Institutionalization Process of Service Innovation: Overcoming Competing Institutional Logics in Service Ecosystems
- 1.7k Downloads
Service science is concerned with the question of how systems can co-create value in an optimal way. In essence, innovations aim at enabling better value co-creation; but at the same time, cause disruption and tensions in the service ecosystem by challenging prevailing practices. This chapter examines the development and diffusion of a broad scale heath care service innovation—the Electronic Prescription system (eRX)—as a process of institutionalization within a service ecosystem. This case represents an innovation process that attempts to solve a major societal challenge, rationalization of medication and reduction of medication errors and abuse. This change requires commitment and adaptation by diverse actors in multiple service systems affected by the eRX, but is nearly disabled by these actors’ competing and even conflicting institutional logics. We examine how diverse stakeholders slowly move towards a convergent institutional logic as the innovation is gradually institutionalized in the broader service ecosystem, and discuss the major challenges along this process. This chapter highlights the dilemma of change in service ecosystems and highlights the role of institutions therein.
KeywordsService innovation Service systems Service ecosystems Institutionalization Institutional change eHealth
The authors would like to thank Dr. Lauri Salmivalli for commenting on the previous version of the manuscript.
- Akaka, M. A., Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2013). The complexity of context: A service ecosystems approach for international marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(4), 1-20.Google Scholar
- Association of Finnish Pharmacies (2016). Annual Review 2016. Available at http://www.apteekkariliitto.fi/en/association.html, retrieved in January 2018.
- Capunzo, M., Polese, F., Boccia, G., Carrubbo, L., Clarizia, F., & De Caro, F. (2013). Advances in service research for the understanding and the management of service in healthcare networks. In: Gummesson, E., Mele, C., Polese, F. (Eds.), Service Dominant Logic, Network and Systems Theory and Service Science: Integrating three Perspectives for a New Service Agenda, Giannini, Napoli.Google Scholar
- Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. Companion to Qualitative Research. Ed. by U. Flick, E. von Kardorff & I. Steinke. Sage: London, pp. 178-183.Google Scholar
- Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions. In. Powell, W. & DiMaggio, P. (Eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Lawrence, T.B., & Suddaby, R. (Eds.). (2006). Institutions and institutional work. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Litovuo, L., Makkonen, H., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Luhtala, L., & Makinen, S. (2017). Ecosystem approach on medical game development: the relevant actors, value propositions and innovation barriers. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Academic Mindtrek Conference, ACM, 35-44.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2015). Information management in healthcare and social welfare. Available at: http://www.stm.fi/en/it-system-projects
- Salmivalli, L. (2008) Governing the implementation of a complex inter-organizational information system network. Turku School of Economics, Tampere.Google Scholar
- Scott, W. R. (1995) Institutions and organizations (2ed.). Sage Publications, thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
- Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
- Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2015). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1–9.Google Scholar