Effective Manufacturers' Strategies for
Service Innovations
Section 1: Foundation of the Study
Often, managers in the manufacturing industry seek new strategies to
overcome globalized market threats of increased product price competition
and the need to add value to products to sustain business operations (Sakyi-
Gyinae & Holmlund, 2018). Some manufacturing managers seek
opportunities to enter services markets as a strategy to sustain business
operations (Ha, Lee, & Kim, 2016). Manufacturing managers take advantage
of service-based innovation strategies to successfully offer business services
to sustain business operations (Yang & Hou, 2015). Many manufacturing
managers seek strategic service innovations to overcome barriers to gaining
a competitive advantage in the manufacturing industry as well as services
offerings.
Background of the Problem
Manufacturing managers strategically innovate to overcome severe
economic decline challenges by leaving traditional product offerings to
change to new services offerings (Martin-Rios & Parga-Dans, 2016).
Additionally, manufacturing managers changed organizational structure,
organizational culture, and customer relationships to sustain a competitive
advantage to meet customers’ demands for increased service innovation
(Valtakoski, 2017). In the energy industry, managers seek strategies to
sustain a competitive advantage in the global economy despite increasing the
risk of economic shocks (Broadstock, Fan, Ji, & Zhang, 2016).
Manufacturing managers seek innovative strategies to overcome barriers to
sustain a competitive advantage by providing services to customers.
Since the 2008 financial crisis, managers of energy companies
focusing on manufacturing production of fossil fuel products face economic
challenges due to decreased demand and increasingly restrictive regulations
throughout the global economy (Wang, Ma, Song, & Liu, 2017).
Manufacturing managers at energy companies follow the strategy trends
amongst manufacturers to change the focus of providing products to
providing product service systems and other service offerings as means to
sustain competitive advantage (Benedetti, Cesarotti, Holgado, Introna, &
Macchi, 2015). Manufacturing managers of energy companies, traditionally
dependent on energy commodities as a source of revenue, experience
barriers when transitioning a productfocused strategy for providing services
for energy solutions (Helms, 2016). Energy companies’ manufacturing
managers need effective strategies to overcome barriers to offer services to
sustain business operations (Benedetti et al., 2015).
Problem Statement
In the United States, the majority of manufacturing managers respond
to growing product market threats by offering services to sustain their
business (Brax & Visintin, 2017). However, less than 50% of those
manufacturing managers offering services reported successful service-based
innovation initiatives (Benedettini, Neely, & Swink, 2015). The general
business problem was that some manufacturing managers invest in services-
based initiatives without effective strategies resulting in decreased longevity
of business operations. The specific business problem was that some
manufacturing managers offering business services lack effective service-
based innovation strategies to sustain their businesses beyond 5 years.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this qualitative, multiple case study was to explore
effective service-based innovation strategies that manufacturing managers
used to offer business services to sustain their businesses beyond 5 years.
The target population for this study was manufacturing managers who offer
business services from three petroleum and coal manufacturing companies,
and who have sustained their business in the mid-Atlantic region of the
United States longer than 5 years. The implication for positive social change
includes the potential to provide manufacturing managers with strategies to
increase the longevity of business operations, thereby positively affecting the
socioeconomic conditions of communities relying on manufacturing. Other
manufacturing managers may be able to use the findings this study to
achieve sustainable employment opportunities and positively affect the
economic opportunities of the residents of the local communities.
Nature of the Study
I selected a qualitative research method for this study. Researchers use
qualitative research methods to develop meaning from human experiences
by focusing on answering what, how, or why questions about a social
phenomenon (McCusker & Gunaydin, 2015). Using a qualitative method
allowed for the exploration of effective service-based innovation strategies
managers of manufacturing businesses use to succeed in business. Roy,
Zvonkovic, Goldberg, Sharp, and LaRossa (2015) discussed that each
qualitative research participant contributes his or her constructive unit of
analysis.
A quantitative research method was not appropriate for this study
because the purpose of this study was to construct meaning from human
experiences, not to identify the cause-and-effect of variables. Quantitative
researchers conduct studies to examine relationships and differences among
variables by developing and testing hypotheses through statistical testing
from samples (Gibson, 2017). A mixed method was not appropriate for this
study because the purpose of this study was to identify what effective
service-based innovation strategies manufacturing managers offering
services use to sustain their business. Qualitative researchers study social
phenomenon, such as strategies, instead of developing and testing
hypothesis or combining qualitative and quantitative methods in a mixed
method study (Palinkas et al., 2016).
For this study, I used a multiple case study design to describe effective
servicebased innovation strategies of manufacturing managers offering
services to sustain their business beyond 5 years. Fusch, Fusch, and Ness
(2017) defined case study as a research design some researchers use to
describe strategies and processes in context bounded by environment and
time. Researchers use case study research designs to describe complex social
experiences, to understand how and why outcomes happen (Yin, 2018).
Researchers use a phenomenological design to explore human experiences
of a shared event (Noon & Hallam, 2018). Therefore, phenomenological
research was not appropriate for this study. Researchers conduct
ethnography studies to capture a shared phenomenon of a cultural group
through immersion in the cultural context (Lichterman, 2017). The purpose
of this study was to explore service-based innovations strategies, which did
not require immersion into a cultural group context.
Research Question
The primary research question for this study was: What effective
service-based innovation strategies do manufacturing managers, offering
business services, use to sustain their businesses beyond 5 years?
Interview Questions
1. What service-based innovation strategies did you use to create a
competitive advantage over your competitors with your service
offerings?
2. How did you use service-based innovation strategies to offer
business services to customers?
3. What guidance did you provide stakeholders to implement and
control service-based innovation strategies?
4. How did you use resources to implement service-based innovation
strategies?
5. What market conditions challenges did you overcome to
implement servicebased innovation strategies?
6. How did you organize your business to generate service-based
innovations you use to sustain your business?
7. How did you assess the effectiveness of the service-based
innovation strategies you used?
8. What other experiences about service-based innovation strategies
would you like to share?
Conceptual Framework
I used a conceptual framework consisting of strategic service
innovation theory for this study. In 1997, Sundbo described the strategic
service innovation theory, for characterizing the evolution of services in
businesses by managers organizing and controlling the service innovation
process through strategic considerations. Sundbo (1997) identified the
following key tenets of strategic service innovation theory: (a) service
innovation was a strategic process controlled by managers, (b)
standardization provides competitive advantage, (c) manager’s consideration
for external market conditions and internal resources, and (d) dual
organization consisting of a combination of employees and customers
interactions with managers’ strategic guidance to produce innovative ideas.
Strategic service innovation theory was applicable and fit this study as a
conceptual framework because strategic service innovation theory reflects
managers’ using a firm’s strategy to guide the service innovation process
with considerations towards standardization as a competitive advantage,
market conditions, internal resources, and generating innovation ideas from
employees and customers.
Operational Definitions
Mid-Atlantic region of the United States: This region consists of six
states including Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and West Virginia (Wang, Lee, Agbemabiese, Zame, & Kang, 2015).
Petroleum and coal manufacturing companies: These companies
consist of the manufacturing companies who transform petroleum or coal
products into usable products, including petroleum refineries, asphalt
paving, roofing, saturated materials, lubricants, coal, and other manufactured
products supporting petroleum or coal industry (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017).
Servitization: The process manufacturers use to replace product sales
with valuecreating relationships by implementing innovative strategies to
offer services to gain a competitive advantage (Baines, 2015).
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations Assumptions
Researchers used assumptions to communicate information accepted
as common sense, but not established as facts (Noble & Smith, 2015).
Researchers identify assumptions to avoid misconceptions about knowledge
assumed as common sense (Cleland, 2017; Davidson, Thompson, & Harris,
2017). My first assumption was that participants and researchers were
competent and spoke authentically based on their actual experiences.
Researchers conducting qualitative studies assume participants competence
and authenticity in describing their perspectives (Yanchar, 2015). My second
assumption for this qualitative study was that interviewees provided
responses to address the research question. Researchers assume participants
questioned answer the research question (Smith & McGannon, 2018). My
third assumption was that the data collected from organizational documents
was true as presented. My fourth assumption was that qualitative research
was the correct research method to answer the research topic. My fifth
assumption was that at least three managers forming three cases would
participate in this multiple case study. Based on the five assumptions, I
assumed the analysis and findings of this study represented the data
provided.
Limitations
Researchers identify limitations in studies to account for any
weakness not within the researcher’s control, which can affect the findings
of the study (Price & Murnan, 2004). The first limitation of this study was
that personal bias may have unintentionally occurred during data collection
or data analysis. Qualitative researchers mitigate the influence of personal
bias by bracketing personal experiences (Moustakas, 1994). Qualitative
researchers member-check to avoid personal bias by sharing the
interpretations of the analyzed data with participants to ensure the accuracy
of the data analysis (Birt, Scott, Cavers, Campbell, & Walter, 2016). I
reduced personal bias by bracketing my experiences and member checking.
However, some bias may not have been controllable within the study. The
second limitation was the availability of manufacturing managers to
complete interviews, respond to follow-up questions, and member checking.
The third limitation was the availability of company documents. Managers
may have limited document sharing or a limited portion of the documents
available for this study. The fourth limitation was that the data presented by
participants was not generalizable to all manufacturing managers.
Delimitations
Qualitative researchers establish delimitations to show the boundaries
of the study, including how findings can and cannot add to the field of
knowledge (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Researchers identify limitations
and boundaries within a study, so future researchers understand the
constraints affecting the study findings, and to shape future research (Moore,
McKee, & McLoughlin, 2015). Selected boundaries for this study included
geographic area, the population of the study, the conceptual framework, and
participant selection for interviews. The geographic area of this study was
the midAtlantic region of the United States, which may reduce the
generalizability of results. The population of the study was manufacturing
managers offering business services, from three petroleum and coal
manufacturing companies, who have sustained their business in the mid-
Atlantic region of the United States more than 5 years. The selected
conceptual framework for this study was strategic service innovation theory.
Researchers use the conceptual framework as the theoretical lens to view the
research question (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). I selected the participants
for this study from a small sample, whose experiences may not be
generalizable to the larger population. Significance of the Study
Value to Businesses
The findings from this study may be of value to business managers for
developing strategies, policies, and processes to increase the success of
manufacturing business service initiatives. Business managers sustain their
business through the use of effective strategies (Ting, 2015). Business
managers may gain value from effective service-based innovation strategies
from the findings of this study.
The implications of this study describing service-based innovation
strategies managers of petroleum and coal manufacturing businesses used
to succeed may be significant to a broad and general business audience,
including manufacturing managers from other industries facing economic
decline. Business managers’ ability to create effective strategies was
valuable to the longevity of high-level organizational performance (Popa &
Miricescu, 2015). The findings of this study may affect the development of
effective manufacturing business strategies for managers to develop and
implement service-based innovations to create a competitive advantage.
Contribution to Business Practice
Business managers often evolve more successful business strategies to
ensure the longevity of their business (Napolitano, Marino, & Ojala, 2015).
Business managers could use the findings of this study to understand what
effective strategies managers of manufacturing business offering services
use to sustain their business successfully beyond 5 years and replicate those
strategies to contribute to effective business practices to increase the
longevity of manufacturing business. The broader business manager
populations may be able to use the findings of the multiple case study to
develop and deploy effective strategies within their markets to increase the
longevity of the business success. Business managers can improve their
business’ value by benchmarking successful business strategies (Opresnik &
Taisch, 2015). Business managers could use the results of this study to
emulate effective strategies for long-term competitiveness within their
industries and perhaps, the broader U.S. and global markets.
Implications for Social Change
Business managers may use the results of this study to contribute to
positive social change by providing increased business longevity,
socioeconomic sustainability, and employment opportunities for residents of
communities with petroleum and coal manufacturing companies in the mid-
Atlantic region of the United States. For example, leaders in mining
communities ensure long-term socioeconomic sustainability by planning for
alternative economic opportunities to counter business declines in coal
manufacturing (Fordham, Robinson, & Blackwell, 2017). Additionally,
managers who succeed in sustaining their business beyond 5 years, can
increase employment opportunities (Strydom, 2017). According to the U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015), on average,
managers whose business successfully remained in business for 5 years
showed double the employment opportunities of their manufacturing
businesses over the same 5-year period. Managers of manufacturing
businesses offering services may adopt effective service-based innovation
strategies to enable more businesses to be competitive in the broader United
States and global markets with concomitant increases in employment
opportunities in their communities, organizations, institutions, cultures, or
societies.
A Review of the Professional and Academic Literature
The focus of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore
effective servicebased innovation strategies that manufacturing managers
used to offer business services to sustain their business. I conducted a
thorough review of the literature to establish the foundation of this study by
exploring themes of service-based innovation strategies manufacturing
managers use to sustain their business.
Researchers develop persuasive arguments through the review of the
academic literature (Liao, Deschamps, Loures, & Ramos, 2017). Even
though the focus of the study was effective service-based innovation
strategies manufacturing managers used to sustain their business, reviewing
literature involving competing frameworks, service-based innovation, and
service-based manufacturing strategies provided a holistic perspective for
the foundation of the study.
I used several key terms, including strategic service innovation
theory, services innovation strategy, manufacturer services innovation,
servitization, and manufacturer services strategy, to research relevant
scholarly literature to develop a holistic view needed to support the study. I
used multiple academic databases available through Walden University,
including ProQuest, EBSCO, and Business Source Complete. I used Google
Scholar as the primary search engine to find scholarly articles to add context
to the foundation of this study, including the Google Scholar site linked to
Walden University online library. I verified peer-reviewed literature by
searching for evidence of peer review through Ulrich’s Web Global Serials
Directory searches. Also, I visited the home page of the academic journals to
ensure the literature was peer-reviewed and published between 2015 and
2019. I used some non-peer reviewed sources as well as some peer-reviewed
articles published before 2015, such as government sources and seminal
works, to show the history of a conceptual work or to add historical analysis
to the context of the literature review. This literature review exceeded the
required minimum of both 85% of peer-reviewed references with 99% peer-
reviewed and 85% of references published between 2015 and 2019 with
93%.
