Thesis
Implementation of new service innovation in a business-to-business setting
Redesign the implementation process of new service innovation at Pon Automotive.
Joost de Winter S1652370 Master Business Administration Specialization: Business Development Firt supervisor: Mr. Chintan Shah Supervisor Pon: Bas van Wallenburg Abstract.
The service industry is becoming more and more important. Therefore, it can be important to innovate the manner of delivering the right service constantly.
Furthermore, an important aspect of service innovation is the way it is implemented and adopted by related companies in a business-‐to-‐business setting. This study investigates the most important drivers (e.g., motivation, usefulness, Involvement, testing and strategy) and barriers (e.g., lack of incentives and understanding, switching costs, no fit and wrong testing) in new service implementation in a
business-‐to-‐business setting. By using a qualitative research approach, this research reviews the current situation at automotive industry, Pon. By using the drivers and barriers as a basis for service implementation a recommendation is given on how Pon can improve their B2B service implementation. Results show that Pon has to focus on the usefulness of the innovation, needs to involve the dealer companies more, create a clear strategy and guideline and improve on delivering feedback and developing a measurement system in the testing phase.
Keywords: Business-‐to-‐business, adoption, co-‐creation, testing, service innovation,
implementation strategy.
2 1. Introduction.
The automotive Branch is becoming more and more competitive. This competitiveness is not only found in the sale of new cars, where tax regulations have had a large
influence on the prices, but also in the after sales activities. Therefore, providing added value and services has become more and more important. During the past years, large distributors working in the automotive sector have put a lot of focus on developing and improving their services. The characteristics of services differ from tangible products in various ways, these include: intangibility, heterogeneity, perishability, and
inseparability (Alam, 2002). According to Hipp & Grupp, (2005) these characteristics provide the opportunity to be different than competitors. Therefore it can be concluded that service is becoming more and more important in the current market.
Distributors in the automotive sector are acting in a business-‐to-‐business (B2B) setting;
an example of their responsibilities is their responsibility for the logistics of strategic decisions, varying from sales to marketing for the entire Dutch Audi market.
Their direct customers are the different dealer companies located in the Netherlands.
The dealer companies are the link to the end user for automotive brands in the Netherlands. Therefore, the service provided by the dealer companies, is the brand service, which is perceived by the end customer. Furthermore, facilitating the agents to provide good service is an important activity to implement for the large distributors in the automotive sector. In the B2B setting, the decision process is more professional, rational and complex than in the business-‐to-‐consumer (B2C) setting, where it is more likely that your customer is the end user (Fill and Fill, 2006). Therefore it is important to focus on the decision-‐making unit (DMU) of the organization (Brennan et al., 2011). In a service setting, the challenge for Pon is that they have to implement the service
innovation successfully to their agents for their desired service to reach the end user.
By means of an internship at Pon, it became evident that distributors in the automotive sector are presenting a growing awareness of how important service is. As a result of this, Pon has developed many new service tools. The most important service innovations implemented over the last years shall be presented in the following paragraph:
1. ‘Digital service plan:’ a tool, which replaces the paper service book in a car for a digital version. The goal is that every car has a reliable, fast and easy-‐to-‐use system that can serve the end user in a convenient way.
2. ‘Direct reception:’ a change in the setting when a customer brings his car to an agent for service. The end user and the service employee will inspect the car and communicate about what needs to be done. A special place is designed for this task.
3. ‘Customer delight coulance:’ for special occasions when a car gets a defect after the Standard warranty period. This ‘leniency’ arrangement will arrange an appropriate solution for the end user.
4. ‘Kundentisch online:’ Bottom-‐up communication tool focused on solution finding in interesting and important issues regarding ‘after sales service.’ Important is the continuous improvement process.
As a result of these developments combined with the sharpened focus on service, customer satisfaction figures have grown significantly in 2012. The ‘sales’ satisfaction figure has grown from 9,7 to 10,4. Even more important is that the ‘after sales’ figures have increased from 7,7 to 8,6. (Pon, 2012)
The time to market is an important factor in new service development. Some examples of service innovation show that there is a fixed date when service has to be implemented and used by the dealer companies. This is the reason why the implementation process is not always smooth and well structured, leading to startup issues of new initiatives at the dealer companies, which is not a desirable situation.
Therefore, the business problem in this research is stated as follows:
The business-‐to-‐business implementation process of new services, from a large distributor in the automotive sector to their agents can be implemented more successfully.
