Institutionalization Process of Service Innovation: Overcoming Competing Institutional Logics in Service Ecosystems

  • Elina JaakkolaEmail author
  • Leena Aarikka-Stenroos
  • Paavo Ritala
Part of the Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy book series (SSRI)


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.


Service 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.


  1. Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Jaakkola, E., Harrison, D. and Mäkitalo-Keinonen, T. (2017). How to manage innovation processes in extensive networks: A longitudinal study. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 88-105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Sandberg, B., & Lehtimäki, T. (2014). Networks for the commercialization of innovations: A review of how divergent network actors contribute. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), 365-381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aarikka-Stenroos, L. & Ritala, P. (2017). Network management in the era of ecosystems: Systematic review and management framework. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 23-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Association of Finnish Pharmacies (2016). Annual Review 2016. Available at, retrieved in January 2018.
  6. 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
  7. D’Este, P., Iammarino, S., Savona, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2012). What hampers innovation? Revealed barriers versus deterring barriers. Research Policy, 41, 2, 482–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Driessen, P. H., & Hillebrand, B. (2013). Integrating multiple stakeholder issues in new product development: An exploration. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(2), 364-379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edvardsson, B. & Tronvoll, B. (2013). A new conceptualization of service innovation grounded in S-D logic and service systems. International Journal of Quality & Service Sciences, 5(1), 19-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edvardsson, B., Kleinaltenkamp, M., Tronvoll, B., McHugh, P., & Windahl, C. (2014). Institutional logics matter when coordinating resource integration. Marketing Theory, 14(3), 291-309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisingerich, A.B., Rubera, G. & Seifert, M. (2009). Managing service innovation and interorganizational relationships for firm performance: To commit or diversify?, Journal of Service Research, 11(4), pp. 344-356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Frow, P., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Payne, A. (2016). Co-creation practices: Their role in shaping a health care ecosystem. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 24-39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuenfschilling, L., & Truffer, B. (2014). The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual foundations from institutional theory. Research Policy, 43(4), 772-791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8), 1257-1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399-417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geels, F. W. (2012). A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 471-482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Halinen, A., & Törnroos, J. Å. (2005). Using case methods in the study of contemporary business networks. Journal of Business Research, 58(9), 1285-1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrison, D., & Waluszewski, A. (2008). The development of a user network as a way to re-launch an unwanted product. Research Policy, 37(1), 115-130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Häkkinen, U. (2005) The impact of changes in Finland’s health care system. Health Economics, 14, S101–S118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koskela-Huotari, K., Edvardsson, B., Jonas, J.M., Sörhammar, D. and Witell, L., (2016). Innovation in service ecosystems—Breaking, making, and maintaining institutionalized rules of resource integration. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2964-2971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lawrence, T.B., & Suddaby, R. (Eds.). (2006). Institutions and institutional work. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 18-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markard, J., & Truffer, B. (2006). Innovation processes in large technical systems: Market liberalization as a driver for radical change? Research Policy, 35(5): 609–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Markard, J., Wirth, S., & Truffer, B. (2016). Institutional dynamics and technology legitimacy–A framework and a case study on biogas technology. Research Policy, 45(1), 330-344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2015). Information management in healthcare and social welfare. Available at:
  29. Mohnen, P., & Rosa, J.M. (2002). Barriers to innovation in service industries in Canada. In M.P. Feldman, & N. Massard (Eds.), Institutions and Systems in the Geography of Innovation. Boston: Kluwer, 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Perks, H., Gruber, T., & Edvardsson, B. (2012). Co-creation in radical service innovation: A systematic analysis of microlevel processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(6), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629-652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rohrbeck, R., Hölzle, K. & Gemünden, H. G. (2009). Opening up for competitive advantage – How Deutsche Telekom creates an open innovation ecosystem. R&D Management, 39(4): 420-430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruef, M., & Scott, W. R. (1998). A Multidimensional Model of Organizational Legitimacy: Hospital Survival in Changing Institutional Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 877-904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rusanen, H., Halinen, A., & Jaakkola, E. (2014). Accessing resources for service innovation–the critical role of network relationships. Journal of Service Management, 25(1), 2-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salmivalli, L. (2008) Governing the implementation of a complex inter-organizational information system network. Turku School of Economics, Tampere.Google Scholar
  36. Samadbeik, M., Ahmadi, M., Sadoughi, F., & Garavand, A. (2017). A copmarative review of electronic prescription systems: Lessons learned from developed countries. Journal of Research in Pharmacy Practice, 6(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sandberg, B., & Aarikka-Stenroos, L. (2014). What makes it so difficult? A systematic review on barriers to radical innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(8), 1293-1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scott, W. R. (1995) Institutions and organizations (2ed.). Sage Publications, thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  39. Spohrer, J. and Maglio, P.P. (2008). The emergence of service science: toward systematic service innovations to accelerate co-creation of value, Production and Operations Management, 17(3), 238-246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thornton, P. H., and Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, 840, 99-128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Troshani, I., & Doolin, B. (2007). Innovation diffusion: a stakeholder and social network view. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(2), 176-200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vaaland, T. I., & Håkansson, H. (2003). Exploring interorganizational conflict in complex projects. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(2), 127-138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vargo, S. L., Wieland, H., & Akaka, M. A. (2015). Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystems perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 63-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Wallin, A.J., & Fuglsang, L. (2017). Service innovations breaking institutionalized rules of health care. Journal of Service Management, 28(5), pp.972-997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Verleye, K., Jaakkola, E., Hodgkinson, I., Jun, G.T., Odekerken-Schröder, G. & Quist, J. (2017). What causes imbalance in complex service networks? Evidence from a public health service. Journal of Service Management, 28(1), 34-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wieland, H., Koskela-Huotari, K. and Vargo, S.L., 2016. Extending actor participation in value creation: an institutional view. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(3-4), pp.210-226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Woodside, A. G., & Biemans, W. G. (2005). Modeling innovation, manufacturing, diffusion and adoption/rejection processes. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 20(7), 380-393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zietsma, C., Groenewegen, P., Logue, D. M., & Hinings, C. B. (2017). Field or fields? building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 391-450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Öberg, C., and Shih, T. T. Y. (2014). Divergent and convergent logic of firms: Barriers and enablers for development and commercialization of innovations. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), 419-428. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elina Jaakkola
    • 1
    Email author
  • Leena Aarikka-Stenroos
    • 2
  • Paavo Ritala
    • 3
  1. 1.Turku School of EconomicsUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Tampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland
  3. 3.Lappeenranta University of TechnologyLappeenrantaFinland

Personalised recommendations