Foundational Conceptual Framework
Qualitative researchers use a conceptual framework to provide clarity
on key issues and describe the application of elements of the conceptual
framework into practice (Hammad & Hallinger, 2017). To frame a research
question for a study, researchers must look at academic works previous
scholars used to develop a full understanding of a similar topic (Dasgupta,
2015). Qualitative researchers develop themes from patterns to provide
detailed descriptions of the phenomenon through a framework
(Onwuegbuzie & Weinbaum, 2017). The conceptual framework that
previous researchers used to study service-based innovation strategies used
by manufacturing managers offering business services was strategic service
innovation. The conceptual framework for this study was strategic service
innovation theory.
In 1997, Sundbo developed strategic service innovation theory, which
describes managers’ strategic development of innovative services in
business. Rapaccini and Visintin (2015) discussed how researchers
considered the business value proposition as a product or service offerings as
a function to satisfy the customers’ needs, the source of competitive strategy.
Sundbo (1997) sought to answer two research questions: (a) if services firms
innovate, and (b) how service firms organize and manage the innovation
process. Sundbo found that managers of service firms innovate and use
strategy to manage the service innovation process. Sundbo’s research led to
the establishment of strategic service innovation as a conceptual framework
that researchers use to understand how managers use strategy to manage
service-based innovations offerings to customers. Manufacturing managers
seeking effective means to provide service innovations to sustain their
business may use this conceptual framework to understand the strategic
service innovation process.
Competing Theories
Qualitative researchers explore a business problem through a specific
conceptual lens chosen to view the phenomena. Strategic service innovation
was an appropriate conceptual lens to explore the business problem for this
study, which was that some manufacturing managers offering business
services lack effective service-based innovation strategies to sustain their
businesses beyond 5 years. Researchers exploring manufacturing managers’
strategies to innovate to offer services used several competing conceptual
frameworks, including (a) Barney’s (1991) resource-based view (Story,
Raddats, Burton, Zolkiewski, & Baines, 2017), (b) Miles’s (1993) service
innovation (Patricio, Gustafsson, & Fisk, 2018), and (c) Porter’s (1991)
strategy (Rabetino, Kohtamaki, & Gebauer, 2017). While some researchers
used different theories to explore what strategies managers used to innovate
services offerings, Sundbo’s (1997) conceptual framework, strategic service
innovation, incorporates elements of each of the competing theories. Sundbo
recognized that researchers failed to address the full scope of effective
service-based innovation strategies within each conceptual or theoretical
framework.
Resource-based view as a conceptual framework. Researchers
analyzed strategic innovations that manufacturers used to offer services
through the lens of the manager’s strategy for using resources (Benedettini et
al., 2015; Lutjen, Tietze, & Schultz, 2017). Wernerfelt (1984) explored how
managers strategically manage resources, instead of products, to improve
profitability, using a theory known as resourcebased view theory. Barney
(1991) further expanded on resource-based view theory by describing how
managers use strategy to sustain a competitive advantage by choosing a
business offering comprised of limited, unique, and non-substitutable
resources. Benedettini et al. (2015) used resource-based view theory to
explore strategies that manufacturers used to offer services in addition to
manufacturing products. Researchers using resource-based view theory on
manufacturers’ strategies focused on business managers’ use of resources to
compete. Therefore, the researchers failed to answer what effective service-
based innovation strategies managers used to sustain their business.
In contrast to some researchers use of a resource-based view exploring
manufacturers’ use of resource strategies to offering services, not all
researchers agreed on the use of a resource-based view to study
manufacturers’ strategies for providing services. Raddats, Burton, and
Ashman (2015) eliminated the resource-based view as an appropriate theory
to examine manufacturers’ servitization because the researchers found that
firms might not own all the resources supporting a competitive advantage.
Lutjen et al.’s (2017) exploration of the stages of manufacturers’ service
innovations required external resources to innovate to offer business
services. Barney’s (1991) exploration of the resource-based view required
managers to possess resources to sustain competitive advantage; however,
Lutjen et al.’s (2017) and Raddats et al.’s (2015) findings suggest a manager
may not possess all resources required to sustain a competitive advantage.
While managers use resources to determine their organization's competitive
advantage, researchers who used resource-based view neither explained how
manufacturing managers implement services into their business offerings,
nor addressed how manufacturing managers use service-based innovation
strategies.
Service innovation as a conceptual framework. Researchers used
service innovation to explain how business managers innovate service
offering (Gebauer, Joncourt, & Saul, 2016; Hakanen, Helander, &
Valkokari, 2017). Miles (1993) first described the modern view of service
innovation through changes in technology that allowed managers to
transcend services beyond the traditional compartmentalization of services
versus products boundaries and international borders. However, Sundbo
(1997) argued that managers developing service innovations used
technology to provide service offerings, as service providers used
technology to innovate services, not become a service. Miles (1993)
suggested manufacturers and service providers move toward the center of
the products versus services spectrum. Manufacturers increase flexibility
similar to the services end of the spectrum and service providers
standardizes services with technological innovations similar to product
manufacturers’ pole (Gebauer et al., 2016). Researchers’ opinions differ on
how manufacturing managers, who provide services, perform service
innovation.
Researchers used service innovation as a conceptual framework to
view manufacturers’ innovations for offering services to focus on the
employees’ relationship with the customer (Hakanen et al., 2017). For
example, Lutjen et al. (2017) explored innovations leading to the
development of the four-step process, including: first, partnering with
customers to identify service needs; second, determining if customers’ jobs
are part of a more extensive process; third, determining what opportunities
are available to complete the jobs; and fourth, determining what resources
need investment into the service innovation.
Similarly, Kuijken, Gemser, and Wijnberg’s (2017) quantitative
research results showed growth through a focused strategy on product
service systems with product and service elements managers combined to
provide synergetic value to satisfying customers. Kuijken et al.’s research
supported Raddats et al.’s (2015) focus on service innovation through
satisfying customers’ needs with investment in resources. Manufacturing
managers’ intense focus on meeting customers’ needs to provide service
offerings was the focus of the service innovation conceptual framework.
Manufacturing managers must consider more than customers in
developing effective strategies to offer services. While Kuijken et al. (2017)
explored the opportunity, innovation, customers, and resources for service
innovations, the researchers failed to explore how manufacturing managers
used the processes. Managers’ focus on technology (Miles, 1993) and
customers (Sakyi-Gyinae & Holmlund, 2018) in the service innovation
process are essential elements in exploring manufacturers’ service-based
strategies. In contrast, Sundbo (1997) considered technology and
information about customers’ preferences as strategic inputs manufacturing
managers used to offer services. Therefore, manufacturing managers do not
only consider technology or customers when providing services; instead,
managers require more strategic elements to gain effective service-based
innovation strategies to sustain their businesses beyond 5 years.
Strategy as a conceptual framework. Since the 1960s, many
researchers contributed to differing perspectives to the academic field of
business strategy (Beamish & Lupton, 2016). However, most researchers,
including Porter (1991) and Mintzberg (1978), agreed on one common
element: managers develop strategies to overcome business challenges.
Mintzberg defined strategy as an advance plan with the purpose to overcome
challenges. Effective manufacturing managers develop strategies to
overcome challenges to offer services; however, researchers disagree about
which strategy was appropriate for manufacturing managers to overcome
barriers to offer services. Researchers established a spectrum of opposing
perspectives on strategy, including a transcendent pole consisting of strategy
based on analytical competencies, long-term vision, and deliberate intention,
and the opposing immanent pole consisting of strategy based on speculation
and emergence of unintended order (Barrett, Davidson, Prabhu, & Vargo,
2015). Sundbo’s (1997) strategic service innovation concept incorporates
elements from both spectrum poles, as researchers find analytical processes,
unexpected opportunities, and threats to be sources of strategies to innovate
from a solely manufacturing business to providing service offerings.
Other competing conceptual frameworks. Researchers developed
competing concepts to explore strategies that show how manufacturers offer
services. Vernon’s (1979) life cycle theory stages, including introduction,
growth, maturity, and decline stages allowed researchers to focus on product
manufacturers transitioning to service offerings based on individual life
cycle stages. Eloranta and Turunen (2015) opined that manufacturing
managers take responsibility for developing the most effective and efficient
value-creating service system for the business and customers by
transitioning from products to services. Cusumano, Kahl, and Suarez (2015)
argued that manufacturers providing services overcome the concept that
manufacturers only provide services to complement products, by suggesting
manufacturing managers who provide services
could build new markets or enter different markets in various product and
services lifecycle phases.
Sundbo’s (1997) research did not differ between product phases to
determine strategies for when managers should enter into services markets.
While providing an alternative conceptual framework to explore service
innovations, lifecycle theory, Cusumano et al. (2015) focused only on
products in a mature phase and did not provide an answer to the research
question of this study. Examining product life cycles to determine strategies
when managers enter into service offerings fails to answer the research
question of this study.
Other researchers explored the topic of manufacturers entering service
markets through the lens of several competing theories. Cusumano et al.
(2015) expanded on the understanding of manufacturers providing services,
known as servitization, by developing a competing conceptual framework to
strategic service innovation to explain strategies manufacturing managers
should implement when offering services. Kuijken et al. (2017) examined
servitization from a value-based framework and found that transitioning
from providing a product integrating offering services was a challenging
process. Raddats et al. (2015) explored, through a single case study, how a
manufacturer’s innovation allowed integrated product service offerings
through three means, including: (a) products and services as one sale, (b)
products and services as separate sales, and (c) services as a separate
individual sale. While other researchers explored the topic of manufacturers
entering service markets through several competing theories, the researchers
failed to answer the research question of this study.
However, researchers explored manufacturers entering service
markets through servitization conceptual lens similar to strategic service
innovation. For example, Rabetino et al. (2017) further refined a strategy
map of servitization to four general elements, including (a) finances, (b)
customers, (c) internal resources, and (d) training. Rabetino et al.’s
explanation of servitization concepts displayed similar concepts to Sundbo’s
(1997) findings, with the inclusion of strategy and customer relationships in
the process of manufacturers providing business services. However,
Rabetino et al. (2017) described servitization concepts with limited
perspectives, including productivity and growth as separate strategies, and
internal perspectives showed operations management processes, while
Sundbo generalized strategy concepts. Sundbo focused on strategic service
innovation concepts, including the strategic process controlled by managers,
standardization, external markets, internal resources, and dual organization
with employee and customer interactions leading to innovation. Similar to
Sundbo’s dual organization concept, Sakyi-Gyinae & Holmlund (2018)
opined manufacturing managers seek a competitive advantage by innovating
the manufacturing organization to increase focus to understand which
customers value. Researchers (Sakyi-Gyinae & Holmlund,
2018) closely aligned their conceptual view with Sundbo. However, some
researchers (Rabetino et al., 2017) only expanded upon specific elements of
strategic service innovation lacking the holistic view Sundbo provided.
Researchers who discuss servitization focus on strategies related to the
delivery of service offerings to customers. While researchers differ on the
types of strategies manufacturing managers used, most agree that effective
manufacturing managers who provide business services focus on strategies
to provide services or a combination of integrated products and services to
customers. The research question of this study does not specify product-
service differentiation, product-service configurations, or customer value to
explain strategic service innovations; therefore, servitization conceptual
elements are too specific for use as a conceptual framework for this study.
Managers Control Innovation Based on Strategy
To develop strategic service innovations in manufacturing businesses,
managers control innovation through strategy to create value from service
offerings from a productbased business. Sundbo (1997) relied on Porter’s
(1991) explanation of a manager’s responsibility to develop a strategy to
drive service innovations. Managers develop an overarching business
strategy to overcome the challenge that managers were unable to engage in
every decision made within an organization (Porter, 1991). Similarly, Stock,
Jong, and Zacharias (2017) concluded managers’ strategic leadership
influenced a creative environment enabling subordinates’ proactive
innovations. The effectiveness of managers’ strategies depends on the
managers’ development of an organizational culture conducive to services
innovation, which managers control to change product-based businesses to
ensure successful service innovations (Rabetino et al., 2017).
Manufacturing managers-controlled business service innovations through the
overarching strategy (Sundbo, 1997), which managers communicate to
strategic stakeholders to ensure implementation of innovation strategy into
subordinate’s business decisions without manager’s direct participation
(Birken et al., 2015). Manufacturing managers effectively control service
innovations based on strategies to influence services
innovative organizational culture and communication of the strategy with
stakeholders to influence business decisions.
Managers manage an organization’s innovations through strategy
development. Managers design a portfolio of innovation by considering the
business environment, market trends, risk analysis, strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and the application of resources to forge a competitive
advantage (Tamayo-Torres, Gutiérrez -Gutiérrez,
Llorens-Montes, & Martinez-Lopez, 2016). Similarly, Frow, Nenonen,
Payne, and Storbacka (2015) suggested managers identify opportunity and
allocate resources to strategically innovative to new services or products
with customers taking an active role in the co-creation design process. For
example, manufacturing managers strategically design services offerings
through the application of resources to provide services in niche markets
complimenting complex manufacturing processes, such as post-processing
services in low volume parts (Strong, Sirichakwal, Manoghran, &
Wakefield, 2017). Effective managers utilize organizational strategic design
capabilities to develop innovations (Gerlitz, 2015). Managers following
strategic service innovation concepts control innovations with business
strategy.
In contrast, some researchers disagree with Sundbo’s (1997)
description of the importance of managers’ control in the innovation process.
For example, some managers used a horizontal business structure to enable
employees to focus on customer service (Venkatesh & Singhal, 2017).
Sundbo suggests innovation take place between customers and employees at
the lowest level, with managers’ control in the form of strategy.
Venkatesh and Singhal (2017) concluded managers should empower
employees to contribute to servitization innovations based on customer
interaction with employees. Sundbo’s description of the manager’s role in
the innovation process was in between the two management approaches.
Additionally, Prajogo’s (2016) examination of the external business
environment affects the success of managers’ innovation strategies of
Australian manufacturers found managers with innovation strategies fitting
the external business environment generated a successful innovation
strategy. Prajogo’s findings show the importance of strategic fit with the
external business environment, which Sundbo captures this concept with
employees developing innovation based on relationships with customers.