There is much academic literature about the adoption of technology (Venkatesh et al.,
2003; Wattel et al., 2010). Next to that, there is an upcoming range of literature on new
service development. (De Bretani, 1991; Droege et al., 2009; Storey & Hull, 2010)
4 However, literature focusing on the implementation (adoption) of new service
development in a B2B setting is falling short. This is remarkable because of the growing importance of service. Furthermore, many organizations are operating in a business-‐to-‐
business setting, where service adoption is an important topic. Strikingly, there is a gap in the current literature; therefore further research shall be performed on the topic throughout this thesis.
2. Research Question.
Research objective: Find a solution for the following business problem:
The business-‐to-‐business implementation process of new services, from a large distributor in the automotive sector to their agents can be implemented more successfully.
The research shall be conducted by implementing a thorough analysis on the varying service innovations to find the cause and come up with a solution for Pon. The aim of this research is to find a solution, which shall make the implementation of new service innovations at dealer companies more successful.
Research Question: Which drivers and barriers influence the success of the business-‐to-‐
business implementation process of new service innovations and how should a large distributor in the automotive sector deal with these drivers and barriers?
In order to underpin the research question, the following sub-questions shall be proposed:
1. Which factors are the key drivers to a more successful implementation of service innovation in business-‐to-‐business?
2. Which factors are the most important barriers, for a successful implementation of service innovation in business-‐to-‐business?
3. What are the underlying mechanisms behind these drivers/barriers?
The basis of the case study shall be to recognize the most important drivers and barriers
regarding the topic. Therefore this thesis shall begin by indentifying the drivers, and
consequently the barriers shall be identified. The information regarding the drivers and
barriers shall be analyzed in an extensive literature review found in chapter three.
Furthermore, the sub-‐questions shall be answered to provide a well-‐established
structure to answer the research question. Additionally, they shall be used to answer the case study and provide a well-‐defined recommendation for Pon.
6 3. Literature review.
This section shall present an extensive literature review on various topics concerning the implementation of new services in a business-‐to-‐business setting. Firstly, the different streams about adoption shall be explained. Following this, the business-‐to-‐
business and service innovation literature shall be analysed. Last but not least, the various implementation strategies shall be elaborated upon. Various literature about service implementation in a b2b setting shall be elaborated upon which shall be the basis of discovering the different drivers and barriers that could make the
implementation a success.
3.1 Adoption of the innovation.
Nowadays, innovation is becoming more and more important for many companies. User acceptance is often the pivotal factor determining the success or failure of an
information system project (Davis, 1993). This is the reason that there is much literature available on the adoption of innovations. Ifinedo (2011) states that there are 2 theories that could cover most of the literature on adoption. The first theory is the DIT theory (Rogers, 2003), which posits that the diffusion and adoption of technological
innovations rest on five general attributes: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. This has to do with technological adoption, which means that the innovation characteristics themselves facilitate the adoption process.
The second theory is the TOE framework, which posits that the adoption of innovation depends on organizational, environmental and technological factors. Fundamentally, the TOE model is an integrative schema incorporating characteristics of the technology, contingent organizational factors, and elements from the macro environment.
Organizational and environmental factors include variables such as management support, organizational readiness, government support, and pressure from partners, customers and competition. Considering these two theories one can conclude that the technological and organizational adoption are very important factors regarding adoption in general.
Therefore, from this point in the research onwards, the focus shall be laid upon
organizational and technological adoption as the companies involved can influence
these factors.
3.1.1 Organizational Adoption.
Organizational adoption refers to the organizational factors, which are drivers or
barriers for the adoption of new innovations. Organizational adoption is most important in a business-‐to-‐business setting because the innovation has to be adopted by an
organization. In the past decades several models and articles have been made and written concerning acceptance of innovation influenced by organizational factors, which includes the person within (Ifinedo, 2011). The following section shall cover three important theories about organizational adoption.
Theory of reasoned action (TRA)
The theory of reasoned action has been developed and explained by Fishbein & Ajzen (1975). This theory aims to predict and understand the motivational influence on a person’s behavior. In the TRA, the salient information and beliefs are divided into two components:
1. Attitude towards behavior: ‘An individual’s positive or negative feelings about performing the target behavior.’
2. Subjective norm: ‘the person’s perception that most people who are important to him think he should or should not perform the behavior.‘
If a person intends to perform a certain behavior, it is likely that he eventually will.
Theory of planned behavior (TPB)
This theory, developed by Icek Ajzen (1991) is an extension of the TRA including the
‘ Perceived behavioral control’ component, which is established, in order to improve on the predictive power of the existing TRA.
