Embedded Files
What is Service-Dominant Logic? What are Service Ecosystems?
What is Service-Dominant Logic? What are Service Ecosystems?
Service-dominant logic is an emerging theoretical framework for explaining value creation as an exchange of services among configurations of actors. In contrast to product-dominant logic, a logic that looks at factors tied to efficiently manufacturing, distributing, retailing and consuming products, service-dominant logic focuses on how services are exchanged.
A widely cited paper (2016) identifies five axioms of service-dominant logic:
Service is the fundamental basis of exchange in society
Value is co-created by multiple actors, always including the beneficiary
All social and economic actors are resource integrators
Value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary
Value cocreation is coordinated through actor-generated institutions and institutional arrangements.
Increasingly, the Services-dominant logic literature is focusing on service ecosystems as a unit of analysis for research and practice. In S-D logic, a service ecosystem is defined as a set of:
Actors: individuals, organizations, agencies, artificial intelligence agents, and etc.
Artifacts: products, services and other artifacts that actors exchange
Institutions: a) a set of rules, practices, standards or customs that govern how actors interact as they exchange products and services (also called institutional arrangements); or b) associations, organizations and government agencies that develop and administer institutional arrangements.
Service-dominant logic represents a kind of paradigm shift in thinking about markets, government and society. It has far reaching implications for how human beings organize their affairs in an increasingly interconnected world.
Learn more at the Society for Health Ecosystem Research and Innovation
What Research Disciplines Are Included in Service Ecosystem Research?
What Research Disciplines Are Included in Service Ecosystem Research?
We are using Service Ecosystem Design Science as an umbrella framework to guide research and action to accelerate development and adoption of transformational innovations for improving health in society. This framework draws on multiple areas of science, including collaboration sciences, service-dominant logic, population health sciences, implementation sciences, information sciences, sciences of social connection, positive psychology, mindfulness, economics (including new institutional economics), political science, social science including structuration theory (e.g. Giddens) and habitus (e.g. Bourdieu), complexity sciences, ethics (e.g. Emmanuel Levinas), among other fields.
What is Action Research?
What is Action Research?
Action research is a special kind of research in which participants in a practice community (e.g. actors engaged in "action") and researchers from a research community (e.g. researchers and research institutions engaged in "research") work collaboratively to conduct research and take actions that benefit both communities.
As shown in the figure above, it typically involves practice community members identifying problems or challenges that research community members then conduct research to help solve. Both parties then work together to disseminate results and identify new problems to study. This results in a virtuous cycle of research and action that can accelerate development and adoption of innovations in ecosystems.
Scalable Transformational Action Research is defined as research supporting action that is transformational, defined as having potential to impact the health and wellbeing of 1 million or more people while also having economic impact of $1 billion or more across an ecosystem. The term scalable means that resulting innovations can "scale" - that is, be standardized in a way that they can be efficiently implemented at scale across states, a nation or the world.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
1. Thornewill J, Antimisiaris D, Ezekekwu E, Esterhay R. RAPID Alliance 2021 Report. 2021. February 26, 2021. www.rapidalliance.org
2. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. Free Press; 1995.
3. Christensen CM, Raynor M, McDonald R. WHAT IS DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION? Harv Bus Rev. Dec 2015;93(12):44-53.
4. Hwang J, Christensen CM. Disruptive Innovation In Health Care Delivery: A Framework For Business-Model Innovation. Health Affairs. Sep-Oct 2008;27(5):1329-1335. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.27.5.1329
5. Spigel B, Harrison R. Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. 2018-03-01 2018;12(1):151-168. doi:10.1002/sej.1268
6. Ferrary M, Granovetter M. The role of venture capital firms in Silicon Valley's complex innovation network. Economy and Society. 2009;38(2):326-359. doi:10.1080/03085140902786827
7. Becker BA, Eube C. Open innovation concept: integrating universities and business in digital age. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2018-12-01 2018;4(1)doi:10.1186/s40852-018-0091-6
8. Benneworth P, Pinheiro R, Karlsen J. Strategic agency and institutional change: investigating the role of universities in regional innovation systems (RISs). Regional Studies. 2017-02-01 2017;51(2):235-248. doi:10.1080/00343404.2016.1215599
9. West J, Bogers M. Open innovation: current status and research opportunities. Innovation : Organization & Management. 2017
2020-11-17 2017;19(1):43-50. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1258995
10. Randhawa K, Wilden R, Hohberger J. A Bibliometric Review of Open Innovation: Setting a Research Agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Nov 2016;33(6):750-772. doi:10.1111/jpim.12312
11. Katz R. The Tower and the Cloud. Educause; 2012. Accessed 6-6-12. http://www.educause.edu/thetowerandthecloud
12. Benkler Y. The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press; 2006.
13. Sullivan T. Blitzscaling. Harv Bus Rev. 2016;94(4):15.
14. Cajaiba-Santana G. Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. Feb 2014;82:42-51. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.008
15. Essaghoolian N. Initial Coin Offerings: Emerging Technology's Fundraising Innovation. Ucla Law Review. Jan 2019;66(1):294-343.