However, Sundbo (1997) broadened service innovations beyond
strategic fit with the external environment, which Prajogo (2016) limited to
quantitative findings. Despite some researchers, dissenting opinion of
Sundbo’s description of the importance of managers’ control of innovation
through strategy, both the researchers recognized managers control strategies
to innovate through either employee empowerment (Venkatesh & Singhal,
2017), or strategic fit to the external environment (Prajogo, 2016). Managers
engaged in service innovations exercise control over innovation strategies.
The purpose of this study was not to measure the degree of control managers
displayed in service innovations, but instead to explore how managers used
service-based innovation strategies to offer services to sustain business
beyond five years.
Managers’ Role in Strategy
Managers are responsible for developing business strategy, including
strategies to implement services offerings to customers. Jia, Tian, Yang,
Sun, and Malik (2016) examined the relationship between servitization and
business performance, through statistical analysis of an international large-
scale survey database. Jia et al. found that managers must ensure strategies
fit the business core, as service improvement actions require high-cost
investments that decrease business performance when the service
improvement actions do not strategically fit. To establish a strategic fit to
satisfy changing customers’ needs, effective managers leverage
organizational learning required for innovations to meet demands (Tamayo-
Torres et al., 2016). Managers need to ensure a strategic fit between the
business core and strategies through organization-wide changes and strategic
foresight to offer services to future customers.
For example, Ford and Despeisse (2016) suggested from a multiple
case study described the need for manufacturing managers to make business-
wide changes to business strategy, technology, organizational structure,
operations, and supply chains to take advantage of additive manufacturing as
a service offering. Managers ensure strategic fit of both strategy and
organizational-wide changes needed to satisfy future customers’ needs.
However, Venkatesh and Singhal (2017) suggested horizontal business
structure approach for manager deciding on strategic changes needed to offer
services. Jia et al. (2016) found service orientation of competitive strategy
and improvement actions must fit strategically with each other to improve
business performance. Managers took on many roles in strategic service
innovation in manufacturing; however, some researchers agreed that
effective manager’s role in strategy involves responsibility for the strategic
fit of the service offering in the business (Prajogo, 2016). In this study,
managers’ role in strategy includes foresight to ensure strategic fit of service
offerings based on strategy and business-wide changes.
Managers provide strategic guidance. One of the most important
roles and responsibilities for managers’ business strategy was to provide
strategic guidance to ensure a competitive advantage (Ambroise, Prim-Allaz,
& Teyssier, 2018). Managers of manufacturing business provided strategic
guidance on how to pursue strategic service innovation (Sayar & Er, 2018).
Porter (1991) recognized managers move organizations to favorable
environments; which helps to explain why manufacturing managers provide
guidance on strategies for employees to provide service offerings.
Manufacturing managers guided the business pursuit of services as a strategy
to gain a transformative relationship with customers providing a competitive
advantage over competitors (Szasz, Demeter, Boer, & Cheng, 2017). When
providing customers service offerings to improve business performance,
managers developed a competitive strategy to fit service orientation and
organizational improvement actions with each other (Jia et al., 2016).
Manufacturing managers provide strategic guidance when pursuing
service offerings because managers’ strategies misaligned to the
organization present risk to business sustainment. Manufacturing managers
gain knowledge of the risks to business sustainability when efforts to
provide service offerings fail to follow an effective competitive strategy (He,
Ho, Zhang, & Dey, 2016). For example, Benedettini et al. (2015) suggested
offering services exposed manufacturers to different risks associated with
demand volatility based on different customer needs and uncertainty of
various operational functions. Manufacturing managers pursuing conflicting
standardization and customization approaches to offering services face
multiple challenges to satisfying customers’ needs and fail to reach business
objectives through service offerings (Lenka, Parida, Sjodin, & Wincent,
2018). Manufacturing managers providing services seek longterm
relationships with customers required overcoming barriers to customers’
commitment, including getting the customer involved and developing
technical and business competencies to continue to provide services
(Coreynen, Matthyssens, & Van Bockhaven, 2017). Manufacturing
managers provide strategic guidance to avoid risks in offering services to
customers.
In controlling business risks, manufacturing managers provided
strategic guidance to determine the magnitude of service offerings as either a
service dependent product or a substitution for conventional services with a
manufacturer’s service-based product (Lee, Yoo, & Kim, 2016). Managers
considered several key elements when providing strategic guidance for
offering services, including differentiation, competitive strategy,
relationships with customers, customer’s needs, and product service
functional design (Ambroise et al., 2018). Manufacturing managers used
business strategies to offer services to gain a sustainable competitive
advantage with business strategies to control market segment inputs, value
chain development, financial resources, and focus on business sustainability
(Alghisi & Saccani, 2015). For example, Ford and Despeisse (2016)
recommended managers take advantage of additive manufacturing
advancements and positive impacts to drive business sustainment.
Manufacturing managers are responsible for providing strategic guidance to
overcome barriers to risk in service innovations.
Competitive advantage. Manufacturing managers offer business
services to gain a competitive advantage to sustain business operations.
Manufacturing managers developed service offerings to sustain competitive
advantage (Bustinza, Bigdeli, Baines, & Elliot, 2015). Ha et al.’s (2016)
study consisted of Small and Medium Enterprise, SME, manufacturers
engaged in servitization gained a competitive advantage through greater
efficiency in business management, product planning, and product
production process, than SME manufacturers without servitization in
processes. Through comparison of cases, Lee et al. (2016) revealed two
possible strategic paths for manufacturers gaining a competitive advantage
by offering services, including integrating a service provider, or integrating
goods and services, servitization. In contrast, Rau, Zbiek, and Jonas (2017)
concluded manufacturing managers offering services created a competitive
advantage through differentiation by a strategic process of establishing a
value proposition to meet customers’ needs. Manufacturing managers
establish services offerings to seek competitive advantage and benefit from
service offerings as a competitive advantage in sustaining the longevity of
the business.
Researchers agree manufacturing managers seek opportunities within
market conditions to initiate effective service strategies. Alghisi and Saccani
(2015) suggested managers utilize networks to seize competitive advantage
through service offerings by sensing opportunities and threats. Saul and
Gebauer (2018) suggested manufacturing managers gain a competitive
advantage by engaging customers with specific service offerings, which free
customers’ resources through reduced costs. Also, Ha et al. (2016) examined
Korean manufacturing small and medium enterprise managers engaged in
servitization finding the manufacturing managers possessed efficiencies in
several business processes than nonservitized businesses, including business
management, product planning, and product production. Manufacturing
managers control strategy to gain competitive advantages through
opportunities to increase engagements with customers to provide service
offerings from organizational reconfigurations and efficient business
processes improvements.
For example, Gebauer et al. (2016) described four service networks
manufacturing managers used to take advantage of the opportunity to move
from products to services, including vertical after-sales service networks,
horizontal outsourcing service network, vertical life-cycle service network,
and horizontal integration service network. Also, manufacturing managers in
mature economies can take advantage of opportunities to satisfy customers
by increasing understanding of customers’ needs through the exploitation of
Big Data to provide complimentary service offerings (Opresnik & Taisch,
2015). While researchers disagree on specific opportunities for
manufacturing managers, use to gain a competitive advantage to offer
services, in this study effective manufacturing managers identify and take
advantage of opportunities when innovating to offer business services.
Barriers to strategy implementation. Some manufacturing managers
experienced barriers to establishing successful service offerings. Some
manufacturing managers experienced barriers to implementing services
within the service market. For example, Kuijken et al. (2017) described
manufacturing managers’ lack of service skills as a barrier to develop
effective service offerings. Benedettini et al. (2015) found manufacturers
providing service offerings, such as retail, distribution, and financial services
experienced increased external risk. Some manufacturers experienced
limitations in the form of inconsistent demand for services, such as
maintenance contracts for repair services for manufacturer’s products
(Gebauer et al., 2016). Manufacturers offering services exposed the
organization to the volatility of different customer needs and uncertainty of
differences in product or service operational functions (Benedettini et al.,
2015).
Researchers identified several challenges limiting strategic service
innovation in businesses. For example, Zhang and Banerji (2017) found
manufacturing managers faced barriers to service innovation, including,
organizational structure factors, economic factors, and internal resources
with external market factors. Coreynen, Matthyssens, Rijck, and Dewit
(2018) found manufacturing managers possessed limited internal resources
as capabilities in service practices, including training staff and maximizing
efficiencies. Porter (1991) recognized managers move organizations to
favorable environments. However, Benedettini et al. (2015) suggested
offering services exposed manufacturers to different risks associated with
demand volatility based on various customer needs and uncertainty of
changing operation functions. Porter’s suggestion helps to explain why
manufacturing managers’ move into service offerings to sustain their
businesses despite challenges. The purpose of this study was not to identify
specific challenges to manufacturing managers to innovate to provide
service offerings.
Managers influence service innovations in businesses processes,
products, or services to gain a competitive advantage. Managers benefit from
service innovation through business resilience, effective responses to
changing requirements, securing customers limiting competition, taking
advantage of continued growth opportunities, developing new service
business lines, and revenue streams growth (Baines, 2015). Managers
developed competitive advantage, to gain benefits, through innovative
services strategies by establishing entrepreneurial posture in strategic
decision-making, create value for customers with new services, deciding on
resource limitations for innovation initiatives, and ensuring innovation align
to customers’ needs (Hakanen et al., 2017). Managers benefit from
establishing a competitive advantage through service innovation by aligning
their innovation efforts with customers’ needs and controlling innovation
through strategy. To benefit from competitive advantage through innovation,
managers engage in various roles to enhance innovation in business
processes and products/services.
Managers Role in Service Innovation
Managers’ role in service innovation includes effecting innovations
through creating conditions for employees to understand customers’
challenges and developing solutions to those challenges. Managers
effectively increase innovation through decisions to opening innovation
processes to customers’ feedback (Chakkol, Karatzas, Johnson, & Godsell,
2018). Windler, Juttner, Michel, Maklan, and Macdonald (2017) found
through qualitative research managers serve suitable solution customers as
consultants establishing a relationship for the customer shared business
problems and expertise with the product service solution provider. Managers
create conditions to increase service innovations through increasing
employee understanding of customers’ needs.
Also, managers effectively facilitate employee knowledge sharing
needed to overcome barriers to providing innovative services to customers
by aligning goals and promoting trust (Valtakoski & Jarvi, 2016). Managers
affected employees’ commitment to innovation by communicating support
for employees’ implementation of collaboration (Birken et al., 2015).
Managers create conditions within an organization for employees to develop
customers’ trust to understand customers’ needs to find innovative solutions
to customers’ problems (Ikeda & Marshall, 2016). Managers encouraged
organizational learning as a key element to develop innovation to strategic
fit to customers’ demands (Tamayo-Torres et al., 2016). Research showed
managers’ role in innovation includes considering customers in the
innovation process, which requires supportive communication and trust with
both employees and customers to develop solutions to meet customers’
requirements.
Managers influence the development of innovative service offerings
by overcoming barriers to understanding services. For example, managers
seeking to learn the value of the service realized the importance of
interactivity for developing knowledge, which differed from manufacturer’s
product focus (Raddats et al., 2017). Kuijken et al. (2017) discussed to
overcome barriers to offer services manufacturing managers took advantage
of opportunities to sell products and services separately to increase
understanding of effective service strategies. Similarly, manufacturing
managers provided solutions to innovation barriers, including (a) facilitating
development processes, (b) clarifying responsibilities, (c) providing
knowledge, (d) compensating partners, (e) incentivizing value co-creation
with customer engagement, and (f) supporting continuous improvement
(Benedetti et al., 2015). Rabetino, Harmsen, Kohtamaki, and Sihvonen
(2018) found managers used a strategic innovation process for
manufacturers to transition to providing services. Manufacturing managers
need effective strategies to overcome barriers to service innovations, which
require most managers to support employees’ generation of innovative ideas
and build an organization to promote and integrate service innovations
through strategy.
Employees’ Relationships
Similar to Sundbo (1997), researchers using resource-based view or
service innovation sought employees’ relationship with customers as a key
strategic element to offer services. Li, Lin, Chen, and Ma’s (2015)
quantitative research demonstrated managers provided organizational
empowerment positively influenced business performance, through service
strategy. Employees empowered to innovate towards services at
manufacturing provide an opportunity for manufacturers to gain a
competitive advantage. Hakanen et al. (2017) suggested managers
strategically study the dynamic interactions between employees and
customers to benefit from employees’ relationship with customers. He et al.
(2016) further examined the relationship between organizational
empowerment and business performance for manufacturers offering
services, which demonstrated a positive correlation.
Similarly, Brax and Visintin’s (2017) explored themes changing focus
from product strategies to customer-focused service strategies.
Manufacturing managers effectively offered services through a joint
commitment between employees and customers (Kreye, 2017).
Manufacturing managers use employee relationships with customers
strategically to capitalize on opportunities for service innovations.
Dual Organization
To understand how manufacturing managers, use effective strategies
to provide service offerings, researchers need to understand how managers
establish an organizational structure to overcome strategic service innovation
challenges. Managers establish organizational structures; therefore, effective
manufacturing managers must find the right fit for an organizational
structure to support both products-based business, as well as strategic shifts
towards providing service offerings (Bustinza et al., 2015). Managers of
innovative businesses with high performances in revenue growth and
profitability created innovation by structuring the organization to encourage
innovation through innovative culture and development of processes to
enable innovation (Ikeda & Marshall, 2016). Effective manufacturing
managers offering services organize the organizational structure to overcome
barriers to competing with services.
Some researchers (Bustinza et al., 2015; Ikeda & Marshall, 2016)
agreed, manufacturing managers needed to change organizational structure
establish effective service initiatives. However, other researchers disagreed
on the specific organizational structure required, for example, Weeks and
Benade (2015) recommended consolidating services under a separate
services business, to increase production employees’ focus on product
manufacturing operations. In contrast, Kuijken et al. (2017) discussed that
managers who sought to offer services required an organizational structure
to overcome changes in management focus from products to services.
