Advertisement

Innovation in Sociomaterial Practices: The Case of IoE in The Healthcare Ecosystem

  • Cristina MeleEmail author
  • Tiziana Russo-Spena
Chapter
Part of the Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy book series (SSRI)

Abstract

The chapter contributes to the development of service science by offering an integrated view of human systems and technical systems in a practice-based approach. Existing ways of doing, knowing, and connecting are changing, and new practices are emerging due to the IoE. Social and material reality fundamentally consists of practices which are produced and reproduced through everyday actions. Moving innovation into the practice realm means going from the outcome or objects to the very process—that is, innovating as a verb, in reference to the emergent process. The Healthcare ecosystem provides evidence on how humans and machines together compose complex adaptive service systems that affect and are affected by new sociomaterial practices. In such context innovating is framed as a texture of practices such that the set of practices rests on other practices performed by actors who integrate material and social resources (e.g., knowledge, tools, languages, artefacts) to improve service provision and actors’ well-being. Multiple sociomaterial connections across actions arise at the cross-points of actors’ interactions and resource integration, revealing a broader picture that can depict service innovation complexity more accurately.

Keywords

Internet of Things Internet of Everything Service ecosystem Socio-material practices Service innovation Health 

References

  1. Akaka, M.A. & Vargo, S.L. (2014). Technology as an operant resource in service (eco) systems. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 12(3), 367-384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashton, K. (2009). That ‘Iinternet of things’ thing. RFiD Journal, 22(7), 97-114.Google Scholar
  3. Atzori, L. et al. (2010). The internet of things: A survey. Computer networks, 54(15), 2787-2805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barile, S. & Polese, F. (2010). Smart service systems and viable service systems: Applying systems theory to service science. Service Science, 2 (1-2), 21-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Begun, J.W. et al. (2003). Health care organizations as complex adaptive systems in S. M. Mick and M. Wyttenbach (eds.), Advances in health care organization theory (pp 253: 288), Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  6. Bradley, J. et al. (2013). Embracing the Internet of everything to capture your share of $14.4 trillion. White Paper, Cisco.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization science, 2(1), 40-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life: A new scientific understanding of living systems, Random House, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Carlile, P.R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization science, 13(4), 442-455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chan, K.W. et al. (2010). Is customer participation in value creation a double-edged sword? Evidence from professional financial services across cultures. Journal of marketing, 74(3), 48-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Demirkan, H. et al. (2015). Innovations with smart service systems: analytics, big data, cognitive assistance, and the Internet of everything. Communications of the association for Information Systems, 37(1), 35.Google Scholar
  12. Demirkan, H. & Goul, M. (2006). AMCIS 2006 panel summary: Towards the service oriented enterprise vision: Bridging industry and academics. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 18(1), 546-556.Google Scholar
  13. Dougherty, D. (2004). Organizing practices in services: capturing practice-based knowledge for innovation. Strategic Organization, 2(1), 35-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dougherty, E. (2012). Assignments matter: Making the connections that help students meet standards. ASCD.Google Scholar
  15. Dubois, A. & Gadde, L.E. (2002). Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. Journal of business research, 55(7), 553-560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duguid, P. (2005). The art of knowing: Social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits of the community of practice. The information society, 21(2), 109-118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flood, R.L. & Carson, E. (2013). Dealing with complexity: An introduction to the theory and application of systems science. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  18. Friess, P. (2013). Internet of things: converging technologies for smart environments and integrated ecosystems. River Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Frow, P. et al. (2016). Co-creation practices: Their role in shaping a health care ecosystem. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 24-39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Gherardi, S. (2012). How to conduct a practice-based study: Problems and methods. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Gherardi, S. (2015). To start practice theorizing anew: The contribution of the concepts of agencement and formativeness. Organization, on line first November.Google Scholar
  23. Greengard, S. (2015). The Internet of things. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  24. Gummesson, E. & Mele, C. (2010). Marketing as value co-creation through network interaction and resource integration. Journal of Business Market Management, 4(4), 181-198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gummesson, E. (2005). Qualitative research in marketing: Road-map for a wilderness of complexity and unpredictability. European Journal of Marketing, 39(3/4), 309-327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holbrook, M. B. (2003). Adventures in complexity: An essay on dynamic open complex adaptive systems, butterfly effects, self-organizing order, coevolution, the ecological perspective, fitness landscapes, market spaces, emergent beauty at the edge of chaos, and all that jazz. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 6. (Available: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/holbrook06-2003.pdf).
  27. Iansiti, M. & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  28. Joiner, K.A. & Lusch, R.F. (2016). Evolving to a new service-dominant logic for health care. Innovation Entrepreneurship Health, 3, 25-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kearse, M. et al. (2012). Geneious Basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics, 28(12), 1647-1649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koskela-Huotari, K. & Vargo, S.L. (2016). Institutions as resource context. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 26(2), 163-178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lusch, R.F. & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service Innovation: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 155-175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lusch, R.F. & Vargo, S.L. (2014). The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions. Routledge, Abingdon.Google Scholar
