The Relationship Between Cooperative Conflict Management and Service Innovation - Literature review Example

Running head: COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE AND INNOVATION Communities of Practice and their Relationship to Service Innovation: a Literature Review Name Course Instructor Date COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE AND INNOVATION Definitions of Community of Practice The term community of service is both durable and capable of holding many levels of meaning; meaning of the term has changed from early exploratory works, to more theoretical to the current use in business (Kimble, 2005). Ambiguity of the terms community and practice allow the concept of CoP to be reappropriated for different academic and practical purposes (Cox, 2005). Lave and Wenger (1991) argued that the use of the term ‘community’ in CoP means participation in an activity system in which participants have a common understanding, community in this context, therefore, does not necessarily imply co-presence or an identifiable group with socially identifiable boundaries, rather it is a group recognized by participating in a common activity about which they share understanding and they also agree on what their participation in the activity means for themselves and their communities. Lave and Wenger’s definition shows that the purpose of communities of practice is to reproduce existing knowledge through apprenticeship and therefore a CoP in their definition comprises of apprentices and masters. This definition is echoed by Gherardi, Nicolini and Odela (1998) who argue that a CoP is not the existence of a different informal grouping within the organisation. Rather it is a way of emphasizing that all practices are dependent on social practices and that they (the practices) are perpetuated through such social practices and that learning takes place through engagement in the social practices. According to Brown & Duguid (1991), the internal structure of a Community of Practice is egalitarian; this proposition is opposed to Lave & Wenger (1991) who argue for a master – apprentice relationship within CoPs. Brown & Duguid argue that the functions of these communities is to generate ideas on how to solve novel problems they state that these CoPs should be fostered by organisations as informal networks which will help in COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE AND INNOVATION figuring out how to get the job done. Wenger (1998) supplies the first clear definition of a community of practice as ‘a group that adheres through mutual engagement on an appropriated enterprise and creating a common repertoire’ Wenger’s indicators of CoP include sustained mutual relationships; whether harmonious or conflictual, shared ways of engaging in doing things together, rapid flow of information and propagation of innovation. The indicators also include quick setups of problems that need discussing as well as mutually defining identities (Wenger, 1998). Wenger, McDermott & Snyder (2002), defined a community of practice as a group of people sharing a concern and having common problems and passion about a topic. They further argue that communities of practice deepen the knowledge and expertise of members in their areas of interest by giving them an opportunity to interact on an ongoing basis. According to Contu & Willmott, (2003) the Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002 definition is more about performance rather than about analysis of the concept. The definition is a shift from Wenger’s earlier writings; this shift also means a change in perspective to now focus on popularization of the concept of community of practice as a management tool. Hildreth, Kimble and Wright (2000), define a community of practice as a group of professionals bound to each other informally through exposure to a common problem and pursuit of solutions for the said problems together. Due to the nature of their relationship and interests, they embody a store of knowledge. Cox, 2005 argues that a combination of different definitions show that the term community of service is dominantly used in reference to relatively informal group supported by the management within an organization to increase learning and innovation. It may also be used to refer to the creative relations that develop when a number of individuals are expected to work together on a task or social relations between individuals working on similar activities in COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE AND INNOVATION different contexts. Such creative relations are referred to as ‘constellations of practice’ (Wenger, 1998). Communities of practice are linked to innovation because companies need to create value internally and externally, formulate technology convergent strategies and organize resources around relationships and knowledge (Rayport & Jaworski, 2001). This is because the new economy is driven by connectivity (Leana, 1999). Although company employees join communities of practice as individuals for learning in their field of expertise, the resulting organizational social capital is jointly owned as an asset (Leana, 1999). Once members of the CoP develop trust they set goals which in turn result in development of knowhow and innovation (Ring & Van de Ven, 1992). Trust between CoP members reduces fear of opportunistic behaviour and hence improves collective learning (Gulati, 1995). Strong personal relationship to promote innovation is also advocated by Von Hippel (1988) and Dyer and Singh (1998). Service innovation Innovation and the service sector are key drivers of economic growth (Maravelakis et al., 2006). Research on innovations targeting the service sector commenced in 1990s and researchers were hesitant to push forward with this research (Gallouj & Savona, 2009). Success of