Sundbo (1997) described effective manufacturing managers develop a dual
organization strategy to innovate manufacturing the business to offer
services.
Informal Interaction for Ideas
Manufacturing managers engaged in offering services establish direct
relationships with customers, while managers of product-oriented businesses
restrict engagement was an indirect connection with customers (Chakkol et
al., 2018). Manufacturing managers take advantage of customers’ requests
for customization of products, which often result in service offerings to train
the customer on new functionalities (Cusumano et al., 2015). By engaging
customers through product-service system feedback, manufacturers innovate
to develop better quality products and services (Wan, Li, Gao, Roy, & Tong,
2017). Through establishing interactions, directly with the end-using
customer, manufacturing managers sell new versions of products and
services to existing customers over a longer timeframe through servitization
(Cusumano et al., 2015). Manufacturing managers offering services direct
communication with customers improved functional quality and customer
satisfaction (Coreynen et al., 2018). Effective manufacturing managers
providing service offerings need to establish direct communication between
employees and customers.
Service Innovation as a Strategic Process
Manufacturing managers use service innovation as a strategic process
to provide service offerings. Manufacturing managers approach to service
innovation as a strategic process to gain a competitive advantage (Baines et
al., 2017). Manufacturers sought service innovation strategies either through
alignment of an external competitive environment (Martin-Rios & Parga-
Dans, 2016), or an internal development of resources (Vargo, Wieland, &
Akaka, 2015). From an external perspective, Sundbo (1997) identified the
following key tenets of strategic service innovation theory showed service
innovation as a strategic process of determining customers’ needs through
employee relationships to identify service offerings aligned with managers’
strategic guidance. Successful managers incorporate a strategic process to
innovate services into their business offerings. Martin-Rios and Parga-Dans
(2016) suggested manufacturing managers strategically innovate when faced
with a severe economic decline by leaving traditional product offerings to
change to new services offerings. Like Porter’s (1991) five forces, managers
seek information from the external competitive environment. Effective
manufacturing managers use a strategy development process to decide how
to use service innovation to take advantage of opportunities for customers’
needs (Rabetino et al., 2018).
Managers seek to provide service innovations by aligning strategy to
provide services needed by external customers. To innovate services
managers, focus on satisfying future customers’ needs presenting
opportunity, instead of focusing on satisfying existing customer’s needs
(Coreynen et al., 2018). Lee et al. (2016) examined two strategic innovation
paths for manufacturers to gain a competitive advantage by offering
services, including (a) integrating third-party service provider, or (b)
integrating goods and services. However, manufacturing managers seeking
to satisfy customers’ needs through service offerings innovate to provide
solutions, through integrated productrelated services (Chakkol et al., 2018).
Kanninen, Penttinen, Tinnila, and Kaario (2017) found manufacturing
managers effectively offer services through a four-step process, including:
(a) identification of current services and customers’ needs, (b) definition of
service strategy, (c) service development, business modeling, and marketing,
and (d) improve capabilities. Manufacturing managers apply service
innovation strategies including cost reductions and expansions to base
markets to achieve a competitive advantage (Lee et al., 2016). Effective
managers strategically align service innovations with the customers’
demands.
Also, some manufacturing managers innovate through analysis of
market conditions trends (Andreassen, Lervik-Olsen, & Calabretta, 2015).
Some manufacturing managers seeking innovation opportunities use Big
Data to increase competitive advantages through increasing the
virtualization, organization, sharing, and analyzing data on customers’
behaviors to innovate to provide new service offerings to customers
(Opresnik & Taisch, 2015). Additionally, Bohm, Eggert, and Thiesbrummel
(2017) concluded manufacturers focus strategy on innovation to design
services to satisfy customer’s needs when transitioning from a product focus
to provide customers with service offerings. Managers use technological
advances in the analysis of data allowing managers to make strategic
decisions about which opportunities to pursue to offer services (Opresnik &
Taisch, 2015).
In contrast, to the external perspective of service innovation as a
strategic process with an external focus, Vargo et al. (2015) suggested
managers innovate through a strategic process of combining institutional
knowledge with the development of new technology. Similarly, Tamayo-
Torres et al. (2016) examined managers’ strategic approach to organizational
learning as an effective method for aligning innovation and strategic fit.
Valtakoski (2017) found institutional knowledge as a key resource for both
customers and manufacturers. Both authors (Tamayo-Torres et al., 2016;
Vargo et al., 2015), view the innovation process as a strategic process
focused on internal elements, including institutional knowledge or
organizational learning.
Manufacturing managers achieve innovation in services by increasing
focus on innovations in research and development of services (Tran & Park,
2016). Manufacturing managers investing in research and development for
services require technological change (Wu & Wu, 2015). Managers offering
services require different technology resources than managers providing
products, including web services to engage service customers, to manage the
complexities of planning for new service operations, new financial
management structures, and realignment of the information technology
systems to meet the demands of both product and services operations
(Weeks & Benade, 2015). Technology design-driven processes allow
managers to take advantage of industry flexible manufacturing and services,
individual customized products and services, and innovative business
models through smart technology (Gerlitz, 2015). Managers can integrate
technology strategically into service offerings through new information
systems services need to support product and service customization (Grubic,
2018). While some researchers disagree on the focus of the service
innovation process, the researchers agree successful managers use a strategic
process to innovate services.
Manufacturing managers provide service innovations through a
strategic process (Sundbo, 1997). This process includes aligning external
competitive environment factors, customers’ needs, with internal resources,
services integrated with products (Frow et al., 2015). Senior managers
influence innovation by resource allocation and directly communicating the
strategic vision and prioritizing innovation initiatives to employees (Birken
et al., 2015). Lutjen et al. (2017) provided a three-stage service innovation
process to consider strategic service innovations, consisting of (a) service
initiation, (b) service anchoring, and (c) service extension. Managers decide
to provide service offerings based on aligning customers’ needs with
organizational resources leading to service innovation as a strategic process.
Similarly, Spring and Araujo (2017) suggested manufacturing managers
sought to leverage repair and maintenance services of manufacturers
products as a development approach to strategical initiation of service
offerings.
Customers. Customers actively participate in the development of
effective service innovations. Researchers, who addressed customers
strategies for service innovations, agreed to look for innovations from
customers; however, researchers disagreed on the perspective, which to view
customers’ contribution to strategic service innovation. Sakyi-Gyinae and
Holmlund (2018) described how researchers considered the source of
competitive strategy consisted of satisfying the customers’ needs. Similarly,
Baines et al. (2017) suggested managers of product-based companies look to
develop service solutions by targeting tasks loyal customers require
assistance in accomplishing. Manufacturing managers effectively provide
customers with service innovations aligned with customers’ needs
(Coreynen et al., 2017). Manufacturing managers effectively use service
innovations through understanding and satisfying customers’ needs.
Manufacturing managers must focus on customers’ needs to develop
effective service innovations. Jaaron and Backhouse (2017) found, through
multiple case studies, successful managers approach innovation by focusing
on customers’ needs to develop improvements to existing services or new
service offerings. Manufacturing managers gain a competitive advantage
through optimization of services alignment with customers’ processes
(Trkman, Mertens, Viaene, & Gemmel, 2015). Similarly, Sakyi-Gyinae and
Holmlund (2018) suggested effective managers of product-based businesses
develop service innovations aligned to the customer’s value perspective.
Both Jaaron and Backhouse (2017) and Sakyi-Gyinae and Holmlund (2018)
suggested effective managers offering services take responsibility to solve
customers’ needs to increase productivity through service offerings.
Managers focus on customers’ needs through organizational change or
customers’ life cycle. For example, IBM managers pioneered manufacturing
business transformation to offer services; which IBM managers amended the
organizational culture to focus on customers’ needs (Tunisini & Sebastiani,
2015). In contrast, Andreassen et al. (2015) viewed customers’ needs for
services based on three phases of life, including young and carefree, chaos in
life, and getting life back. Although, researchers disagree on the type of role
customers play in service innovation; researchers agree customers are
critical to the effectiveness of service-based innovation strategies.
In contrast, manufacturing managers seeking to implement
servitization strategies focus on improving customer relationships,
understanding customer’s internal business processes, and target solving
customers’ problems with efficient and effective service solutions (Baines,
2015). Manufacturers, moving upstream in the value chain through service
offerings, obtained high growth in profitability through differentiation and
customer satisfaction (Bustinza et al., 2015). Raja, Chakkol, Johnson, and
Beltagui (2018) case study described manufacturing managers’ strategy to
collaborate with customers integrate knowledge and resources with
customers to deliver solutions. Integrators to establish a direct service
relationship with end-user customers, which manufacturing managers used
specific skills and capabilities to perform service tasks too complex for the
integrators provide to end-user customers. As a function of successfully
implementing a servitization, managers engaged in the strategic process to
gain an understanding of the customer’s experience with both the product
and services, for lowlevel product and service integration design to the
solution to satisfy the customer’s needs (Kim, Lee, & Kim, 2015). Li et al.
(2015) found managers of manufacturing companies enhance the
competitiveness of their firm through focused attention to their customers
while providing increased customized integrated solutions.
Manufacturers analyze the external risks to determine changes needed
to compete in service markets (Zhang & Banerji, 2017). Managers improved
communications with customers from product offerings to focus on areas
where customers require assistance in completing service tasks (Sakyi-
Gyinae & Holmlund, 2018). Understanding the external business
environment requires establishing an active partnership with customers to
identify customers’ needs (Vaittinen, Martinsuo, & Ortt, 2018). Andreassen
et al. (2015) recognized the value of analysis of the external business
environment; proposing a systematic framework to distinguish trends from
market research for service innovation opportunities. Managers analyze
relationships dynamics with customers to offer innovative services to
increase the customer’s capabilities to achieve goals (Sakyi-Gyinae &
Holmlund, 2018). Effective manufacturing managers analyze the external
environment to choose service innovation strategies.
However, managers make errors determining service offerings by
assuming superior knowledge of how customers interact with the
organization’s processes or how the customer uses the products and service
offerings (Trkman et al., 2015). Effective manufacturing managers applied
strategic focus on how customers value the service offerings manufacturers
provided to sustain business operations (He et al., 2016). Managers’ analysis
of market conditions influences managers’ decisions to pursue strategic
actions to offer services (Tunisini & Sebastiani, 2015). However, managers
providing service offerings consider the value of service to the customer to
make effective strategic decisions about which service offerings satisfy
customers’ needs (Peters, Blohm, & Leimeister, 2015). Manufacturing
managers make mistakes in service offerings when managers fail to
recognize the value of services provided to customers.
Similarly, Prajogo (2016) found effective managers achieved a
competitive advantage through both product and process innovation
strategies based on the context of the external business environment.
Manufacturing managers offering services need to consider environmental
risks and market conditions when pursuing demands for services
(Benedettini et al., 2015). Managers received benefits from allowing the
customer to provide input on various products and processes; through
external customers’ access to organizational processes, customers assist
managers in making decisions regarding the quality of products and services
(Agrawal & Rahman, 2015). The source of competitive strategy consists of
managers developing an understanding that the value proposition comes
from a business offering to satisfy customers’ needs through the
functionality of the product or the service (Sakyi-Gyinae & Holmlund,
2018).
Knowledge of product and services processes. Manufacturers’
transitioning from product-based business models to include service-based
business offerings gained competitive advantages from increased
collaboration between the product-oriented system and service-oriented
system (Peillon, Pellegrin, & Burlat, 2015). Mahut, Daaboul, Bricogne,
Eynard (2017) discussed managers effectively enable collaboration between
product activities and service activities through employees gaining
knowledge of the product and services processes.
Managers take advantage of the knowledge of products and services to
develop strategic service innovations from a variety of sources. Managers
effectively developed service innovations through inputs customers co-
creation (Huikkola, Kohtamaki, & Rabetino, 2016). Manufacturers, such as
Rolls Royce and IBM sought knowledge from digital innovations and
analysis of information from the Internet of Things, which managers used to
change product inputs to innovative services outputs (Barrett et al., 2015).
Kuula, Putkiranta, and Tulokas (2016) found benefits from using public
resources to develop innovations. Manufacturers focus on customer’s
knowledge resources to offer service innovations (Green, Davies, & Ng,
2017). Manufacturing managers effectively locate the knowledge of
products and services to develop service innovations from a variety of
sources, including customers, public research organizations, and digital
information, such as Big Data.
Some manufacturing managers leveraged digital information
technologies to increase growth through service innovations (Prindible &
Petrick, 2015). Ostrom Parasuraman, Bowen, Patricio, and Voss (2015)
recognized information technological advances changed how customers
serve themselves, including before, during, and after purchase.
Manufacturing managers seek a competitive advantage through network
connections of digital information known as the Internet of Things.
Researchers defined the Internet of Things as the connection information,
sensors, and communication technologies into manufactured products to
provide information and services to customers (Sayar & Er, 2018).
Manufacturing managers may strategically access Internet of Things to
identify what services customers need and what resources need investment
to innovate services to answer customers’ needs.
Manufacturing knowledge. Most researchers disagree over the
ability to use manufacturing knowledge to assist managers in making
strategic service decisions in the servitization process. Mahut et al. (2017)
suggested cooperative strategies improved value chain service quality, as
manufacturers and customers connected sharing service needs through
information systems. In contrast, Kuijken et al. (2017) discussed that
managers experienced challenges using a product-based value to offer
services, as both products and services require different management
dynamics. Prajogo (2016) suggested manufacturing managers not
completely abandon product innovation activities because manufacturing
managers can still seek opportunities to gain product market share by
offering better products to customers. Some researchers disagree whether
manufacturing managers effectively sustain businesses through servitization
by relying on manufacturing knowledge in the servitization process.
Traditionally, manufacturing managers focused on product-based
manufacturing strategies, which managers concentrated on engineering and
designing a product to sell to customers. Traditional manufacturing strategy
frameworks separated process innovation and product innovation, but
service innovation required the commingling of both process and product
innovations (Kowalkowski, Windahl, Kindstrom, & Gebauer, 2015).