1. Perceived behavioral control: ‘ the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior.’
Together with the attitude towards behavior and subjective norm TPB shape an individuals behavioral intentions and behaviors.
Barriers towards adoption
Furthermore, Stockdale and Standing (2004) have discovered some internal basic barriers concerning the adoption in a B2B setting.
1. Lack of understanding of the nature of the technique that is being used.
8 2. Lack of participation in big value chains that would encourage them to adopt.
3. Limited incentives and absence of culture for being the ‘ first mover.’
4. Financial constraints.
5. Lack of understanding and supporting the special needs by the developing company.
3.1.2 Technological adoption.
Various models and theories concerning technological adoption were found in the literature and these shall be explained in the following sections. Furthermore, the switching costs literature shall be elaborated upon.
Technology adoption Model (TAM)
Theory developed by Davis (1989) is an influential extension to the TRA model. It focuses on two components, which are the fundamental predictors of the usage of the system.
1. Perceived usefulness; ‘ the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance.’
2. Perceived ease of use; ‘ The degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort.’
Innovation Diffusion Theory (DIT)
Rogers (1962) emphasized that not all innovations are equivalent units of analysis;
different innovations will have a different process of diffusion. He states that five characteristics of an innovation determine the degree of its adoption according to the innovation diffusion theory. These characteristics are summarized in the table below.
Characteristic Definition
Relative Advantage The degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea, work practice or object it supersedes Compatibility The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being
consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters
Complexity The degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to
understand, implement and use
Trialability The degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited scale basis
Observability The degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others
Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT)
Moore and Benbasat (1991) added two components to the five characteristics of Rogers (1962). The reason that a 7-‐component model felt necessary to the authors was due to the mixed and inconclusive outcomes from the established models. They decided to focus on measuring the potential adopters’ perceptions of the technology instead of examining the primary characteristics of the innovations. The main reason for this was that the primary characteristics were intrinsic to an innovation and independent of their perception by potential adopters, and therefore a source of inconsistency arises when predicting intention to use. Hereby, Moore and Benbasat (1991) identified the following two additional components:
Characteristic Definition
Image The degree to which use of an innovation is perceived to enhance one’s image or status in one’s social system
Volutariness of use The degree to which the use of the innovation is perceived as being voluntary, or free of will.
Other than the scales already mentioned, no valid or reliable scales had been identified to measure observability and trialability (Moore and Benbasat, 1991.) Therefore new scales were necessary. Next to Rogers (1962) relative advantage, complexity and compatibility the following were added:
Visibility The degree to which one can see others using the system in the organization.
Results demonstrability The tangibility of the results of using the innovation, including their observability and communicability.
10 Switching costs
In a broad sense, switching costs add to the total costs associated with adopting an
innovation. When switching costs pertaining to a particular innovation are high, the
likelihood of adopting the innovation is reduced (Speiser and Venkatesh, 2002). New
technologies that require changes in how a business is managed may play a major role in
how potential users evaluate new goods and services. Specifically, even though a new
technology might offer high relative advantage, such advantages might be offset by
increased product complexities that deflate compatibility and product benefits
(Vermeulen, 2005; Veryzer, 1998). With this in mind, and contrary to the increased
benefits that come with uncertainty-‐reducing innovations, switching costs associated
with a new technology are negative consequences and should lower the perceived
relative advantage of an innovation and the motivation to change (Burham et al., 2003 ).
Business-to-Business.
Distributors in the automotive sector are performing in a Business-‐to-‐Business
environment, which could bring some additional challenges concerning the adoption of innovations. The following subheadings are two important topics regarding business-‐to-‐
business adoption.
Key decision maker
Instead of only focusing on customer needs, it is important to focus on the decision-‐
making unit in an organization (Brennan et al. 2011). One should keep in mind that organizations face a variety of challenges when deciding whether or not to adopt a new product or service. Furthermore, whether the innovation is new to the world or simply new to the firm, the firm faces a unique multi-‐phase, multi-‐person, multi-‐department and multi-‐objective purchasing process (Johnston & Lewin, 1996). All these Factors and most importantly the key decision makers need to adopt the new service innovation.
Co-Creation.
Noordhoff et al (2011) have researched embedded ties in business-‐to-‐business
innovation efforts. They discovered that to reduce costs and increase the effectiveness of innovation efforts, many business-‐to-‐business (B2B) firms engage in joint innovation activities.