information technology, at the turn of the millennium, stimulated innovation in the service sector leading to more research on the subject (Schilling & Weir, 2009). A definition of service innovation may be derived from defining the word service and innovation (Bitner, Ostrom & Morgan, 2007). A service is an activity or series of activities that is often intangible in nature and takes place during interactions between the client and service employees, COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE AND INNOVATION or between the client and physical resources or systems of the service provider. Services are provided as solutions to a customer’s problems (Gronroos, 1990). Services have a process nature, they are dynamic and they unfold over a period of time through a sequence of events and phases (De Jong et al., 2003). Services may also be defined as customer experiences; Brown and Swartz (1989) define customer experience as the internal response customers have to any direct contact with the company. Another conceptualization of service as an experience is by Padgett and Allen (1997) who describe it as the cognitive, affective and behavioral reactions associated with a service event. Design and management of the customer experience demands a series of different steps that function holistically to meet the demands of a customer. What the customer experiences through that series of activities leads to a perception of quality of service which in turn informs perception of the brand and influences the decision on loyalty (Haeckel, Carbone & Berry, 2003). Agarwal & Selen (2011) see the customer as an active player in having services delivered to hi. They define service as the application of competencies, including knowledge, skills and experience, of stakeholders, whereby customers provide themselves, or provide significant inputs into the process of production of the service. Innovation, like CoP, is difficult to define with precision OECD, 1997 states that there are five types of innovation, these include; Introduction of new product or a qualitative change in an existing product Process innovation new to an industry The opening of a new market Development of new sources of supply for raw materials or other inputs COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE AND INNOVATION Changes in industrial organisation. Den Hertog (2000), states that service innovation has four dimensions in what is now commonly referred to as den Hertog’s model. These dimensions include: The service concept; this refers to a new value proposition (Edvardsson, 1996) which is a service concept that is new to a market; the concept might include new ways of organizing services offered to customers. The other dimension by Hertog is the client interface which is about innovation in the interaction between clients and the service provider. This is particularly the case when service innovation is taken as a customer experience. Den Hertog’s (2000) gives the third dimension is the service delivery system as referring to the internal arrangements in an organization relating on the way service workers do their jobs when delivering important services to the client. Examples of these include transport and packaging innovations, electronic service delivery etc. Technological options is the fourth dimension of service innovation; these include new information technology which enables the firm to be more efficient in information processing. Philips (1997) distinguishes between technological and non technological innovation. He argued that a company may be defined as technologically innovative if it introduces at least one new substantially improved process in a three year period. Non- technologically innovative firms are defined as those that have introduced changes like new marketing ideas and changes in organizational structure and management techniques in a three year period. Business council of Australia (1993) defines innovation in business as something that is new or significantly COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE AND INNOVATION improved, done by an enterprise to create added value either directly or indirectly for its customers. Service innovation, therefore, owing to the broad scope it covers and its abstract nature has an extremely wide range of possible accurate definitions (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). As a result, the easiest way to describe service innovation by looking at possible classes of innovative activities, these have been found to include sensing, seizing and transformation (Balaji and Ranganathan, 2006). Beradi- Coletta et al (2009) argue that idea generation and concept development are important aspects of service innovation. Sensing allows the concerned individual or community of practice that a service innovation needs to be achieved. In seizing knowledge of the solution is needed because it is at this level that how the innovation necessary to deal with the need is put forward in the organization (Plattfaut, Niehaves & Becker (2012). Regarding the transformation phase, Pohl and Hadorn (2007) present a concept that refers to technical, social, legal, cultural and other means of action with the intention of transforming the practices already in existence and introducing the desired ones. Impact of service culture on design of service innovation Ostrom et al., (2010) argue that service culture plays an important part in value creation for service organizations and their customers. Service innovation requires a culture that is supportive of human performance and innovation. Quality of customer service offered by employees is of supreme importance for companies operating in inseparable cells because while technology can be imitated, employee culture is difficult to recreate (Lytle & Timmerman, 2006). According to COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE AND INNOVATION Dietz, Pugh and Wiley (2004) a culture that values service training is a critical component innovation in service organizations. A risk taking culture, a culture where employees are comfortable sharing thoughts and ideas and suggestions are key in ensuring innovation (Keaveney, 1995). A well adjusted service culture also enables mangers to think about service in terms of its core benefits allowing them to determine how to be more innovative than their competitors (Pilat &Wolfl, 2005). Bitran and Logo (1993) argue that the cultural context in which a service is consumed or produced is, itself an attribute of the service. This is because service culture informs the expectations of customers. References Agarwal, R. & Selen, W. (2011), “Multi-‐dimensional nature of service innovation – Operationalisation of the Elevated Service Offering construct in collaborative service organisations” – International Journal of Production Management, volume 31, Issue 11, p. 1164-1192. Australia Bureau of Statics (1996) “Research and Experimental Development: Business Enterprises”, ABS 8104.0 (Canberra). Balaji , S and Ranganathan, C (2006) “Exploring the key capabilities for Offshore is sourcing,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2006), 2006, pp. 543-55. Berardi-Coletta, Buyer, L.S, Dominowski, R. L and Rellinger,E. R (1995) “Metacognition and problem solving: A process-oriented approach.,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 205-223. Bitner, M, Ostrom, A & Morgan, P (2008)Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation .California Management Review 50(3):66-94. Bitran, G.R., & Logo, M (1993) A framework for analyzing service operations. European Management Journal, 11 (3): 271-282. Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1991): Organizational learning and communities of practice: toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation, Organization science, 2, 1, 40-57. Brown, S and Swartz, T (1989) “A Gap Analysis of Professional Service Quality,” Journal of Marketing, 53/2. Chris Kimble (2006). In {EC-TEL} 2006 Workshops Proceedings (2006), by: Chris Kimble. Edited by: E. Tomadaki, P. Scott .218-234. Cox, A. (2005). What Are Communities of Practice? A Comparative Review of Four Seminal Works. Journal of Information Science, 31(6), 527 – 540. Contu, A. and Willmott, H. (2003): Re-embedding situatedness: the importance of power relations in learning theory, Organization science, 14, 3, 283-296 De jong, J.P.J., Bruins, A, Dolfsma, W and Meijaard, J. ( 2003) Innovation in service firms explored: what, how and Why? Literature review, Research reports, strategic studies and publiekskrap-portages. Strategic Study B200205 Dietz, J, Pugh, D and Wiley, J (2004) Service climate effects on customer attitudes: An Examination of boundary conditions, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 81–92. Eisenhardt, K.M and Martin, J. A (2000) “Dynamic capabilities: what are they?” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 21, no. 10-11, pp. 1105–1121. Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D. and Odella, F. (1998): Toward a social understanding of how people learn in organizations, Management learning, 29, 3, 273-297. Gronroos, C (2000) Service Marketing and Management: A Customer Relationship Management Approach .Chichester, West Sussex, and England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2000). Haeckel, S, Carbone, L and Berry, L (2003) “How to Lead the Customer Experience,” Harvard Business Review, 12/1 (January/February 2003), pp. 8-23. Hildreth, P, Kimble, C Wright, P (2000) "Communities of practice in the distributed international environment", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 Iss: 1, pp.27 – 38. Keaveney, S.M (1995) “Customer Switching Behavior in Service Industries: An Exploratory Study,” Journal of Marketing 59: 71- 82. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Leana, C.R. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24 (3), 538-556. Lytle, R and Timmerman, E (2006) Service Orientation and Performance: An Organizational Perspective, Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 136-147 OECD (1997) The OSLO Manual: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and interpreting technological innovation Data. Paris, OECD. Ostrom, A, Bitner, M, Brown, S, Burkhard, K, Goul, M and Smith-Daniels, V (2010) Moving Forward and making a difference: Research priorities for the science of Service‟, Journal of Service Research, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 4 - 36. Padget, D and Allen, , “Communicating Experiences: A Narrative Approach to Creating Service Brand Image,” Journal of Advertising, 26/4 (Winter 1997), pp. 49-62. Philip R (1997) Innovation and Firm Performance in Australian Manufacturing”, Industry Commission, Staff Research Paper (Canberra). Pilat , D & Wölfl, A (2005). "Measuring the Interaction between Manufacturing and Services," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2005/5, OECD Publishing. Plattfaut, R, Niehaves, B and Becker, J (2012) "Capabilities For Service Innovation: A Qualitative Case Study In The Consulting Industry". PACIS 2012 Proceedings. Paper 58. Pohl, G and Hadorn, G.H (2007) Principles for designing trans disciplinary Research. München: oekom, Rayport, J.F., & Jaworski, B.J. (2001). E-Commerce. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Ring, P.S., & Van de Ven, A. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13 (7), 483-498. Von Hippel (1988) The source of innovation. Oxford University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. M. (2002): Cultivating Communities of Practice, Boston, MASS, Harvard Business School Press Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Read More