Raddats et al. (2015) found manufacturing managers’ motivations to engage
in servitization consisted of new revenue streams, cost savings, service
quality improvements, and risk mitigation for complex products and
systems. Additionally, Baines (2015) explained managers’ servitization
initiatives affected the organization beyond developing a new service
offering for customers by the adoption of both new technology and
organizational transformation during the servitization process.
Integrated Product and Service Offerings
Some manufacturing managers pursue strategies to offer services
through the integration of services into their product offering strategy.
Several examples of companies, which successfully pursued servitization
through integration with product offerings, includes IBM (Wu et al., 2017),
Rolls Royce, and General Electric (Gebauer et al., 2016). Researchers
exploring product and service offerings must understand the rationale for
product-based manufacturing managers to adjust business models. He et al.’s
(2016) quantitative study supported the need for manufacturers to offer
productbased services to overcome barriers to product market entry in the
current market.
Similarly, Sayar and Er’s (2018) multiple case studies explored
manufacturing managers providing services solutions by responding to
customers’ needs with innovative product and service combinations.
Effective business managers continuously adjust business models to provide
new products and services through a strategic change to gain a competitive
advantage (Kowalkowski et al., 2015). Helms (2016) concluded the energy
companies entering services shift from transactional commodity providers to
a service business model consisting of a value proposition to reduce cost,
emissions, complexity, or improvements to generation and consumption of
energy to business-to-business customers and private households.
Manufacturing managers may strategically change product business models
to incorporate service offerings.
Manufacturing managers must align product and service strategies to
gain a competitive advantage. Bustinza et al.’s (2015) found through
quantitative analysis manufacturing managers sought to provide services by
integrating products and services over performance-based contracts and
value-added services. Similarly, Kim et al. (2015) discussed how a small to
medium manufacturing business managers competed through innovative
integration of services and product through a strategic process of high-level
design process coupled with low-level product-service system design.
However, some manufacturing managers pursued a strategy to provide
services through product ownership retention, while offering the customer
use of the product with support services incorporated into solutions contracts
(Zhang, Ren, Liu, & Si, 2017). Some researchers agree manufacturing
managers used integration of products and services to achieve a competitive
advantage through servitization.
Manufacturing managers may seek an opportunity to differentiate
products to gain a competitive advantage, which managers may use this
strategy to enter services markets. Cusumano et al. (2015) concluded most
product-based business managers across a broad international spectrum of
business offered more substitution services in the ferment phase, but as the
managers’ business progressed through the transition and mature phases,
replacement services decreased as extending and smoothing services
increased in service offerings. Bustinza et al. (2015) found the source of
competitive advantage drove manufacturers to use customer satisfaction as
the source of knowledge to develop services closely aligned with business
functions; however, differentiation was appropriate for special service unit
or external partnerships to drive innovation. Kim et al., (2015) explained the
strategic servitization process through a double-deck servitization process,
which demonstrated the managers of the small furniture manufacturing
company successfully applied the servitization process through integrated
product and services for the DIY furniture product, by providing education
and customization to meet customer’s needs. Researchers of this topic
disagree on whether manufacturing managers should engage servitization
through product and service integration or differentiation through
substitution strategies to innovate services offerings.
Strategy Inspired Employees
Effective manufacturing managers provide a strategy to inspire
employees to provide service offerings to customers. Employees motivated
by organizational support for innovating ideas are a key element to
innovations needed to pursue energy business initiatives (Tantau, Chinie, &
Carlea, 2015). Li et al. (2015) found in China investment in human resources
was a requirement to promote servitization, and managers gain servitization
profitability by the steady accumulation of capabilities. To overcome
business operations challenges to servitization, manufacturing managers
need to employ and train employees capable of establishing relationships
with customers and developing innovations to provide solutions to
customers (Chakkol et al., 2018). Employees effectively inspired by strategy
provide innovation and establish relationships with customers to promote
manufacturing managers’ service offerings.
Manufacturing managers inspire employees with strategies to gain the
knowledge needed to innovate to satisfy customers with service offerings.
When performing job tasks, individual employees gain the knowledge
needed to innovate products, procedures, processes, or services (Engen &
Magnusson, 2015). Service provider employees establish a relationship and
gain extensive knowledge of customers’ preferences; employees’ knowledge
of customers’ preferences was a critical element to innovating services to
meet customers’ expectations (Akesson, Skalen, Edvardsson, & Stalhammar,
2015). Employees’ innovation was a fundamental factor in achieving a
competitive advantage; however, employees’ innovation was useless unless
managers support the employee by implementing the innovation in the
organization (Kafetzopoulos, Gotzamani, & Gkana, 2015). Employees’
knowledge of customers become a critical element for manufacturing
managers to effectively decide, which services to provide to meet customers’
expectations.
Employees respond to the business environment to make ideas into
possible innovations (Sinha & Srivastava, 2016). Managers inspire
employees through empowerment to seek opportunities to improve work
processes and procedures leading to increased employee innovations
(Kafetzopoulos et al., 2015). Manufacturing managers effectively offer
services through boundary spanning employees linking external customer
requirements with internal processes and resources (Chakkol et al., 2018).
Managers’ strategic support for employees’ innovations positively affects
the achievement of organizational goals (Schuckert, Kim, Paek, & Lee,
2018). Employees inspired by manufacturing managers’ strategies to provide
services to gain knowledge of customers needed to innovate service
offerings effectively.
Standardization
Effective manufacturing managers use standardization as a strategy as
a competitive advantage to provide service offerings. Manufacturers facing
steep price competition stemming from manufacturing standardization and
modularization seek servitization as a strategy to remain competitive (Ha et
al., 2016). Manufacturing managers seek standardization in product-oriented
systems to control costs and provide certainty (Lenka et al., 2018). Managers
who integrate product-service offerings may provide differentiation as a
competitive advantage by structuring the product-service business model
(Adrodgari & Saccani, 2017). Manufacturing managers pursuing
servitization gain a competitive advantage through cost reductions from
adjusting the scale of service configurations and standardization (Martin-
Rios & Parga-Dans, 2016). Manufacturing managers pursue standardization
of service offerings to reduce costs, differentiate, and adjust the scale of
service offerings to remain competitive.
However, manufacturing managers face barriers in standardizing
services. For example, customers’ sense of value differs between products
and services (He et al., 2016). Service managers respond to customers’
request for customized services as a competitive advantage, unlike in
manufacturing products (Lenka et al., 2018). Additionally, customers
measure product quality and services quality based on subjective standards,
including (a) a product design, material, and manufacturing technology, and
(b) the difference between the perceived levels of service expected at
purchase compared to the actual level of service delivered (You & You,
2016). Additionally, Kowalkowski et al. (2015) discussed managers sought
to standardize service offerings, however, were challenged to customize to
meet customers’ needs. Manufacturing managers seeking to standardize
services face barriers from customers’ requirements for flexibility in
services, the customer’s sense of the value of the service, customers’
requests for services customization, and customers’ perceived versus actual
quality of service (Benedettini et al., 2015; You & You, 2016).
Manufacturing managers need to change perspectives on standardization
between providing products and offering services to customers.
In contrast, researchers show a strategic push to standardize the
service provider process. For example, Curiazzi, Rondini, Pirola, Ouertani,
and Pezzotta (2016) presented a standard process model for service delivery
consisting of seven process segments, including (a) handling customer’s
requests, (b) assess the feasibility and create the offer, (c) manage order, (d)
mobilize and plan, (e) prepare job, (f) perform service job for customer, and
(g) complete job. Additionally, Wu and Wu (2015) concluded service
providers either apply structure to the service system to organize people and
technologies when managing services design and execution, or work
unilaterally towards internal objectives without understanding customers.
However, Andreini, Salo, and Wendelin (2015) recommended product-
service providers standardize by providing solutions to provide cost
reductions, create improvements to customer relationships, and develop
loyalty.
Manufacturing managers faced challenges to standardize services
offerings when focusing on touchpoints with customers, who required
increasing customization and flexibility to satisfy customers’ needs
(Benedetti et al., 2015). Managers focused on standardization of product
design open organizations to feedback from external stakeholders, such as
distributors and installers, which managers could apply to servitization
strategies (Weeks & Benade, 2015). However, managers can achieve a
competitive advantage through standardization as Sundbo (1997) suggested
by focusing on standardizing macro service processes with managers’
decisions influenced by feedback pulled from employees’ understanding of
customers’ service requirements.
Manufacturing managers seek opportunities to sustain business
operations through service offerings; yet, many manufacturers offering
services need to overcome barriers to innovate service offerings. To
overcome the obstacles to services innovation, Sundbo (1997) offered a
conceptual framework, strategic service innovation, showing how managers
effectively engage in service innovations as a strategic process.
Researchers support Sundbo’s concepts by further refining the strategic
process to aligning customers’ needs with internal resources to provide
innovative service offerings. Manufacturing managers can apply Sundbo’s
concepts to overcome service innovation barriers through a strategic process
to provide service offerings required to sustain the business beyond 5 years.
Transition
Section 1 consists of the basis of the study, including identification
and alignment of the research problem in the form of a problem statement,
research question, and purpose statement. I provide a conceptual framework
using Sundbo’s (1997) strategic service innovation theory as a conceptual
lens to view the answer to the research question grounded in current and
relevant academic literature. I made assumptions, as well as identified
limitations and delimitations to assist in analyzing the data from the study.
To highlight the importance of researching the topic, I provide information
on the significance of the study.
In the final portion of Section 1, I review current and relevant
academic literature. I provide an academic literature review discussing the
conceptual framework and relevant research on the business problem. I
gauge the relevancy of literature based on minimum criteria established to
guide the use of peer-reviewed articles within five years of the expected
completion of this study. The literature review consists of discussion on
theories considered as the conceptual framework for this study, including
similarities and conflicts on the research topic. Additionally, I discuss the
relevance of Sundbo’s (1997) strategic service innovation theory consisting
of managers’ control of service innovation strategy, managers’ consideration
of external market conditions and internal resources, managers’
establishment of dual organizations to provide service innovations, and
strategy to pursue standardization of services.
In Section 2, I discuss key decisions on how I plan to conduct this
multiple case study with supporting rationale based on peer-reviewed
articles and seminal sources. I describe the roles of the researcher as well as
decisions about participant recruitment. Additionally, I discuss the decisions
to pursue a qualitative research method and multiple case study design for
this study by ruling out other research methods and designs not appropriate
to answer the research question. I identify the population of manufacturing
managers capable of answering the researching question and sampling
strategies to recruit participants to ensure data saturation to answer the
research question for this study. Additionally, I ensure the application of
ethical research principles for this study, by discussing the inclusion of
ethical principles from the National Commission for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979), known as
the Belmont Report. I discuss data collection, organization, and analysis by
identifying specific data collection instruments, data collection technique,
data organization technique, and data analysis. Finally, I described how I
ensure the reliability and validity of my findings by using data triangulation
to ensure data saturation, and member checking techniques.
In Section 3, I present the findings of the study. Additionally, I discuss
the application to professional practices, implications for social change, and
make recommendations for action and further research. I conclude the study
with reflections on my experience in the Walden University DBA process
followed by the concluding statement about this study.
Section 2: The Project
Manufacturers influenced by technological advances and increased
global competition in product-based operations are motivated to enter
service markets to sustain businesses (Aminoff & Hakanen, 2018).
Manufacturing managers need effective service innovation strategies to
overcome challenges to provide service offerings. In Section 2, I provide the
purpose of the study, the research method, research design decisions, and
supporting the rationale for the study’s execution. In this section, I document
the preparation and procedures of the study, including the role of the
researcher, the participant selection process, data collection, data
organization, data analysis, and the reliability and validity of the study.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this qualitative, multiple case study was to explore
effective service-based innovation strategies that manufacturing managers
used to offer business services to sustain their businesses beyond 5 years.
The target population for this study was manufacturing managers who
offered business services from three petroleum and coal manufacturing
companies, and who have sustained their business in the mid-Atlantic region
of the United States longer than 5 years. The implication for positive social
change includes the potential to provide manufacturing managers with
strategies to increase the longevity of business operations, thereby positively
affecting the socioeconomic conditions of communities relying on
manufacturing. Other manufacturing managers may be able to use the
findings this study to achieve sustainable employment opportunities
and positively affect the economic opportunities of the residents of the local
communities.
Role of the Researcher
My role as a researcher in this qualitative, multiple case study was to
serve as the primary data collection instrument. I prepared, organized, and
reported findings by following an established interview protocol. I followed
ethical guidelines for this study. In qualitative research, the researcher is the
data collection instrument (McCusker & Gunaydin, 2015). Qualitative
researchers serve as the data collection instrument when conducting
interviews with research participates (Twining, Heller, Nussbaum, & Tsai,
2017). Qualitative researchers prepare data by collecting data for content
analysis, selecting units of analysis, and developing meaning by interpreting
data through their perspective lens (Bengtsson, 2016). In this multiple case
study, I served as a primary data collection instrument conducting
semistructured interviews and analyzing data from company documents to
develop meaning about the social phenomenon.
My relationship with the research topic stemmed from my experience
in the U.S. military serving in various organizations in the petroleum and
logistics fields at tactical, operational, and strategic levels. Additionally, I
formed my perspective on the research topic through professional experience
in contract management consisting of business innovations, strategy
development, and acquisitions for manufactured commodities and business
services.
Qualitative researchers construct meaning through their personal
views of a topic (Hannes, Heyvaert, Slegers, Vandenbrande, & Van Nuland,
2015). Qualitative researchers often possessed a relationship with the
research topic that sometimes preceded the data collection and further
develops by executing the study (Tufford & Newman, 2012). Qualitative
researchers preparing interview questions use their relationship with the
research topic to understand how to phrase interview questions to extract
thick and rich content from participates (Castillo-Montoya, 2016). I framed
my relationship with the topic of this study through military and professional
experiences, which may have influenced the interview questions and
interpretation of the data.