According to Lambert et al. (2012) managing the complex network of cross-‐functional, cross-‐firm interactions that lead to value co-‐creation in business-‐to-‐business
relationships is a challenge. Managers need actionable frameworks to guide them through the implementation of a service-‐dominant business logic based on cross-‐
functional involvement. The results of the study performed by Lambert et al. (2012) state that cross-‐functional involvement is a key driver of performance for the two firms involved in the relationship. Value co-‐creation occurs during three cyclical and
interrelated phases through which customers and suppliers interact:
1. Joint crafting of value propositions.
2. Value actualization 3. Value determination.
12 3.3 New service development
Henry Ford quoted: “A business absolutely devoted to service will only have to worry about profits. They will be embarrassingly large.” In line with this quote there is a lot of literature available which proves the importance of service in a company.
NSD
Throughout the past decades there has been much academic literature published about new service development (NSD). NSD differs from New Product Development (NPD) in three important aspects (Johne & Storey 1998):
1. Intangibility: More processes than things: More difficult to test in concept.
2. Heterogeneity: Variable in quality, because produced and consumed at the same time, service experience is likely to vary each time. Staff and customers play a role in the delivery of the service. Degree of variation is likely to depend on the degree of standardization of the service and the amount technology applied in the customer interface. Risk for customer buying an outcome they cannot fully assess prior to purchase. Operationally this requires, for example: constant emphasis on training and practice by supplier staff. A standardized or a highly technological service offering.
3. Simultaneity: Service products are typically produced and consumed
simultaneously. This means that most services are inherently perishable and for this reason cannot held in stock. Capacity planning is critical in service suppliers.
Demand may vary greatly, yet needs to be met promptly or stands to be lost.
People involvement in NSD
Compared to new product development, the people involved in new service
development have a more significant role. One can divide the people involved in this process into three sub-‐groups. These are the development staff, the customer contact staff and the customers, which shall be explained below.
1. The development staff.
o The lack of skilled and experienced development staff is one of the key barriers to development in service firms. (Drew, 1995a; Johne and Harborne1985).
o No fear of failure.
o Adequately reward development activities (Atuahene-‐Gima, 1996a;
Scheuing and Johnson, 1989a).
o Product champions. (Dover, 1987).
o Approach must be truly cross-‐functional. (Johne and Harborne, 1985;Johne and Pavlidis, 1996; Langeard et al., 1986).
2. The Customer contact staff, which are the Front-‐line employees. There are four benefits of encouraging employee involvement in new service development.
(Schneider and Bowen, 1984)
o It helps to identify customer requirements.
o Involvement increases the likelihood of positive implementations.
o It helps stop process efficiency considerations overwhelming the needs of customers and
o It can lead to employees treating customers better.
3. The customers (Schneider and Bowen, 1984)
o The role of the customer must be made clear to the customer o If necessary the customer may need to be trained.
New service success factors.
Throughout the past years there has been an upcoming stream of literature concerning new service development. A prime example of this literature is that of Johne and Story (1998) who have performed a study focusing on success factors in new service
development. Their research is based on empirical evidence leading to a more successful new service development. The following points show the various success factors in new service development found by Johne and Story (1998).
1. It pays off to be innovative in services.
2. A more formalized NSD process increases the chance of success.
• Not just for the development of new services, but also on a portfolio or program level, service providers are notoriously bad at eliminating existing services.
3. Interaction with customers is a key feature (Co-‐creation)
• Interaction is typically an integral part of a service, development is far more complex and conceptual than the development of a tangible product
• New services are easily copied, but the difference is in the execution
• Not just service concept, but also delivery system
14 4. Frequently, suppliers of products play a critical role in service innovation.
Furthermore, the following success factors are discovered by Biemans (2012), which are important in new service development.
1. Nature of the Service
-‐ Value of the service to the customer, service innovativeness, quality and adaptability
2. Service-‐market Characteristics.
-‐ Service-‐market fit, market attractiveness and differentiation advantage.
3. Project synergy
-‐ Consistency and fit with the firm’s technical, human and financial resources.
4. Service innovation culture
-‐ Teamwork, product champions, risk-‐taking and top management support .
3.4 Implementation phase.
Additionally, research performed by Avlonitis et al; (2001) also concerning new service development found that the implementation has to be adapted to the degree of
innovativeness. The authors divided the service innovation into six types of innovativeness. From new to the market to repositioning.
Table 1. Avlonitis et al. (2001) innovativeness types and implementation.
Six distinctive service innovativeness types exist: Implementation by:
1. New to the market services 1.Launching, limited testing
Major success (non-‐financial terms) 2.Moderate systemic behavior,
moderate documentation, moderate assignment of resp
3. high cross-‐functional inv.
