist in isolation; rather, each represents a
tounderstand serviceinnovation andits environment. uniquecombinationof“first-order”constructs;characteristics,
Again applying the archetype to movie watching, the sys- foci, contributions to value cocreation, and actors’ roles (see
temic approach highlights how resource configuration and Table1).Thereisafundamentaldifferencebetweenourtypol-
institutionalarrangementshavechangedacrossthatentireser- ogyof service innovation andthe many schemesin thelitera-
viceecosystem.Forexample,themassmarketbreakthroughof ture comprising “classification systems that categorize
TV in the United States in the 1950s created a shift from phenomena into mutually exclusive and exhaustive sets with
market-facing resources (movie theaters and machinery and a series of discrete decision rules”1 (Doty and Glick 1994, p.
the knowledge and skills needed tooperate those facilities) to 232). In general, these refer to either-or notions (McKelvey
private-facing resources (the customer’s own home, their TV, 1975), where a type of service innovation is either in a given
andtheirknowledgeofhowtooperatetheTV).Thevideocas- category or not (e.g., radical or incremental). Bailey (1994)
setteplayersubsequentlyintroducedanewentitytothemovie noted that typologies differ from taxonomies, which classify
serviceecosystem inthe formofrentalshops andchains, cre- phenomenaonthebasisofempiricallyobservable,measurable
atinganadditionalserviceencounterfromthecustomer’sper- characteristics.
spective. Similarly, the shift from tangible to intangible Basedonanextensiveliteraturereview,Snyderetal.(2016)
distribution of movies (what Normann 2001 refers to as identifiedthefourmostcommonclassificationsdescribingser-
“dematerializationofresources”)andtheemergenceofmobile vice innovation: (1) degree of change (radical or incremental
movieplayingdevices(suchassmartphones)havefurtherdis- innovation),(2)typeofchange(productorprocessinnovation),
rupted the service ecosystem. Clearly, major service innova- (3)perceivednewnessoftheservice(newtothemarketornew
tionsentailprofoundchangesintheserviceecosystemoreven to the firm), and (4) means of provision (technology or orga-
industry convergence, as new actors (often from new indus- nization). One example is Gallouj and Weinstein’s (1997)
tries) drivechangeand establishnew normsandrules. seminal account of service innovation as synthesis. This
Themaincontributionofthesystemicarchetypeofservice characteristic-basedapproachdistinguishesbetweensixmodes
innovationisitsfocusonresourceintegrationbyvariousactors of innovation: radical, incremental, improvement, ad hoc,
inaserviceecosystem.Ithasbeensuggestedthatfirmscannot recombination, and formalization. The differences between
design or create market offerings or develop and manage ser- thesemodesessentiallyconcernhowandtowhatextentservice
viceecosystemswithoutconnectingwithmultipleactorsinthe characteristics andcompetences change.
network that activates the system. Edvardsson, Tronvoll, and In contrast to such classification systems, our typology
Gruber (2011) emphasized that value is cocreated in a social encompasses different theoretical perspectives and epistemo-
contextbecauseserviceecosystemsareembeddedinthatcon- logical assumptions about service innovation. Consistent with
text,andcustomersinevitablyevaluatevalueinuseasvaluein Doty and Glick’s (1994) notion of typologies as interrelated
context. The novel value so created must therefore be under- sets of ideal types, our approach acknowledges that service
stood as part of a collective context, embedded in a social innovation projects rarely involve only one archetype. In
Helkkula et al. 7
Table1.FourArchetypesofServiceInnovationandTheirContributionstoValueCocreation.