  33. Maglio, P.P. et al. (2015). Commentary—Toward a research agenda for human-centered service system innovation. Service Science, 7(1), 1-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maglio, P.P. et al. (2006). Service systems, service scientists, SSME, and innovation. Communications of the ACM - Services science, 49(7):81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maglio, P.P. et al. (2009). The service system is the basic abstraction of service science. Information Systems and e-business Management, 7(4), 395-406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maglio, P.P. & Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1),18–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maglio, P.P. & Spohrer, J. (2013). A service science perspective on business model innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(5), 665-670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McColl-Kennedy, J.R. et al. (2012). Health care customer value cocreation practice styles. Journal of Service Research, 15(4), 370-389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McColl-Kennedy, J.R. et al. (2017). The changing role of the health care customer: review, synthesis and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 28 (1), 2-33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meier, C.A. et al. (2013). eHealth: extending, enhancing, and evolving health care. Annual review of biomedical engineering, 15, 359-382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mele, C. et al. (2010). A brief review of systems theories and their managerial applications. Service Science, 2(1-2), 126-135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mele, C. et al. (2017). Schools of Innovation Thought. In Russo-Spena T, Mele C, Nuutinen M, (eds.). Innovating in Practice, pp. 13-41, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mele, C. & Polese, F. (2011). Key dimensions of service systems in value-creating networks. In Demirkan, H., Spohrer, J., Krischna, V. (eds.) The science of service systems, pp. 37-59, Springer US.Google Scholar
  44. Mele, C. & Russo-Spena, T. (2017). Innovating as a Texture of Practices. In Russo-Spena T. Mele C. Nuutinen M. Innovating in Practice, pp. 113-137, Springer International Publishing: Switzerland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mele, C. & Russo-Spena, T. (2015). Innomediary agency and practices in shaping market innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 42-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morin, E. (1984). Sociologie. Fayard: Paris.Google Scholar
  47. Ng, I.C. et al. (2009). Outcome-based contracts as a driver for systems thinking and service-dominant logic in service science: Evidence from the defence industry. European Management Journal, 27(6), 377-387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ng, I.C. & Wakenshaw, S.Y. (2017). The Internet-of-Things: Review and Research Directions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34 (1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nicolini, D. et al. (2003). Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach. ME Sharpe.Google Scholar
  50. Nicolini, D. (2010). Medical innovation as a process of translation: a case from the field of telemedicine. British Journal of Management, 21(4), 1011-1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Normann, R. (2001). Reframing business: When the map changes the landscape. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  52. Oh, H., et al. (2005). What is eHealth (3): a systematic review of published definitions. Journal Med Internet Res, 7(1), e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Orlikowski, W.J., Scott, S V. (2008). 10 Sociomateriality: challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Orlikowski, W.J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization science, 13(3), 249-273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Orlikowski, W.J. (2000). Managing use not technology: a view from the trenches. Mastering Information Management. Prentice-Hall: London.Google Scholar
  56. Orlikowski, W.J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization studies, 28(9), 1435-1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Orlikowski, W.J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization science, 3(3), 398-427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Osei-Frimpong, K. et al. (2016). Patient co-creation activities in healthcare service delivery at the micro level: the influence of online access to healthcare information. Technological Forecasting and Social Change (available on line).Google Scholar
  59. Ostrom, A. et al. (2015). Service Research Priorities in a Rapidly Changing Context. Journal of Service Research, 18(2), 127–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pagliari, C., et al. (2005). What is eHealth (4): a scoping exercise to map the field. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(1), e9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Polese, F. et al. (2017). A4A relationships, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27(5), 1040-1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European journal of social theory, 5(2), 243-263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rouse, W. B. (2008). Health care as a complex adaptive system: implications for design and management. Bridge-Washington-National Academy of Engineering, 38(1), 17Google Scholar
  64. Russo-Spena, T., et al. (2017). Framing the New Social–Service Innovation Mindset, in Russo-Spena. T. Mele C. Nuutinen M. (eds). Innovating in Practice, pp. 205-235, Springer: SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  65. Russo-Spena, T. & Mele, C. (2016). Innovating in Practices. In Toivonen M. (ed) Service Innovation, pp. 129-148, Springer: Japan.Google Scholar
  66. Russo-Spena, T. & Mele C. (2012). Five Co-s in innovating: a practice-based view. Journal of Service Management, 23(4), 527–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schatzki, T.R. et al. (2001). The Practice turn in contemporary theory. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  68. Schatzki, T.R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical exploration of the constitution of social life and change. University Park: USA.Google Scholar
  69. Singh, J, et al. (2011). Comparative studies of physical characteristics of raw and modified sawdust for their use as adsorbents for removal of acid dye. BioResources, 6(3), 2732-2743.Google Scholar
  70. Spohrer, J., et al. (2007). Steps toward a science of service systems. Computer, 40(1), 71-76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Spohrer, J. (2017). IBM’s service journey: A summary sketch. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 167-172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Swan, M. (2012). Sensor mania! The internet of things, wearable computing, objective metrics, and the quantified self 2.0. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, 1(3), 217-253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Taillard, M. et al. (2016). The role of shared intentions in the emergence of service ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2972-2980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tien, J. M. & Goldschmidt-Clermont, P. J. (2009). Healthcare: A complex service system. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 18(3), 257-282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tong, A. et al. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in health care, 19(6), 349-357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of marketing, 68(1), 1-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2011). It's all B2B… and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial marketing management, 40(2), 181-187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vargo, S.L. et al. (2015). Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystems perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 63-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vermesan, O. & Fries, P. (2014). Internet of Thing-Converging Technologies for Smart Environment and Integrated Ecosystems. River Publishers. Aalborg: Denmark.Google Scholar
  81. Yin, R.K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (Fifht Edition). Sage publicationsGoogle Scholar
  82. Wieland, A. & Wallenburg, M.C. (2012). Dealing with supply chain risks: Linking risk management practices and strategies to performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(10), 887-905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Williamson, O.E. (2000). The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of economic literature, 38(3), 595-613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wollin, D. & Perry, C. (2004). Marketing management in a complex adaptive system: An initial framework. European Journal of Marketing, 38(5/6), 556-572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, Management, InstitutionsUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations