IBM®
Skip to main content
    Country/region [change]    Terms of use
 
 
 
    Home    Products    Services & solutions    Support & downloads    My account    

IBM Systems Journal
Service Science, Management, and Engineering   Volume 47, Number 1, 2008
Table of contents: HTMLPDF This article: HTMLPDF   Copyright info

Patterns of innovation in service industries - References

 by I. Miles
Cited references and notes

  1. The U.S. Census Bureau North American Product Classification System is developing “ … a comprehensive demand-oriented product classification … Work to date has focused on the products produced by service industries in 12 NAICS [North American Industry Classification System] sectors 48–49 through 81.” See http://www.census.gov/eos/www/napcs/napcs.htm. Sixty-six detailed product lists have so far been produced; for example, the heading Electronic and precision equipment repair and maintenance contains computer-related services differentiated into: computer hardware other than hard drives, hard drives, computer software, and computer peripherals. Other services concern communication and navigation equipment; office equipment (noncomputer); noncomputer consumer electronics (televisions, home sound equipment, other); precision electronic medical equipment; other electronic and precision equipment. There are also associated services: reselling services, testing services, renting and leasing services, rebuilding, construction, and more. In another surprising example, almost 60 different services are outlined under the heading of Management consultancy.
  2. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html.
  3. Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community, NACE Rev. 2, (2002), http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST_NOM_DTL&StrNom=NACE_REV2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntPcKey=&
    StrLayoutCode=HIERARCHIC&CFID=766097&CFTOKEN=f35e42c325c74476-41854A8D-D1AE-FA57-C69E803F22C6E719&jsessionid=ee30709ec0fb60583e19    .
  4. S. D. Hunt, “On the Service-Centered Dominant Logic of Marketing,” Journal of Marketing 68, No. 1, 21–22 (2004).
  5. S. L. Vargo and R. F. Lusch, “The Four Service Marketing Myths: Remnants of a Goods-Based, Manufacturing Model,” Journal of Service Research, 6, No. 4, 324–335 (2004).
  6. I. Drejer, “Identifying Innovation in Surveys of Services: A Schumpeterian Perspective,” Research Policy 33, No. 3, 551–562 (2004).
  7. R. Coombs and I. Miles, “Innovation, Measurement and Services: The New Problematique,” in Innovation Systems in the Service Economy: Measurement and Case Study Analysis, J. S. Metcalfe and I. Miles, Editors, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (2000), pp. 83–102.
  8. M. Miozzo and I. Miles, Editors, Internationalization, Technology and Services, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, U.K. (2003).
  9. G. Lay, ServiceProvider Industry: Industrial Migration from Manufacturing to Selling Products and Services—Trends and Impacts, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, Germany (2002).
  10. G.-h. Hwang, “Information and Communication Technologies and Changes in Skills,” International Journal of Manpower 24, No. 1, 60–82 (2003).
  11. P. A. Roos and D. J. Trieman, “DOT Scales for the 1970 Census Classification,” in Work, Jobs, and Occupations: A Critical Review of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, A. R. Miller, D. J. Trieman, P. S. Cain, and P. A. Roos, Editors, The National Academy Press, Washington DC (1980), pp. 336–389.
  12. Input-Output Supply and Use Tables, 2004, United Kingdom Input-Output Analyses, National Statistics Office, London, U.K. (2006).
  13. Consumption on the part of sectors of their own intermediate output is usually very high; thus, including it could introduce some circularity into the analysis (e.g., office equipment would appear as even more IT-intensive due to its consumption of telecommunication services). This is factored out here to avoid sectors being classified according to their self consumption. The original data on industries consuming their own output—the cells in the top-left to bottom-right diagonal of the original data matrix—were thus replaced with the average of the two adjacent horizontal cells (that is, the average consumption of that product by the two nearest sectors) unless this was larger than the original figure. In the case of gross fixed capital formation, this was not a necessary substitution process, and the original cell values were employed.
  14. I. Miles, “Information Technology and the Services Economy,” in Oxford Surveys in Information Technology: Volume 4, P. Zorkosky, Editor, Oxford University Press, New York (1987).
  15. Employment in Europe 2005, European Commission, Luxembourg, http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/employment_analysis/employ_2005_en.htm.
  16. Tri-plot software was used to transform Microsoft Excel® input/output data into these triangular plots. Tri-plot is provided as freeware by David Graham (Loughborough University) and Nicholas Midgley (Liverpool John Moores University), to whom I am most grateful. For the original discussion of this system, see D. J. Graham and N. G. Midgley, “Graphical Representation of Particle Shape Using Triangular Diagrams: an Excel Spreadsheet Method,” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 25, No. 13, 1473–1477 (2000) and further documentation online at http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/phys-geog/tri-plot/index.html.
  17. I. Houtman, F. Andries, R. van den Berg, and S. Dhondt, Sectoral Profiles of Working Conditions, European Foundation for Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2003).
  18. V. Fuchs, The Service Economy, Columbia University Press, New York (1968).
  19. V. R. Fuchs, Production and Productivity in the Service Industries, Columbia University Press, New York (1969).
  20. R. Dawson, Developing Knowledge-Based Client Relationships: The Future of Professional Services, Butterworth-Heinemann, London, U.K. (2000).
  21. W. H. Starbuck, “Learning by Knowledge-Intensive Firms,” Journal of Management Studies 29, No. 6, 713–740 (1992).
  22. B. Tether, I. Miles, K. Blind, C. Hipp, N. de Liso, and G. Cainelli, “Innovation in the Service Sector: Analysis of Data Collected Under the Community Innovation Survey (CIS-2),” CRIC Working Paper No. 11, University of Manchester, Manchester, U.K. (2002).
  23. P. den Hertog, “Knowledge-Intensive Business Services as Co-Producers of Innovation,” International Journal of Innovation Management 4, No. 4, 491–528. (2000).
  24. B. Edvardsson and J. Olsson, “Key Concepts for New Service Development,” The Service Industries Journal 16, No. 2, 140–164 (1996).
  25. B. Edvardsson, “Quality in New Service Development: Key Concepts and a Frame of Reference,” International Journal of Production Economics 52, No. 1/2, 31–46 (1997).
  26. The Community Innovation Survey, U.K. Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, http://www.berr.gov.uk/dius/innovation/innovation-statistics/cis/page10957.html.
  27. CIS4 Questionnaire, U.K. Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, http://www.berr.gov.uk/dius/innovation/innovation-statistics/cis/cis4-qst/page11578.html.
  28. Fourth Community Innovation Survey: Eurostat Metadata in SDDS Format: Summary Methodology, Eurostat, Statistical Office of the European Communities, http://europa.eu.int/estatref/info/sdds/en/inn/inn_cis4_sm.htm.
  29. M. Kanerva, H. Hollanders, and A. Arundel, 2006 TrendChart Report: Can We Measure and Compare Innovation in Services?, European Trend Chart on Innovation (2006), http://trendchart.cordis.lu/scoreboards/scoreboard2006/pdf/
    eis_2006_innovation_in_services.pdf    .
  30. J. Howells and B. Tether, Innovation in Services: Issues at Stake and Trends, Commission of the European Communities, http://www.isi.fhg.de/publ/downloads/isi04b25/inno-3.pdf.
  31. T. Schmidt and C. Rammer, “The Determinants and Effects of Technological and Non-technological Innovations—Evidence from the German CIS IV,” mimeo Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), Department of Industrial Economics and International Management, Mannheim, Germany (2006).
  32. E. Kremp and S. Rousseau, Les 4 Pages des Statistiques Industrielles No. 222, SESSI, Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie, Paris, France (2006).
  33. These assertions are mainly based on EU or even just U.K. data. See, for instance, References 22, 35, 38, 41, and 54.
  34. Europe does not feature patenting for business processes, though some elements of software innovation are patentable.
  35. K. Blind, J. Edler, U. Schmoch, B. Anderson, J. Howells, I. Miles, J. Roberts, et al., Patents in the Service Industries, EC Contract No ERBHPV2-CT-1999-06, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Invocation Research, Karlsruhe, Germany (2003).
  36. J. Sundbo, The Organization of Innovation in Services, Roskilde University Press, Roskilde, Denmark (1998).
  37. M. Toivonen and T. Tuominen, “Emergence of Innovations in Services,” Service Industries Journal 29, No. 1, (to be published online 2007, in print 2009), http://www.proact2006.fi/chapter_images/304_Ref_A9_Marja_Toivonen.pdf.
  38. P. den Hertog, H. Bouwman, J. Gallego, L. Green, J. Howells, T. Meiren, I. Miles, et al., Research and Development Needs of Business Related Service Firms, RENESER Project, European Commission (September 2006).
  39. I. Miles, “Research and Development (R&D) Beyond Manufacturing: The Strange Case of Services R&D,” R&D Management 37, No. 3, 249–268 (2007).
  40. J. Jankowski, G. Tassey, M. Gallaher, A. Link, and J. Petrusa, Measuring Service-Sector Research and Development, Planning Report 05-1, RTI Project Number 08236.002.004, National Science Foundation and National Institute of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD (2004).
  41. The Future of R&D in Services: Implications for EU Research and Innovation Policy, Policy Research in Engineering, Science and Technology (PREST), University of Manchester, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Laboratorio de Investigación del Sector Servicios (SERVILAB), Austrian Research Center (ARCS), study for the European Commission Directorate-General Research, Brussels, Belgium (2006).
  42. L. Soete and M. Miozzo, “Internationalization of Services: A Technological Perspective,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 67, No. 2, 159–185 (2001).
  43. C. Hipp and H. Grupp, “Innovation in the Service Sector: The Demand for Service-Specific Innovation Measurement Concepts and Typologies,” Research Policy 34, No. 4, 517–535 (2005).
  44. J. Sundbo and F. Gallouj, “Innovation as a Loosely Coupled System in Services,” in Innovation Systems in the Service Economy, J. S. Metcalfe and I. Miles, Editors, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands (2000).
  45. L. Earl, Innovation and Change in the Public Sector: A Seeming Oxymoron, Survey of Electronic Commerce and Technology, Statistics Canada, Science, Innovation and Electronic Information Division, Cat. No. 88F0006XIE02001 (2002). Louise Earl compared and contrasted Canadian public and private sector organizations in the health and education fields [see also. L. Earl, “An Historical Comparison of Technological Change, 1998–2000 and 2000–2002, in the Private and Public Sectors,” Statistics Canada, Science, Innovation and Electronic Information Division, Cat. No. 88F0006XIE200407 (2004)] She found that approximately 80 percent of public sector organizations had introduced significantly improved organizational structures or management techniques—twice the level in the private sector (38 percent). The public sector again led in the introduction of significantly improved technologies: 85 percent compared to 44 percent for the private sector.
  46. T. Halvorsen, J. Hauknes, I. Miles, and R. Røste, On the Differences Between Public and Private Sector Innovation, Publin Research Report, Publin Report No. D9( 2005).
  47. I. Miles, “Knowledge Intensive Business Services: Prospects and Policies,” Foresight 7, No. 6, 39–63 (2005).
  48. M. Toivonen, Expertise as Business: Long-Term Development and Future Prospects of Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS), Ph.D. thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland (2004).
  49. R. Evangelista, “Sectoral Patterns of Technological Change in Services,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 9, No. 3, 183–221 (2000).
  50. S. L. Vargo and R. F. Lusch, “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing 68, No. 1, 1–17 (2004).
  51. Compare presentations on Innovative Services and Innovation Policy at http://www.tekes.fi/servicesandinnovation/presentations.htm. (Tekes own Serve program is an interesting case in point.)
  52. A. Johne and C. Storey, “New Service Development: A Review of the Literature and Annotated Bibliography,” European Journal of Marketing 32, No. 3/4, 184–251 (1998).
  53. E. J. Nijssen, B. Hillebrand, P. A. M. Vermeulen, and R. G. M. Kemp, “Exploring Product and Service Innovation Similarities and Differences,” International Journal of Research in Marketing 23, No. 3, 241–251 (2006).
  54. Knowing How, Knowing Whom: A Study of the Links between the Knowledge Intensive Services Sector and The Science Base, Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester, U.K., Report to the Council for Science and Technology, (2003).


    About IBM    Privacy    Contact