Output-BasedArchetype Process-BasedArchetype ExperientialArchetype SystemicArchetype
Foundationofthe Productinnovationmanagement Newservicedevelopment, Phenomenological(experientially Socialsystems,livingsystems
researchapproach operationsmanagement determined)value
Characteristicsandfocusofserviceinnovation
Focus Attributesoftheservice Theserviceinnovationprocess; Actors’experienceswhileusing Resourceintegrationby
innovation(e.g.,new architecturalelements theserviceandinthewider actorsengagedinthe
technology) (phases)ofthecustomer’s phenomenologicalcontext, serviceecosystem
serviceconsumption extendingbeyondaspecific
serviceinnovation
Descriptionofservice Anofferingnotpreviously Achangeintheservicecreation Anindividualexperienceof Areconfigurationof
innovation/ availabletothefirm’s processrequiring somethingneworrevised resources,actors,and
innovationactivity customersrequiring modificationsinthesetsof institutionalarrangements
modificationsinthesetsof competencesappliedby toenableservice
competencesappliedbythe serviceprovidersand/or innovation
serviceprovidersand/or customers
customers
Contributionstovaluecocreation
Valueconceptualization Value-in-exchange:singular Value-in-use:accumulated Value-in-experience: Value-in-context:improved
inserviceinnovation entityatagivenpointintime throughouttheservice phenomenological viabilityoftheservice
thatisdeliveredtothe processasastageactivity,in (experientiallydetermined) ecosystem;integrationof
customerandisreproducible; whichvalueemergesthrough value:newandvaluable availableresourceswithin
creatingoutputs(tovarious transformationorchange;the experiencesthatare theserviceecosystemina
extents)withvaluable processofapplyingnewideas individuallyexperiencedbut specificcontext
attributes orcurrentthinkingin sociallycocreated
fundamentallydifferentways
Focusonvalue Creatingoutputs(tovarious Theprocessofapplyingnew Cocreatingvaluableservice Integratingavailableresources
cocreationinservice extents)withvaluable ideasorcurrentthinkingin experiencesthroughservice withintheservice
innovation attributes fundamentallydifferentways innovations ecosysteminaspecific
context
Rolesofactorsinserviceinnovations
Mainactors Companiesthatinnovate Companiesthatmanagethe Customersoranyotheractors Differentelementsofthe
offerings;customersaseither process;actorswhoattend intheserviceinnovation systemthatmake
passiveadoptersoractive theprocesssuchas phenomenon resourcesavailablefor
codevelopers customers valuecreation
Servicefirm Toproducenewservice Toenablenewserviceprocesses Tofacilitatevaluableexperiences Tointegratemarketand
offerings otherresourcesinanovel
andviableway
Employee(s) Totakethenewservicetothe Todivideworkbetweenfrontline Tofacilitatecustomers’ Tointegratemarket,private,
market;launching,selling,and employeesinteractingwith experiencesofvalue andotherresourcesina
marketingactivities customersandbackstage novelandviableway
employeesproducingthe
serviceinisolation
Customer(s) Togenerateideasandprovide Tomoreorlessactivelyprovide Toexperiencetheservice Tointegrateprivate
inputsandfeedbackonnew inputstotheservice innovationphenomenonin resourceswithother
serviceconceptsbeforethey productionprocess theirsocialcontext availableresourcesina
arelaunchedorfollowing novelandviableway
launch(“afterinnovation”)
Otherrelevantactors Suppliersandservicepartners Servicepartnersandother Otherindividualsinthesocial Allotheractorsinvolvedin
includedinthe customers(inindividual setting theserviceecosystem
serviceinnovation collectivephases)
Keyreferences
Schumpeter(1934),Cooperand Barras(1986),Galloujand VargoandLusch(2008), EdvardssonandTronvoll
deBrentani(1991),and Weinstein(1997),andMichel, Rubalcabaetal.(2012),and (2013)andVargo,Wieland,
StoreyandKelly(2001) Brown,andGallan(2008) Helkkula,Kelleher,and andAkaka(2015)
Pihlstro¨m(2012)
8 Journal of Service Research XX(X)
Table2.ExamplesofServiceInnovationbyArchetype.
ServiceInnovation Description Output-BasedArchetype Process-BasedArchetype ExperientialArchetype SystemicArchetype
TripAdvisor:open, TripAdvisoristheworld’s TripAdvisoroffers TripAdvisor’scustomers TripAdvisorfacilitates TripAdvisordirects
onlinetravelsite largestonlinetravel customersan navigateanimproved customers’ customersto
site,offeringadvice interactiveplatformof processthatenables experiencesof centralizedonline
fromothertravelers, tourismandtraveling. themtomakemore managingtourismand bookingofhotels,
travelchoices,andlinks Astheinnovation informeddecisionsand traveling,asenseof restaurants,andguided
forbookingservice activityispresentedin reducetransaction empowerment,and tours,andcustomers
termsofmeasurable, costsandperceived informationsharing canaccessotherusers’
valuableaspects,the risks withothersabout reviewsandcontent
focusisonthedesign varioustravel
andtechnicalfinesseof destinations
theservice
TideDryCleaners: TideDryCleanersis TideDryCleanersoffers Thecustomerprocess TideDryCleanersoffers Theservicebuildsona
drycleaning Procter&Gamble’s efficient,high-quality, includesconvenient customersconsistent franchisingmodelwith
serviceswith innovativefranchising 24-hrdrycleaning curbsideassistance, qualityanda anetworkoflocal
multipleoptions conceptintheU.S.dry serviceswithmultiple suchasdrive-through convenientexperience franchisees.The
cleaningmarket additionaloptionssuch valetdrop-offand inairy,freshlocations, interactionbetween
asalterations,leather pickup;24-hraccessis withwell-trainedand franchiseesandthe
conditioning,and providedthrough customer-oriented managementteamisan
weddingdress lockers,dropboxes, employees importantelementof
preservation andkiosks.Somestores theconcept,asare
alsoofferhomeand partnershipswith
businessdelivery.Each actorssuchasGreen
garmentisinspectedat EarthCleaning
sevenpointsinthe
cleaningprocess
Mobisol:electricity Customerspayaservice Ruralhouseholdscanget Mobisolprovidesfree Customersexperience Mobisolreliesonsales
servicestooff- feeforasolarpower electricityfromanoff- installationanda reliableelectricity- agents,localservice
gridrural system(controller, grid,rent-to-ownsolar supporthotline,relying basedhousehold technicians,software
householdsin battery,andpanel); powersystem,with onremotemonitoring services(replacing engineers,andmobile
EastAfrica selectedappliances variousservicelevels andanalyticstomanage kerosenelampsand paymentoperators.
basedona (e.g.,TV,phone andpackages andchargeforthe firewoodwithLED Theneedforhigh-
photovoltaic chargingkit,torch, service.Customersuse torchesandcooking qualityproducts
systemand radio,hairclipper);and aconvenientmobile stove);entertainment requirestightchannel
software maintenance paymentprocess (TV,radio,andstereo); controlofdevice
andbusiness manufacturersin
(multicharger,hair China.Issuesof
clipper,iron,etc.), classificationand
enhancingqualityoflife taxationrequire
andhelpingtocreate government
newjobs relationships
OCTOPUS:ABB ABBMarineequipsvessels TheOCTOPUSsystem Usingweatherandloading Byinstallinga ABBMarinecanremotely
Marine’svessel andfleetswith providescustomers datatoplotthesafest comprehensivesystem monitorcustomers’
management integratedmarine withawiderangeof andmostefficient forproactiveservice fleetsandprovidea
andadvisory solutions(softwareand performance route,ABBMarine operations,ABBMarine proactiveservice.
system sensors)foroptimal managementservices enablesfleetmanagers offersitscustomersan ABB’stechnology
reliability,flexibility, forenergyefficiency andship’sofficersto experienceofsmoother platformorchestratesa
andenergyefficiency optimizationandsafer planandnavigatemore operationandbetter networkofengaged
voyages efficientlyand controloftheirfleets actorsinwhatisa
effectively,backedby throughasingle complexservice
24/7remotesupport interface ecosystem
SOIL:container- Sanitationisamajor SOIL’ssimple,eco- SOILoffersasafeand SOILfacilitatesadignified SOILcollectsandreplaces
basedsanitation problemindensely friendlycomposting convenientsanitation andreliablesanitation thelocallyproduced
serviceinHaiti populatedslumsatrisk toiletscanbeusedin processwithconsistent experiencetoa containerstoensure
offlooding.SOILoffers thehomeratherthan collectionand vulnerableurban properhandlingof
affordablesanitation havingtorelyonpublic replacementof community waste.SOILisfunded
services,withtoilet toiletsordefecating containers.Thishigh- byprivateand
rentalatUS$3–5/ outdoors qualitysanitaryservice institutionaldonors.As
month.(sincethe2010 reducesexposureto partofaglobalexpert
choleraoutbreak, healthrisks networkonsanitation
peoplehavebecome (e.g.,KenyaandPeru),
increasinglyawareof SOILcollaborateswith
thehealthimpactsof globalinstitutions.
sanitation)
(continued)
Helkkula et al. 9
Table2.(continued)
ServiceInnovation Description Output-BasedArchetype Process-BasedArchetype ExperientialArchetype SystemicArchetype
Uber:technology Uberisanon-demand Uberoffersanapp-based TousetheUberapp, Uberfacilitates Uberisanapp-based
platform transportationservice optionforconventional customerssimplytap customers’traveling serviceecosystem
connecting thathasrevolutionized taxiservicesatlower thesmartphoneto experiencesbyoffering platformfordrivers
driverpartners thetaxiindustryacross pricesusingfleet specifytheirpickup aninexpensivecabto andcustomers.Uber
andriders theworld managementofprivate locationandchoose arriveintheminimum buildsanetworkof
driversandcars theservice.Customers possibletime peoplewhoarewilling
usetheirUberaccount tobecomepart-timeor
topayfortheridein full-timetaxidrivers
advance.TheUberapp
useslocationservices
toidentifyavailablecars
thatreceivethe
customerrequest
KidZania:an KidZaniaofMexicoisa KidZaniaisanovel Childrenlearnhow KidZaniaofferschildrena KidZaniaplaysakeyrolein
indoor child-sizedinteractive constellationof workinglifefunctions tasteoftherealworld, bringingbrandsfrom
amusement citycombining equipment,organized througharole-play offeringopportunities differentindustries,
parkforkids inspiration,fun,and asterritorialspace processthatincludes foradult-like industryorganizations,
learningthrough offeringfuntimefor assignments.Parents experiencesinsuch andlocalandregional
realisticrole-play children cankeeptrackoftheir rolesasfirefighter, authoritiestogetherina
childrenremotelyas constructionworker, “constellationoffun.”