2. New to the company services 1.Limited testing, launching
Moderate success. (enhancing company’s image) 2.High systemic behavior.
Moderate documentation Limited Assignment of resp
3. Moderate cross-‐funct inv.
3. New delivery processes 1.Limited testing, launching
Major success. (terms of sales and profit) 2.High systemic Behavior High documentation Moderate assignment of resp
3. Limited cross-‐funct inv.
4. Service modifications 1. limited testing, launching
Overall Succes (terms of Market Share) 2. High systemic behavior
High documentation
Limited assign of Resp
3. High cross-‐funct inv.
5. Service line extensions 1. testing, launching
Absolute Failure (Non-‐financial terms) 2. Limited systemic behavior
Moderate documentation
Limited assignment of resp
3. Limited cross-‐funct inv.
6. Service repositioning. 1. Limited testing, launching
Absolute Failure (Financial Terms) 2. Moderate systemic behavior
Moderate documentation
Limited assignment of resp
3. Moderate cross-‐funct inv.
The implementation process is divided into thee subcategories. Which are:
1. (What) development activities.
-‐ Testing: that is conducting an in-‐house and/or market test of both the service’s operational and marketing aspect.
-‐ Commercialization/launching and post launch analysis of the service: which refers to the full-‐scale introduction of the service to the market and the evaluation of its performance.
2. (How) process formality.
- Systematic behavior: which refers to the degree to which regular systematic procedures and rules govern the development process;
- Documentation: which refers to the extent and intensity of formal paperwork pertaining to service development; and
-‐ Assignment of responsibilities: which refers to the presence and/or degree of defined and specialized roles and assigned responsibilities regarding service development decision making.
3. (Who) cross-functional involvement.
Cross-‐functional involvement is the integration of different functional teams (De Clerq et al, 2011). According tot De Clerq et al (2011) Organizational structure (decision
autonomy and shared responsibility) and Relational context (social interaction, trust and Goal congruence) are important factors for cross-‐functional effectiveness.
Implementation Strategies
Next to the process, which needs to be adapted to the degree of innovation, the
implementation strategy is important. Strategies are the ways in which information
16 about a new service innovation is shared with those employees who must execute the innovation. Cost and service quality–based innovations were found to rely on different implementation strategies, suggesting that the connection between an implementation strategy and success depends on the type of innovation. (Cathy A. Enz, 2012)
Furthermore, Nutt (1986) developed one of the few conceptualizations of
implementation strategies. The author assessed 91 case studies of planned change in hospitals and identified the following four categories of implementation strategies:
1. Intervention. Intervention comprises strategies in which the leader benchmarks other organizations and attempts to justify a change in performance by highlighting performance inadequacies and monitoring performance. Creating a crisis and collecting information to help create dissatisfaction are strategies within this category.
2. Participation. Participation includes delegation strategies that help to empower and engage employees in the change process. Task forces, cross-‐functional teams, focus groups, and employee surveys are examples of ways to tap employee views and elicit commitment and involvement in the execution process.
3. Persuasion. Persuasion captures the activities of internal and external experts who use a variety of approaches to sell ideas to employees. Internal public relations efforts, along with networking and trainers, are often used to persuade employees that the innovation has benefits for them and the firm.
4. Edict. An edict may come as a command from a senior-‐ranking executive or it may involve a designated champion who attempts to drive the change through formal or even personal power. Edict often involves directives calling for immediate adoption of a practice.
Finally, this study draws a distinction between individual, group, and leader-driven implementation strategies. The results indicate that innovation success is strongly and significantly correlated to the use of a combination of participation, persuasion,
intervention, and edict strategies. So while participation is most often linked to success, selected strategies from all four implementation categories are important.
Most critically, the results also reveal that the nature of the specific service innovation dictates the appropriateness of a given implementation strategy.
Quality-based innovation:
A quality-‐based innovation appears to be more successful when leader-driven
intervention and edict strategies are deployed, for example, combined with the highly interpersonal participation strategy of one-‐on-‐one counseling. Consequently, due to the fact that quality innovation is customer facing, individual counseling becomes a high priority to ensure that individuals who are motivated to deliver on the quality
expectations adopt exchanges with customers. In addition, the intervention strategies are used to justify the consistent delivery of new norms in the service encounter by focusing on eliminating old behaviors and benchmarking best practices. Last but not least, the leaders played the role of facilitation and ensuring consistent delivery of new services (Enz, 2012).