I followed the ethical principles discussed in the National Commission
for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research (1979) to respect people’s autonomy, protect people from harm by
minimizing risks, and ensure equal distribution of benefits and burdens of
the research. I followed Walden University’s (2016) ethical guidelines and
gained Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval before gathering data. I
followed these ethical principles throughout the study by informing potential
participates about the study’s benefits and risks through an interview
protocol. Castillo-Montoya (2016) discussed that researchers prepared
participants by providing an information sheet and briefing about the
interview process, including all potential risks and benefits before gaining
consent. Following ethical principles in this multiple case study was critical
to ensure people’s autonomy, protection from harm, and equal distribution of
the benefits and burdens of the research.
Without effective strategies to mitigate biases, the researcher could
negatively influence the results of this study. To mitigate bias in this study, I
used bracketing. Researchers used bracketing to avoid bias and refrain from
providing feedback during the interview process (Roulston & Shelton,
2015). Ethical researchers accounted for the interviewer’s role in avoiding
bias as an effective listener by respecting the interviewee’s perspective over
the interviewer’s assumptions (Hoover, Strapp, Ito, Foster, & Roth, 2018).
Qualitative researchers bracketed and set aside personal feelings about a
topic to avoid bias in both data collection and data analysis: researchers
failing to bracket unconsciously affect data (Sorsa, Kiikkala, & Astedt-
Kurki, 2015). By bracketing my feelings on the topic during interviews, I
mitigated my bias in the research process.
I followed an interview protocol and I identified potential risks and
benefits of the study to the participates and sought informed consent before
conducting interviews (see Appendix A). Cugini (2015) described the
importance of the researcher identifying potential risks to study participants
to seek informed consent. Researchers follow an interview protocol by
contextualizing the interview process and procedures in their communication
with potential study participates (Wilson, Onwuegbuzie, & Manning, 2016).
Qualitative researchers document potential study participants’ informed
consent through the process identified in the interview protocol, which
demonstrates researchers’ exercise of ethical judgment (Hammersley, 2015).
I followed an interview protocol with each participant to ensure I followed
ethical guidelines throughout this study.
Participants
In this subsection, I establish the eligibility criteria for study
participants, strategies for gaining access to participants, and strategies for
establishing a working relationship with participants. Researchers set
eligibility criteria to assess which potential participants can answer the
research question. Weng (2015) suggested the quality of participant
eligibility criteria affects the quality of the study results. Elliott, Husbands,
Hamdy, Holmberg, and Donovan (2017) suggested researchers define the
criteria for participation in qualitative research based on the conceptual
framework and design of the research. Participants consisted of managers
from petroleum or coal manufacturing companies in the mid-Atlantic region
of the United States, who effectively used servicebased innovation strategies
to offer business services to sustain their business beyond 5 years. To
participate, participants needed direct knowledge of successful service-based
innovation strategies used to offer business services to the manufacturing
business.
I gained access to participants by reviewing public information in
company documents and websites for managers of petroleum and coal
manufacturing companies whose managers offer services. Researchers can
identify potential participants through publicly available information found
online (Weng, 2015). I contacted managers from selected companies through
phone and email to invite participants to provide information related to the
criteria of the study to determine eligibility. Researchers take advantage of
distributing information about studies through emails to gain access to
potential participants (Rocchi, Beaudry, Anderson, & Pelletier, 2016).
Burton-Chase, Parker, Hennig, Sisson, and Bruzzone (2017) concluded
researchers used online recruitment potential participants effectively when
the researchers defined population and the population was accessible online.
Additionally, I used social media such as LinkedIn and Twitter to post a
general statement about my study and direct potential participants contact
me to consider their eligibility for study participation. Participants did not
publicly announce participation on any social media site.
I established a working relationship by briefing and offering an
opportunity for questions and answers with potential participants about
participation in the study. I emphasized the potential benefits of the study to
potential participants, to motivate potential participants to enroll in the study.
Parikh, Mason, and Williams (2016) found identifying the benefits of a
study was a key strategy for overcoming barriers to motivating potential
participants to volunteer for research studies. Additionally, I corresponded
and provided updates to participants, so participants understood what steps
were in the process and required time commitments necessary for
participation in the study. Participants’ perception of the burdens of
participation may change throughout the participation of the study (Cutler,
Doherty, & Carmichael, 2018). I provided an information sheet and consent
form to document communication during this part of the discussion. My
research question directly tied to participants; therefore, participants should
have been interested in relationship building and reinforcing opportunity for
altruism. Dotolo, Nielsen, Curtis, and Engelberg (2017) suggested
researchers retain participants to continue in studies through relationships
between researcher and participants, as well as emphasizing the chance to
demonstrate altruism. Research Method and Design
Research Method
Qualitative research involves researchers characterizing human
experiences within the social context related to a phenomenon (Walther et
al., 2017). Researchers conduct qualitative research to construct
understanding from people’s experiences in the world (Mandal, 2018).
Researchers explore a human social phenomenon using qualitative methods
by allowing a participant’s experience to stand as a unit of analysis (Daher,
Carre, Jaramillo, Olivares, & Tomicic, 2017). The goal of using a qualitative
method was to construct detailed meaning from a phenomenon, from the
social experiences of people in their natural social context. For this study, I
used a qualitative research method to explore what service-based innovation
strategies manufacturing managers use to sustain their business by offering
services. In contrast to quantitative methods, qualitative methods typically
include analysis of textual data analysis from human experiences collected
through interviews, focus groups, narratives, archives, or recordings of
people and events (Goldberg & Allen, 2015).
Quantitative methods significantly differ from qualitative methods
because researchers who use quantitative methods examine outcomes of
changes to variables through statistical testing of the hypothesis (Gibson,
2017). Researchers use quantitative research methods to test theories using
variables, which the researcher changed to test the theory (McCusker &
Gunaydin, 2015). Quantitative method research includes examining theories
or hypothesis using statistical analysis to explain relationships between
predefined variables (Counsell & Harlow, 2017).
I selected a qualitative research method for this study. Researchers use
qualitative research methods to develop meaning from social phenomenon
by focusing on the details, meanings, and motivation of the situation through
data collection and analysis from human experiences (Mandal, 2018). Using
a qualitative method allows exploration of what service-based innovation
strategies managers of manufacturing businesses use to succeed in business,
through each participant’s experience stands as a unit of analysis (Martinez,
Neely, Velu, Leinster-Evans, & Bisessar, 2017).
In contrast, researchers conducting quantitative studies seek to
demonstrate the cause-and-effect of variables by developing a hypothesis to
observe variables through statistical testing from large samples (Gibson,
2017). Researchers use quantitative research methods by using statistical
analysis to measure the relationships between variables to explain universal
laws (Counsell & Harlow, 2017; McCusker & Gunaydin, 2015). A
quantitative research method was not appropriate for this study; a statistical
analysis did not answer the research question.
Mixed method was not appropriate for this study because the purpose
of this study was to explore a social phenomenon. Researchers use mixed
methods to address a phenomenon when a single research method is unable
to answer the research question (Mayoh & Onwuegbuzie, 2015).
Researchers conducting mixed methods studies combined qualitative and
quantitative methods to explain a phenomenon through measuring
participant’s answers to survey questions while providing flexibility to
explore the phenomenon with open-ended questions (Shannon-Baker, 2016).
The quantitative portions of hypothesis development in a mixed method
study fail to fit research to understand how or why (Yin, 2018). For this
study, mixed methods were not an appropriate method to focus on exploring
how and what manufacturing managers use to offer business services to
sustain their businesses beyond 5 years.
Research Design
I used a multiple case study as the research design for this qualitative
study. Using a multiple case study research design focused this study on the
social phenomenon, including (a) the contextual social experiences of
managers of manufacturing businesses, (b) who used service-based
innovation strategies in manufacturing businesses to succeed, and (c) bound
by a specific time beyond 5 years. Yin (2018) defined a case study as a
research design used to explore a phenomenon in its context bounded by
time and environment. Dasgupta (2015) discussed researchers used case
study to explore strategies bound by context. Researchers use case study
research design to explore complex social experiences to understand how
and why outcomes happen (Morgan, Pullon, Macdonald, McKinlay, & Gray,
2017).
Researchers use a phenomenological design to explore human lived
experiences of a shared event (Mayoh & Onwuegbuzie, 2015), which was
not appropriate for this study. Researchers conduct ethnography studies to
capture a shared phenomenon of a cultural group through immersion in the
specific cultural context (Lichterman, 2017). However, the purpose of this
study was to explore service-based innovations strategies, which did not
require immersion into a cultural context. Researchers use narrative research
design based on the retelling of experiences (Petty, Thomson, & Stew,
2012). Narrative research design misaligned with the purpose of this study
because narrative experiences of manufacturing business managers in the
mid-Atlantic region of the United States failed to describe service-based
innovation strategies.
Qualitative researchers achieve data saturation when data analysis of
participants’ experiences offers no more new information to answer the
research question (Morse, 2015a; Nelson, 2017). Fusch and Ness (2015)
suggested data saturation occurred when the amount of data allowed the
researchers to replicate the study, no new information was obtainable, and
continuation of coding was impractical. For this multiple case study data
saturation occurred when participants presented no additional themes to
answer the research question.
Population and Sampling
Researchers define the research population to determine the
appropriate sample and participants to answer the research question. Van
Rijnsoever (2017) suggested researchers first define the sample population
based on inclusion criteria. Researchers need to identify the specific
population so that decision makers can make informed decisions regarding
the social phenomenon (Korngiebel, Taualii, Forquera, Harris, & Buchwald,
2015). Yin (2018) recommended multiple case study consist of two to three
cases to achieve literal replication and four to six cases to achieve theoretical
replication. The target population for this study was managers offering
business services, from three petroleum and coal manufacturing companies,
who have sustained their business in the mid-Atlantic region of the United
States beyond 5 years. I selected three cases for this study to achieve literal
replication.
Sampling
Choosing a sample of participants who are knowledgeable about the
research topic was critical in answering the research question (Levitt,
Motulsky, Wertz, Morrow, & Ponterotto, 2017). For example, Gentles,
Charles, Ploeg, and McKibbon (2015) suggested qualitative researchers
select participants based on their knowledge of the research topic.
Researchers conducting qualitative studies using interviews decided the
sample size and sampling strategy, such as purposeful sampling to acquire
data from the target population needed to answer the research question (van
Rijnsoever, 2017). The sample size for this study was three managers
offering business services from three petroleum and coal manufacturing
companies, who sustained their business in the midAtlantic region of the
United States beyond 5 years.
I used purposeful sampling as the sampling method for this study.
Gentles et al. (2015) defined sampling as selecting and collecting data from
specific sources needed to answer the purpose of the research. Also, Fugard
and Potts (2015) suggested researchers determine the sample size based on
the study population and prevalence of themes the researcher plans to
uncover. Qualitative researchers select an adequate sample to ensure
sufficient data for credible analysis and reporting (Varpio, Ajjawi,
Monrouxe, O’Brien, & Rees, 2017). Researchers use purposeful sampling
techniques to explore outlier cases from unusual phenomenon (Palinkas et
al., 2015). I used purposeful sampling to sample manufacturing managers
from three different petroleum and coal manufacturing companies, who
established business services strategies to sustain their business beyond 5
years in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States, or until data saturation.
Data Saturation
I ensured data saturation by analysis of theme-based data collection;
data saturation occurred when data analysis of sampling participants offered
no additional themes to answer the research question. I continued to add data
for the study through interviewing additional participants from one or more
of the three organizations until data saturation. Researchers increase the
quality of qualitative studies through continuing data collection and analysis
processes until data saturation (Aldiabat & Navenec, 2018). However,
researchers, who gather more data than data saturation, waste resources
preventing deep and rich data analysis on the research topic (Varpio et al.,
2017). Fusch and Ness (2015) suggested researchers achieve data saturation
when new emerging concepts from participants stopped, and interviewees
reiterate concepts of other participants. Researchers achieve data saturation
when data from participants’ interviews became redundant; yet, researchers
achieve theoretical saturation when researchers satisfy a description of all
the concepts from the conceptual framework (Roy et al., 2015).
Interview Setting
Identification of the appropriate interview setting was a critical step in
accessing data from participants. Ivanova-Gongne, Koporcic, Dziubaniuk,
and Mandjak (2018) recommended researchers conduct interviews in a
social context in a safe and comfortable environment free of distractions for
the participant. Choosing the appropriate interview setting required
researchers to carefully plan for ensuring confidentiality and privacy yet
allow the participant to feel comfortable in the social context (Coad et al.,
2015). Researchers establish the safety of research participants by ensuring
confidentiality (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects
of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979).
Oates (2015) suggested researchers may use either Skype-like video
teleconference or person-to-person as a viable means of conducting
semistructured interviews. Skype-like video teleconference enabled
flexibility for participants in establishing the time and place for the interview
as well as allowed for interviewers and interviewees to terminate
participation with a click of a button (Weller, 2017). Participants may relax
when using Skype-like video teleconference as both the participant and the
researcher control the interview medium (Adams-Hutcheson & Longhurst,
2017). I used face-to-face interviews with an option for interviews to take
place on Skype or telephone if the interviewee preferred and it was mutually
agreed. I conducted the face-to-face, Skype, and telephone interviews in the
mid-Atlantic region of the United States at a location and time mutually
agreed upon, which the interviewees felt comfortable and safe.
Dikko (2016) suggested a neutral setting was preferred to limit
distractions, which an interviewee might experience at work or home.
However, I prioritized a place where the interviewee felt most comfortable
to speak about the research topic. Researchers may collect quality data
through online mediums when interviewees prefer online interviews
(Shapka, Domene, Khan, & Yang, 2016). However, researchers may miss
nonverbal clues such as body language when conducting interviews through
online chat, such as Skype or telephone (Adams-Hutcheson & Longhurst,
2017). I conducted mutually agreed to interviews in interviewees’ preferred
setting through either face-to-face, Skype, or telephone mediums, which
ensured the comfort and safety of the interviewee and interviewer.