theyperformtheir policeofficer,and Partnersinclude
tasks fashiondesigner, AmericanAirlines,
amongothers CocaCola,McDonald’s,
andProcter&Gamble
Eataly:ahigh-end Eatalyisanin-storeand Eatalyoffersabroadrange Eatalyofferscustomersan TheEatalycustomer Eatalyhasbecomeknown
Italianfoodhall onlineretailerofawide ofhigh-qualityItalian easyshoppingprocess experiencecombines asaneco-friendlyin-
varietyofItalianfoods foodandbeveragesina forhigh-qualityItalian excellent storeandonline
andbeveragesat pleasantenvironment foodandbeverages Mediterraneancuisine serviceecosystemfor
countersand withItalianfoodand well-knownItalianfood
restaurants winecultureandhistory andbeveragebrands
EASY:amobile EASYwasthefirst Newhardwareand Moreefficientand Arevisedexperiencefor Collaborationwith
solutionfor advancedmobile softwareintegrated effectiveservice customersandusers softwareandhardware
service solutionforservice withthefirm’s processeswith (i.e.,technicians); suppliersfora
techniciansat techniciansinthe enterpriseresource automatedback-office customersexperience reconfigured,cutting-
Toyota materialhandling planningsystemenables operationsreduce Toyota’smaterial edgeserviceecosystem.
Industries division,providing moreconsistentservice administrationfor handlingservice Closecooperationwas
supportintherepair outputqualityand customers,with businessasmore neededbetween
andmaintenanceof higherutilizationof improvedinvoicinglead professionalandtech regionalheadquarters
forklifts serviceemployees. timeandreplenishment savvy.Whileoverall andlocalsales
EASYisalsoanessential ofparts.Service receptionexceeded companiesfortesting,
componentofmore technicianshaveinstant expectations,some implementing,and
recentadvancedservice accesstoservice (older)employees upgradingprocesses
offeringssuchasfleet orders,spareparts expresseddisapproval andsystems.Limitations
managementsolutions information,and ofthenewwaysof suchasmobiledata
productusagedata working connectivityinitially
constrainedtheservice
Note.SOIL¼SustainableOrganicIntegratedLivelihoods;EASY¼EngineerAdministrationSystem;TV¼television.
practice,serviceinnovationprojectscanaccommodateacom- differentkindsofquestionsandunderstandingsofserviceinno-
bination of features from different archetypes and may entail vationandvaluecocreation.TheminicasesinTable2illustrate
differentdegreesofchangeandperceivednewness,depending howdifferentarchetypesrevealthemselvesinthesameservice
onbotharchetypeandactor.Forinstance,aserviceinnovation innovation phenomenon. The aim here is not to identify the
projectentailingradicalchangesintheserviceecosystemmay most typical or representative cases but to illustrate the plur-
yield only incremental changes in the individual customer’s ality of service innovation. For example, in the case of the
experience. EngineerAdministrationSystematToyotaIndustries,theser-
Asillustratedbythemoviewatchingexampleintheprevi- vice innovation initiative focused first on improving the effi-
ous section, service innovations are multifaceted phenomena ciency of internal service processes by investing in a mobile
and may encompass multiple archetypes. Archetypes differ in solutionforservicetechnicians.However,theproject’ssuccess
their ontological and epistemological assumptions, prompting could also be characterized in terms of other archetypes; with
10 Journal of Service Research XX(X)
improvedservicequalityandavailability,customersbenefited
Service
from a better overall experience; increased utilization of ser-
vicetechniciansledtohigheroutput;andautomationandcon- Process
nectivity resulted in a reconfigured service ecosystem Enabling Generating
(Kowalkowski andUlaga 2017).