Cost-based innovation:
In contrast, the cost-‐focused service innovation was more successful when group participation strategies were used, along with group-based persuasion. If such an innovation involves radical change in processes it would require participative group strategies, and if it were disruptive to the organization it would necessitate attention to persuasive techniques such as incentives and rewards. The company’s cost-‐based innovation required employees to assume different roles and responsibilities and put additional pressure on them to manage scarce resources. Frequent use of incentives or monetary rewards for adoption was linked to success in the cost-‐based innovation, but not the quality-‐based innovation (Enz, 2012).
Testing and Experimenting.
Thomke (2003) discovered that live experiments are important in service testing and contribute significantly to the success of the implementation process. The most critical aspect of experimentation is measurement. Measurement shall be defendant if done right; otherwise it shall be inhibitory. Therefore, the three aspects below are important regarding measurement and feedback in testing.
1. Minimizing the effect of noise.
• Variables other than the one being tested
• Repetition of trials and experimental controls 2. Achieving high fidelity. (how reliable in real life)
• Requires substantial investment in remodeling, training and technology
• Hawthorne effect: Changing behavior when they know they are being
monitored.
18 3. Attaining rapid feedback
• People learn best when they receive immediate feedback. But this makes it hard to ensure accurate results. (Misleading feedback is even worse than no feedback)
• Balance between speed and reliability is crucial 3 moths would provide enough time to gain reliable measures without unduly delaying modifications.
Challenges and rewards regarding experimentation.
Next tho the three important aspects mentioned above there are three major challenges which are important regarding the experimentation phase.
1. Unfamiliar processes might confuse the customer, and employees may be distracted as they learn new ways to work.
2. Conflicting incentives 30 to 50% bonus; not working in experiments area, conflicts with the desire to participate in the experiments. Switching to fixed incentives looked like the ideal solution, but the associates lost their motivation to sell the best solution will likely to be to develop a sort of hybrid bonus system.
One that include both individual sales commission and fixed, team-‐bases component.
3. Issue of failure. If experiments fail they still produce extraordinary valuable insights, often opening up entirely new frontiers for investigation. In the real world however, there are inevitably pressures to avoid failures. 1 Fear to alienate customers 2 Fear to shrink you own funding. 3 Fear to alienate top managers (They might pull the plug).
3.5 Literature overview.
Topics: Literature: Drivers/ barriers:
Organizational Adoption.
Azjen TPB (1991)
Fishbein & Azjen TRA (1975) Ifenido (2011)
Stockdale & Standing (2004)
Driver 1: Motivation of Front-‐line employees.
Driver 2: Perceived usefulness and ease of use.
Barrier 1: Lack of incentives and understanding of the desired behavioural change.
Technological Adoption Davis (1989)
Moore & Benbasat (1991) Rogers (2003)
Rogers (1962)
Driver 1: Motivation of Front-‐line employees.
Driver 2: Perceived usefulness and ease of use.
Barrier 1: Lack of incentives and understanding of the desired behavioural change.
Switching costs Burham et al; (2003)
Speier & Venkatesh (2002) Vermeulen (2005)
Veryzer (1998)
Barrier 2: Switching cost and financial constraints.
Business-‐to-‐Business setting Brennan et al; (2011) Johnston & Lewin (1996) Lambert et al; (2012) Noordhof et al; (2011)
Driver 3: Involve key decision maker and employees by co-‐
creation, training, cross-‐
functionality and reward risk taking and innovativeness.
New Service development Atuahene-‐Gima (1996)
Biemans (2012) Dover (1987) Drew (1995)
Johne & Harborne (1985) Johne & Pavlidis (1996) Johne & Storey (1998) Langeard (1986)
Scheuing & Johnson (1989) Schneider & Bowen (1984)
Driver 3: Involve key decision maker and employees by co-‐
creation, training, cross-‐
functionality and reward risk taking and innovativeness.
Driver 5: Clear ‘participation’
Implementation strategy.
Implementation Phase. Avlonitis (2001) Cathy A Enz (2012) De Clerq et al; (2011) Enz (2012)
Nutt (1986)
Driver 5: Clear ‘participation’
implementation strategy Barrier 4: No fit between implementation phases and the service innovativeness.
Testing and experimenting Avlonitis (2001)
Schneider & Bowen(1984) Thomke (2003)
Driver 4: Measurements and rapid feedback in live testing and experimenting
Barrier 4: Unfamiliar process, conflicting incentives and issue of failure in testing and experimenting phase.