Ethical Research
Researchers ensure participants’ protection through careful planning
and risk mitigation, identify the plan to protect participants, mitigate risk,
and gain IRB approval before conducting any research inquiry with
participants (Walden University, 2016). Researchers possess responsibility
for following ethical research practices, to include providing participants the
opportunity to decide whether to participate in the research through informed
consent (Wallace & Sheldon, 2015). I followed an interview protocol to
identify the potential risks and benefits to participant candidates and sought
informed consent before conducting interviews. Cugini (2015) described the
importance of the researcher formally identifying potential risks to study
participants to seek informed consent. Researchers followed interview
protocols by contextualizing the interview process and procedures with
potential study participants (Wilson et al., 2016). Qualitative researchers use
the interview protocol to document that potential study participants were
informed and consented to the interview, which demonstrated the
researcher’s exercise of ethical judgment (Hammersley, 2015).
Participation was voluntary; research participants possessed the
capability to decline or withdraw from taking part in this study. Researchers
provided information to participants on how the study may contribute to the
body of knowledge, as well as the benefits to the volunteer participants and
the broader population (Dotolo et al., 2017). Participants possessed the
capability to stop participation at any time without retribution. Participants
did not receive any financial compensation for participation. Instead of
financial compensation, participants receive the benefits of contributing to
the field of knowledge (Resnik, 2015).
My research activities in this study followed the ethical principles
discussed in the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects
of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979), to respect people’s
autonomy, protect people from harm by minimizing risks, and ensuring
equal distribution of the benefits and burdens of the research. I followed
Walden University’s ethical guidelines (2016) and gained IRB approval
before conducting interviews. I followed ethical principles throughout the
study by informing potential participants about the study’s benefits and
risks, through an interview protocol. Dikko (2016) discussed researchers
preparation of participants by providing an information sheet and briefing
about the interview process, including all potential risks and benefits before
gaining consent. I maintained participants’ privacy and identity of any
organization confidential by assigning a tracking code number, which did
not include any participant’s personal information nor easily identifiable
information from the volunteers’ participation in the study. I shall not
disclose the volunteer participants’ identity nor the identity of the
organization by replacing any easily identifiable information with the
tracking code number or completely removing the easily identifiable
information from this study.
I keep data secure, backed up, and password protected electronically
within my password-protected computer with commercially supplied
computer security. Additionally, I keep a copy of the data on an external
removable storage device. I store the external removable storage device in a
locked safe in a building monitored by a security system. I am storing the
data for five years in this manner, and then destroy the data after 5 years.
The Walden University IRB approval number was 09-21-17-0533504.
Data Collection Instruments
In this qualitative study, I was the primary research instrument. The
researcher served as the primary data collection instrument in case study
research (Harvey, 2015). I collected data through a semistructured interview,
which allows flexibility to ask probing questions throughout the interview
process. In qualitative research, researchers use semistructured interviews to
gain the flexibility to ask additional probing questions so that participants
can discuss complex social experiences (Dixon, 2015). I used two primary
sources of data including in-depth semistructured interviews and
organization documents to collect data for this study. Researchers use
predetermined questions in semistructured interviews, which allowed
researchers flexibility to seek clarification (Dikko, 2016; Moustakas, 1994;
Yin, 2018). May, Barletta, Stahl, and Taisch (2015) used semistructured
interviews to explore manufacturing managers’ decision-making strategies
in the energy management field.
Each participant received a consent form, interview protocol (see
Appendix A), and interview questions before conducting each interview.
Palinkas et al. (2016) provided interview questions, consent forms, and
protocol documents specific to the individual study. Participants reviewed
the interview protocols containing an overview of the study, interview
procedures, human participant protection information, data recording,
member checking, and interview questions. Researchers develop a strong
interview guide and protocol to allow researchers and participants to focus
the discussion on experiences with the phenomenon (Cridland, Jones,
Caputi, & Magee, 2015). To conduct an effective qualitative research
interview, researchers prepare participants by discussing data recording and
procedures requiring participant’s time commitment (Hoover et al., 2018).
To collect data, I prepared participants by providing information about the
study, including consent forms, interview protocol, interview questions, data
recording, time commitment, and supporting documentation.
Researchers possess responsibility for identifying the scope in which
data collection occurs (Grady, 2015). I conducted the semistructured
interviews through either face-to-face, Skype-like video teleconference, or
telephone mediums. Researchers conducting interviews often use a single
interview method, such as a semistructured interview or structured, but the
interviewing medium differed (Adams-Hutcheson & Longhurst, 2017).
Either face-to-face interviews or Skype-like video teleconference, interviews
yield quality data (Oates, 2015). For example, AlKhateeb (2018)
successfully used Skype-like video teleconferencing as a medium for
semistructured interviews. Similar to face-to-face interviews, researchers can
develop a rapport with interviewees when using Skype-like video
teleconferences to conduct qualitative research (Weller, 2017).
Additionally, Goldberg and Allen (2015) suggested using telephone
interviews to enhance the ability to recruit participants from multiple
locations. Qualitative researchers use telephone interviews to collect data
from geographically dispersed participants with little difference than face-to-
face or Skype interviews (Rosenthal, 2016). Parikh et al. (2016) suggested
telephone interviews as an option to accommodate participants through
flexible participation requirements.
In addition to collecting data from semistructured interviews, I
collected data from organizational documents as the second primary source
of data. Researchers conducting case studies use multiple sources of data to
explore a social phenomenon, including semistructured interviews and
organizational documents (Dasgupta, 2015; Yin, 2018). Researchers use
multiple sources of data to gain different perspectives to form a holistic
picture of the social phenomenon (Fusch & Ness, 2015).
To enhance the reliability and validity of the data collection process, I
requested participants to conduct member checking. Researchers use
member checking to validate the researcher’s interpretation of the
participant’s discussion meaning (Morse, 2015b). Researchers engage in
member checking by sharing themes derived from data analysis to allow
participants to reply to the interpretation of the meaning from data collected
during the interview (Harvey, 2015). Ancker et al. (2015) conducted
member checking during qualitative interviews to ensure the themes from
interviews meant what the interviewees meant in their discussion in the
interview. I did not conduct transcript checking, nor pilot testing. I
conducted member checking to ensure reliability and validity of data
collected.
Data Collection Technique
I used semistructured interviews in order of preference consisting of a
face-toface, Skype-like video teleconference, or the telephone mediums as
the primary data collection technique. Researchers use semistructured
interviews to allow participants to answer open-ended questions, which
facilitated participants’ descriptions of experiences with the research topic
(Moustakas, 1994; Yin, 2018). The benefits of semistructured interviews
included the combination of an interviewer’s flexibility to explore the topic
indepth with open-ended questions, and the structure provides participants
focus during the discussion (Bradshaw, Atkinson, & Doody, 2017).
Semistructured interviews were an appropriate primary data collection
technique for this multiple case study.
Researchers experience advantages and disadvantages in each
interview medium. One advantage researchers gained in face-to-face
interview settings was visual feedback (Weller, 2017). Also, Dixon (2015)
suggested researchers conducting face-to-face interviews established rapport
in the interview process by demonstrating techniques of listening and
prompting participants in person. However, researchers, who conduct faceto-
face interviews, experience some disadvantages, including geography,
mobility, financial, and time constraints (Iacono, Symonds, & Brown, 2016).
I overcame constraints by scheduling a mutually agreeable time and place to
conduct the face-to-face interview, and when face-to-face interviews were
not feasible, I used the Skype-like video teleconference or the telephone
mediums as an interview option.
Researchers experience advantages and disadvantages when using
Skype-like video teleconference or the telephone for interviews. Researchers
experience advantages by using Skype-like video teleconference, including
interviewees’ and interviewers’ rapport, convenience for the interviewee,
flexibility in geography and time, and establishment of a visual connection
between people similar to face-to-face interviews (Weller, 2017). Rosenthal
(2016) suggested online chat or telephone interviews increased flexibility to
accommodate participants’ requirements in participation as an advantage.
Also, researchers experience increased interviewees’ privacy (Oates, 2015).
Some potential participants experience a disadvantage of using Skype-like
video teleconference due to a lack of technical skills needed to conduct the
interview using Skype-like video teleconference systems (Weller, 2017).
Also, researchers experience disadvantages of using Skype-like video
teleconference by only seeing portions of the interviewees’ body language
from the camera (Adams-Hutcheson & Longhurst, 2017).
Similarly, researchers using telephones experience disadvantages of
not seeing body language during the interview (Goldberg & Allen, 2015).
However, Ward, Gott, and Hoare (2015) concluded researchers recognized
the value in verbal and nonverbal clues, such as paralinguistic clues, to
capture participants’ experiences during telephone interviews. I mitigated
disadvantages by taking time before the interview began to review Skype-
like video teleconference features with participants and requested the
interviewee adjusted the view to allow the maximum view of body language.
Similarly, I mitigated disadvantages of telephone interviews by listening for
audio clues from the participant, such as verbal hesitation or noise from
shifting body weight in a chair.
Before the interview, I researched the organization’s publicly
available documents, including capabilities statements, websites describing
service offerings, and strategic planning data to gain a complete
understanding of the participant’s relationship with the phenomenon.
Researchers use document analysis as a method to explore a research topic
as a primary source of data (Morgan et al., 2017). Yin (2018) suggested
documents as a primary source of data for case studies. Gebauer, Paiola, and
Edvardsson (2012) used organizational documents to conduct qualitative
research on service providers to gain a complete perspective of management
strategies.
I did not conduct a pilot study after IRB approval. A pilot study is a
trial run of a future study to assess implementation challenges in recruitment,
data collection instruments, and allow the researcher experience before
starting the actual study (Doody & Doody, 2015). Dikko (2016) suggested
researchers conduct a pilot study to identify challenges influencing the
outcome of the future study. Similarly, Hoover et al. (2018) provided
researchers a pilot of the interview protocol before conducting interviews. I
ruled out pilot studies, because each interview was important, and not using
data collected from the participant was not an appropriate use of the
participant’s time for this study.
I established validity through member checks, which entailed
participants reviewing the draft themes to ensure the researcher’s
interpretation of data collected, was consistent with what the interviewee
meant. Morse (2015b) suggested qualitative researchers used strategy for
ensuring validity through member checks. Since most qualitative researchers
serve as both the data collector and data analyst, researchers mitigate bias
through member checking (Birt et al., 2016). Varpio et al. (2017)
recommended researchers conduct member checking with interview
participants after completing data analysis. See the interview protocol
located in Appendix A, and the interview questions list outline is in
Appendix B.
Data Organization Technique
I transcribed the digital recording files for each interview manually
and uploaded each file into an Atlas.ti database. Also, I transcribed written
notes from the reflective journal into a Microsoft Office Word document to
organize observations before, during, and after the interview. I converted all
documents other than audio files to pdf. I electronically scanned all signed
consent forms to store each document in electronic format pdf. I named each
file by Participant_number_ company type_data source type, for example,
the interview transcription of the first participant was P1P Interview.pdf.
Nordstrom (2015) highlighted the importance of understanding the role of
recording devices and recordings to the data collection and organization for
qualitative research. Also, Yin (2018) suggested researchers conducting a
case study compile all data into a database. Similarly, Idri (2015) suggested
researchers organize and store data within electronic databases.
Since the primary source of data collection was in-depth
semistructured interviews, I used a standalone digital recording device, the
Philips DVT 1300© recorder, as the primary recorder. I used a Samsung
Galaxy S7 © voice recording software to record the audio for as a backup
recording device. Weller (2017) suggested researchers using Skype-like
video teleconference or face-to-face interviews could use electronic
recording devices to record the interviews. Researchers’ record interviews to
enable accurate data transcription and data analysis (Bradshaw et al., 2017;
Nordstrom, 2015).
Oates (2015) used audio recordings to capture interviews through a variety
of mediums. I collected data by recording each interview to ensure accurate
transcription and analysis of the interview data.
All files are stored electronically in a database on a removable storage
device and stored in a home office locked safe monitored by a home security
system. The removable storage device is password protected. Based on
Walden University (2016) requirements, I am maintaining all data for 5
years. After 5 years, I will delete all data collected, and destroy the
removable storage device by standard commercial electronic data destruction
practices at the time of destruction. Opalka-Bentler (2016) prepared similar
procedures to protect qualitative research participants to move all data to a
USB drive for storage, and after 5 years erase all data from a USB drive and
destroy the USB drive. Kaye et al. (2015) recommended researchers ensured
the protection of research participant’s data based on the most current
practices. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979) recommended researchers
minimize risk to participants; data stored electronically under safe and
secure conditions minimizes risk to participants.
In addition to using electronic recording devices during the interview,
I took notes by reflective journaling before, during, and after the interview to
identify the context of the interview, including emotions, body reactions, and
reactions as a secondary source of data collection. Morgan et al. (2017)
suggested researchers take notes during interviews to collect data for
analysis. Waldron and Ebbeck (2015) used reflective journaling during
interviews to assist in data collection. Goodell, Stage, and Cooke (2016)
recommended note taking to capture the emotions of participants and
researchers during qualitative interviews. I took notes before, during, and
after the interview to record data as a secondary source of data collection.
Data Analysis
For this study, I analyzed the collected data through Yin’s (2018) five-
step process, including compiling, disassembling, reassembling, interpreting,
and concluding. Durodola, Fusch, and Tippins (2017) suggested Yin’s five-
step process provides structure to case study data analysis. Bengtsson (2016)
suggested doctoral researchers systematically analyze data through
conceptual thinking. I followed Yin’s five-step process to systematically
analyze multiple sources of data until the achievement of data saturation.
Researchers conducting case study research design use triangulation,
multiple sources of data suggesting one finding, such as methodological
triangulation (Yin, 2018). Park, Chun, and Lee (2016) suggested qualitative
researchers analyze data from multiple sources, including interviews,
observations, surveys, and documents. Qualitative researchers use
methodological triangulation by analyzing data from various sources, such
as interviews, company documents, and researcher’s notes (Morgan et al.,
2017). I achieved methodological triangulation by comparing my two
primary sources of data, including participant’s semistructured interviews
and company documents, including publicly available capabilities statements
and websites as my two primary sources. I used reflective journaling as an
additional source of data.