16. Zheng ZB, Xie SA, Dai HN, Chen XP, Wang HM. Blockchain challenges and opportunities: a survey. International Journal of Web and Grid Services. 2018;14(4):352-375. doi:10.1504/ijwgs.2018.095647
17. Walrave B, Talmar M, Podoynitsyna KS, Romme AGL, Verbong GPJ. A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2018-11-01 2018;136:103-113. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.011
18. Koskela-Huotari K, Edvardsson B, Jonas JM, Sörhammar D, Witell L. Innovation in service ecosystems—Breaking, making, and maintaining institutionalized rules of resource integration. Journal of Business Research. 2016-08-01 2016;69(8):2964-2971. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.029
19. Adner R, Kapoor R. VALUE CREATION IN INNOVATION ECOSYSTEMS: HOW THE STRUCTURE OF TECHNOLOGICAL INTERDEPENDENCE AFFECTS FIRM PERFORMANCE IN NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERATIONS. Strategic Management Journal. Mar 2010;31(3):306-333. doi:10.1002/smj.821
20. Braithwaite J, Churruca K, Long JC, Ellis LA, Herkes J. When complexity science meets implementation science: a theoretical and empirical analysis of systems change. Bmc Medicine. Apr 30 2018;1663. doi:10.1186/s12916-018-1057-z
21. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):50. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
22. Lusch RF. REFRAMING SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT: A SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC PERSPECTIVE. Journal of Supply Chain Management. 2011;47(1):14-18. doi:10.1111/j.1745-493X.2010.03211.x
23. Trischler J, Charles M. The Application of a Service Ecosystems Lens to Public Policy Analysis and Design: Exploring the Frontiers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. Jan 2019;38(1):19-35. doi:10.1177/0743915618818566
24. Huarng KH, Cervera A, Mas-Verdu F. Innovation and service-dominant logic. Service Business. Sep 2018;12(3):453-456. doi:10.1007/s11628-018-0369-6
25. Suratno B, Ozkan B, Turetken O, Grefen P. A Method for Operationalizing Service-Dominant Business Models into Conceptual Process Models. In: Shishkov B, ed. Business Modeling and Software Design, Bmsd 2018. 2018:133-148. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing.
26. Vargo SL, Lusch RF. Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 2017-03-01 2017;34(1):46-67. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.001
27. Joiner KA, Lusch RF. Evolving to a new service-dominant logic for health care. Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Health. 2016;3:25-33.
28. Osborne SP, Radnor Z, Kinder T, Vidal I. The SERVICE Framework: A Public-service-dominant Approach to Sustainable Public Services. British Journal of Management. Jul 2015;26(3):424-438. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12094
29. Nosich GM. Problems with two standard models for teaching critical thinking. New directions for community colleges. 2005;2005(130):59-67.
30. Gomes LADV, Facin ALF, Salerno MS, Ikenami RK. Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2018-11-01 2018;136:30-48. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.009
31. Vargo SL, Wieland H, Akaka MA. Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystems perspective. Industrial Marketing Management. 2015-01-01 2015;44:63-72. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.10.008
32. Garner BR, Patel SV, Kirk MA. Priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses for implementation research: Protocol for a scoping review and evidence map. Systematic Reviews. Dec 3 2020;9(1)277. doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01535-y
33. Wensing M, Sales A, Armstrong R, Wilson P. Implementation science in times of Covid-19. Implement Sci. 2020-12-01 2020;15(1)doi:10.1186/s13012-020-01006-x
34. Luftenegger E, Comuzzi M, Grefen P. Designing a tool for service-dominant strategies using action design research. Service Business. Mar 2017;11(1):161-189. doi:10.1007/s11628-015-0297-7
35. Yi HT. Network Structure and Governance Performance: What Makes a Difference? Article. Public Administration Review. Mar-Apr 2018;78(2):195-205. doi:10.1111/puar.12886
36. L'Heureux AV, Therrien MC. Interorganizational Dynamics and Characteristics of Critical Infrastructure Networks: The Study of Three Critical Infrastructures in the Greater Montreal Area. Article. J Cont Crisis Manag. Dec 2013;21(4):211-224. doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12030
37. Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Brass DJ, Labianca G. Network Analysis in the Social Sciences. Science. Feb 13 2009;323(5916):892-895. doi:10.1126/science.1165821
Page updated
Report abuse