A Combined Value-Centric View of Service Innovation
Oursecondcontributionistoproposeacombinedvalue-centric Service Value Service
viewofserviceinnovationthatexploitsthestrengthsofeachof System Cocreation Output
the above archetypes and overcomes their limitations by
accommodating complexity and addressing value cocreation
among different actors. The originality of this contribution is Collectively Individually
thatitoffersanewwayofintegratingthearchetypeswithinan Shaping Sensemaking
overarchingview,linkingthemthroughanaccountofinnova- 1 n
tion as synthesis and conceptualizing service innovation in Service
terms of value cocreation. McInnis (2011) has suggested that Experience
thistypeofreconceptualizationmakesanimportanttheoretical
contribution.Previousresearchhasexamineddifferenttypesof
Figure1.Thenarrativeofvalue-centricserviceinnovation.
service innovation in isolation rather than in parallel (cf.
Okhuysenand Bonardi2011),butinpractice, firmsface mul-
tiplecocreationchallengesthatcanbestbeaddressedbydraw- archetypes,theywillnotsharean“equalfooting”(cf.Okhuy-
ing on different archetypes. Typological and middle-range senandBonardi2011) withinthe value-centric view.
theory (Brodie 2014) can yield new theoretical perspectives To apply the value-centric view to an empirical business
on a given phenomenon (Corley and Gioia 2011); as Witell phenomenon,itisusefultorevisitthemoviewatchingexam-
et al. (2016) pointed out, “sharing an overall view of service pletodemonstratehowafocusononespecificarchetypemay
innovationenablestheorybuildingandresearchtobetteroper- neglect other aspects of value cocreation. For each of the
ationalize service innovation in further empirical studies” (p. major shifts in movie watching behavior, value cocreation
2870). was influenced by all four archetypes as illustrated in Figure
The combined value-centric view invites researchers and 1. First, the process-based archetype focuses on how techno-
managers to apply the archetypes in combination to improve logical innovations change the process of delivering, acces-
cocreationofvalueforvariousactorsortoenhancetheoverall sing, and watching the movie. Such changes generate a
viability of the ecosystem. Service innovations involve new service output offering new ways of watching movies, such
typesof resourceconfiguration andrelated changes ininstitu- as seamless movie consumption across technical platforms.
tions and institutional arrangements, which are dynamic and Through individual sensemaking, service process and output
changeinresponsetoevents(EdvardssonandTronvoll2013). influence an individual’s experience in their social context.
Whileexperientialandsystemicarchetypesviewvaluecocrea- Collectively, the service experience influences institutional
tionasphenomenologicallydeterminedbyengagedactorsina arrangements across the service ecosystem, which may alter
given social system, output- and process-based archetypes established norms and rules. Reconfigurations of the service
focus on effective outputs and processes. The well-known ecosystem (such as a shift from market-facing to private-
metaphor of a group of blindmen studying different parts of facing resources) in turn facilitate new or improved service
anelephantishelpfulindescribingthecombinatorynatureofa processes and further outputs.
new theoretical perspective. In analyzing the elephant, each By way of illustration and simplification, we consider
man touches a different part of the animal such as the tail or TripAdvisorasanexampleofhowthevalue-centricviewcom-
theear;aholisticviewemergesonlyafterthedifferentanalyses binesandextendsarchetypes(seealsoTable2).Thiscomple-
are compared and combined. In the same vein, we propose a ments the movie watching case by showing a single firm (the
value-centric viewthatcombines the fourarchetypes toeluci- world’s largest online travel site) offering advice from other
date service innovation as improved cocreation of value. Any travelers, travel choices, and links for booking services (Tri-
analysisalwaysdependsonanontologicalandepistemological pAdvisor 2017). Seen in terms of the output-based archetype,
position,andOkhuysenandBonardi(2011,p.10)emphasized service innovation means innovating a new benefit or a solu-
thatwhencombiningtheories,authorsshould“clearlyidentify tion.Thisisacommonapproachtoserviceinnovationbutlacks
andstatetheirownontologicalpositionanduseitasadriver.” theholisticviewofvaluecocreation.Instead,theprocess-based
Inthecombinedvalue-centricview,wedrawonrecentworkin approach focuses on improving the provider’s processes and
S-Dlogiconvalueandvaluecocreation,andonserviceinno- facilitating service delivery, often driven by cost efficiencies
vationascocreationofvalue(Rubalcabaetal.2012;Vargoand for the provider, customer, or both. TripAdvisor’s customers
Lusch 2008). This means that even where we employ all four canmakemoreinformeddecisionsbynavigatinganimproved