Frequently, qualitative researchers use qualitative data management
software (QDMS) to analyze multiple sources of data (Estrada & Koolen,
2018). Similarly, Woods, Macklin, and Lewis (2016) suggested analyzing
data from primary sources, such as interview transcripts, and documents,
with secondary sources, such as reflective journals enhanced the quality of
data analysis by linking researchers’ reflections with data collection. I
transcribed each interview manually and reviewed the transcript for
accuracy. Then I uploaded each interview transcript, publicly available
capabilities statements and website documents, and reflective journal notes
into QDMS, Atlas.ti to perform data analysis through coding the data to
categorize and develop themes.
Qualitative researchers use QDMS, such as Atlas.ti to assist in theme
development and drafting diagrams or visual aids to explain themes from
multiple data sources (Paulus & Bennett, 2017). Bourque and Bourdon
(2017) suggested researchers control data analysis through coding and theme
development using QDMS. Similarly, Woods, Paulus, Atkins, and Macklin
(2016) suggested qualitative researchers use QDMS, such as Atlas.ti to code,
categorize, and develop themes from data. I used Atlas.ti because I was more
familiar with the Atlas.ti software compared to other QDMS, such as NVivo.
I analyzed the data collected in Atlas.ti using Yin’s (2018) five-step
process to compile, disassemble, reassemble, interpret, and conclude themes
until the achievement of data saturation. Paulus and Bennett (2017)
suggested qualitative researchers use multiple sources of data in QDMS to
explain a phenomenon. Similarly, Ahmad Tajuddin (2015) suggested
researchers conduct qualitative research through strategical, flexible, and
contextual analysis. Qualitative researchers follow an analysis process to
break down data, code and categorize, and seek understanding of the
meaning of the data collected (Bengtsson, 2016).
I gathered multiple sources of data collected through this study,
disassembled data to individual units of analysis, reassembled data through
coding and categorizing. I interpreted coded and categorized data to
developed themes. I concluded findings with themes linked back to the key
elements of the conceptual framework, and new academic literature. I used
new academic literature to update the conceptual framework and explain
themes, including competing themes between the data collected and the key
elements from the literature review. Paulus and Bennett described how
utilizing QDMS to analyze data from multiple sources and correlate themes
to literature enhanced the rigor of qualitative researchers’ findings.
Reliability and Validity
Both qualitative and quantitative researchers assess the quality of
research through reliability and validity criteria as researchers and
participants’ biases are undesirable (Leung, 2015). Qualitative researchers
assure reliability and validity of findings from a social construct, which
differs from quantitative research requirements, as quantitative researchers
ensure objective validity and repeatability (McCusker & Gunaydin, 2015).
Qualitative researchers address dependability, such as member checking, to
ensure reliability, as well as the validity of the research through establishing
credibility, transferability, confirmability, and data saturation (Smith &
McGannon, 2018).
Reliability
Qualitative researchers ensure reliability through dependability, which
consists of the researcher accounting for whether the study achieves the
same results if another researcher repeats the study (Morse, 2015c).
Qualitative researchers provide a record of the methodology and logistics to
maintain consistency in the process and results, which ensure the reliability
of the study. Ensuring reliability means researchers consider the changing
context throughout the study by establishing an audit trail to ensure
consistency throughout the study including conducting the interview,
qualitative data analysis, and thematic development (Chowdhury, 2015).
Qualitative researchers establish an audit trail to ensure dependability and
reliability by using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis to capture the
context of decisions the researcher makes throughout the study (Paulus &
Bennett, 2017). I used Atlas.ti qualitative data analysis software to code
collected data, conduct data analysis, and develop the audit trail of decisions
made during the data collection and data analysis activities throughout the
study.
Also, I established reliability through dependability through member
checking to ensure consistency of the data analysis and thematic
interpretation of the participant’s experiences within the social context.
Member checking involves checking the interpretation of the data collected
through qualitative interviews by sharing the interpretation of the data with
participants to ensure the accuracy of the research findings (Bengtsson,
2016). Participants ensure the accuracy of the researcher’s interpretation of
the data collected by reviewing the documented interruption and providing
corrections when the researcher’s interpretation of the data collected
becomes inaccurate (Harvey, 2015). Participants assist researchers in
accurately interpreting data to provide context or alternatives to the
researcher’s interpretation of the data (Varpio et al., 2017). I provided each
participant with the opportunity to check the interpretation of the data
collected from interviews, to allow participants the opportunity to provide
additional context or alternative interpretations to the data analysis.
Validity
Qualitative researchers check for validity through questioning one’s
bias against observations and interpretations of data; without validation,
researchers could allow biases to influence research conclusions (Dasgupta,
2015). Qualitative researchers ensure validity by selecting the appropriate
tools, processes, and data throughout the study (Leung, 2015). Lincoln and
Guba (1985) described validity as consisting of creditability, transferability,
and confirmability.
Qualitative researchers establish creditability by addressing the
research process for ensuring the observation and interpretation of the data
collected during the study was valid (Morse, 2015c). Bradshaw et al. (2017)
described the process of ensuring creditability as exploring if the
researcher’s findings make sense. Researchers ensure creditability by
checking the interpretation of the data with the participant's view of the
meaning of the data provided (Noble & Smith, 2015). I established
credibility in this study by member checking after data analysis to ensure the
interpretation makes sense and captures the meaning of the participants’
experience.
In addition to establishing credibility through member checking, I
used methodological triangulation to apply rigor to the study findings.
Qualitative researchers use methodological triangulation as a strategy to
apply rigor to ensure the credibility of research findings (Bengtsson, 2016;
Denzin, 1978). Noble and Smith (2015) identified triangulation as a
methodological strategy qualitative researcher use to collect different
sources of data to provide a holistic set of findings. Yin (2018) suggested
researchers conducting case study research use several data sources,
including interviews and documents. Similarly, Chowdhury (2015)
suggested qualitative researchers collect data from participants through
several methods including interviews and documentation to provide rigor in
research of a social construct. Qualitative researchers use member checking
and triangulation to apply rigor to the research and establish the credibility
of the study findings (Morse, 2015c). I applied rigor through methodological
triangulation by comparing two primary sources of data, including
participant’s semistructured interviews and company documents, such as
managers’ publicly available capability statements and websites as two
primary sources.
I used reflective journaling as an additional source of data. Qualitative
researchers recorded reflective experiences as a process to increase
awareness of subjective influence on the research process (Noble & Smith,
2015). Qualitative researchers used reflective journaling as a strategy for a
source of data to apply to methodological triangulation (Hadi & Closs,
2016). Bengtsson (2016) used researcher reflections as a strategy to evaluate
and promote rigor in the study. I conducted reflective journaling to capture
the context of each interview and perspectives on documents to provide rigor
through methodological triangulation in the study.
Qualitative researchers conduct studies with the intent to establish
social constructs to explain a phenomenon, which others apply to contexts
know as transferability (Morse, 2015c). Qualitative researchers analyze the
validity of qualitative research by describing the transferability of the
findings beyond the context of the participants to match the conceptual
framework with the study results (Yin, 2018). Qualitative researchers
support transferability, by providing information on the semistructured
interview process and application of rigor to the process of data collection
and analysis through the interview protocol (Fusch et al., 2017).
Qualitative researchers establish the degree of neutrality, known as
confirmability, which the findings relate to the participant’s experiences
instead of researcher’s bias (Carminati, 2018; Cypress, 2017). Researchers
ensure confirmability, the consistency of findings should the study be
repeated, through capturing detailed notes during the researcher’s decision-
making and analysis actions (Connelly, 2016). I ensured confirmability in
the findings of this study by capturing detailed notes during the decision-
making process by reflective journaling and using Atlas.ti to capture data
analysis.
Qualitative researchers ensure data saturation when the researcher
collects sufficient data to provide a rich and thick description of the
phenomenon, which shows the depth data collected and analyzed to answer
the research question (Fusch & Ness, 2015). Qualitative researchers rely on
the saturation of the data and analysis from the perspectives of participants,
instead of determining the number of participant responses to demonstrate
validity in quantitative research (Hancock, Amankwaa, Revell, & Mueller,
2016). Qualitative researchers use open-ended questions to achieve data
saturation when additional data collection and analysis did not change or add
to the researcher’s interpretation of data collected to answer the research
question (Tran, Porcher, Falissard, & Ravaud, 2016). In this study, I used
open-ended questions in a semistructured interview to allow participants to
share as much data as possible to ensure data saturation from participants.
In addition, qualitative researchers use member checking to gain data
saturation to ensure completeness of the participant’s experiences (Harvey,
2015). During member checking, participants took the opportunity to
provide additional information about the topic to ensure complete data
(Caretta, 2016; Hadi & Closs, 2016). I ensured data saturation by continuing
to collect and analyze data until themes from participant’s experiences
answer the research question and no new information changes the answers to
the research question.
Transition and Summary
Section 2 consists of a description of how I conducted the study and
the rationale for choosing a multiple case study design. Based on the purpose
of this study, I, as the researcher, served as the primary data collection
instrument in this qualitative multiple case study. When conducting this
study, I followed ethical principles as described in the National Commission
for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research (1979) to respect autonomy, protect people from harm,
and ensuring equal distribution of benefits and burdens of the research. I
avoided bias in this study through bracketing. Additionally, I followed an
interview protocol to conduct semistructured interviews either face-to-face
or if the interview prefers through Skype, which I identify in the interview
protocol potential risks and benefits of the study and seek informed consent
from participants in the target population.
The target population for this study was manufacturing managers
offering business services, from three petroleum or coal manufacturing
companies, who sustained their business in the mid-Atlantic region of the
United States more than 5 years. Selection of participants formed on specific
eligibility criteria consisting of managers from petroleum or coal
manufacturing companies in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States,
who effectively used service-based innovation strategies to offer business
services to sustain their business beyond 5 years. Access to participants
came through reviewing publicly available information in company
documents and websites to contact managers of petroleum or coal
manufacturing companies whose managers offer services through telephone
and email communications. Through telephone and email communications,
potential participants contacted me with eligibility criteria for participation
in this study in response to invitations.
Three managers offering business services from three petroleum or
coal manufacturing companies, who sustained their business in the mid-
Atlantic region of the United States more than 5 years was the sample size
for this study. I used purposeful sampling to collect data from specific
sources to answer the research question of this study. I collected enough data
to ensure data saturation through analysis of themes until sampling
participants offer no additional themes to answer the research question. I
continued to collect and analyze data until obtainment of data saturation in
this study.
To collect data appropriately, I followed ethical guidelines, using
specific data collection instruments, and followed specific data collection,
organization, and analysis processes. To ensure Walden University’s ethical
guidelines (2016) incorporation in this study, I gained IRB approval before
conducting interviews. Also, I used the interview protocol to discuss the
benefits and risks of this study with potential participants. Serving as the
primary data collection instrument, I used two primary sources of data
including semistructured interviews and organization documents to collect
data for this study. Additionally, I requested participants to conduct member
checking to enhance the reliability and validity of the data collection. I
conducted data analysis using triangulation through at least two primary
sources of data including semistructured interviews and organizational
documents. I analyzed the data through Atlas.ti to focus the study on the key
themes, which captures the context of key decisions throughout the
execution of data analysis. I established reliability through dependability by
using member checking and validity through establishing creditability,
transferability, and confirmability of the study findings.
In Section 3, I present the study findings, as well as supporting data
analysis through comparison of key themes from the data collection to
academic literature describing the conceptual framework. Also, I include
recommendations for social change opportunities and implications for this
study. I discuss reflections of the study and finalize a conclusion for this
study in Section 3.
Section 3: Application to Professional Practice and Implications for Change
Introduction
The purpose of this qualitative, multiple case study was to explore
effective service-based innovation strategies that manufacturing managers
used to offer business services to sustain their businesses beyond 5 years.
Section 3 includes the presentation of the findings of themes from the
analysis of the data collected from the sample compared with the previous
scholarly research findings. Three participants provided data collected
through semistructured interviews and supporting documents, leading to the
thematic findings for this study to apply to professional practices and
implications for positive social change.
Participants provided two primary sources of data, which were
analyzed to explore emerging themes through the perspective of the
conceptual framework. The conceptual framework used to analyze data
collected was strategic service innovation theory. Four main themes emerged
as strategies in the findings of this qualitative multiple case study based on
the data analysis through the perspective of the conceptual framework,
including (a) service innovation strategies, (b) customer focus strategies, (c)
resources strategies, and (d) external network strategies.
Presentation of the Findings
The research question for this study was: What effective service-based
innovation strategies do manufacturing managers, offering business services,
use to sustain their businesses beyond 5 years? Through qualitative research
and data analysis, I identified four major themes: (a) service innovation
strategies, (b) customer-focus strategies, (c) resources consideration
strategies, and (d) external network strategies.
Participants consisted of managers from petroleum or coal
manufacturing companies in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States,
who effectively used servicebased innovation strategies to offer business
services to sustain their business beyond 5 years. Participants provided data
analyzed for this study through semistructured interviews and supporting
business documentation. The participants provided supporting business
documentation, including strategy and planning documents and capabilities
statements through publicly available organizational websites and at publicly
available industry conferences. Both primary sources of data, semistructured
interviews, and publicly available business documents were analyzed to
explore themes of service-based innovation strategies manufacturing
managers used to offer business services to sustain their business beyond 5
years. Themes emerged from data collected consistent with existing
literature on service-based innovation strategies manufacturing managers
used to provide services. Through qualitative data, participants provided the
emerging themes explored through the perspective of the conceptual
framework, strategic service innovation, and existing literature on the topic.
Theme 1: Service Innovation Strategies
Manufacturing managers approached strategic service innovation
through processes of aligning the external competitive environment
(Valtakoski, 2017), and the internal resources to offer business services
(Raddats et al., 2017). Participants in this study described strategic service
innovation as a process in both primary sources of data consisting of five
key elements, including (a) manager’s control, (b) strategic innovation
process, (c) competitive advantage, (d) dual organization, and (e)
standardization. Manufacturing managers in this study sustained their
business by offering service innovations strategically through a process.
Table 1
Findings for Theme 1, Service Innovation Strategies
References Frequencies
Manager’s control 102
Strategic innovation 88
Competitive advantage 56
Dual organization 38
Standardization 34
Note. Table 1 displays the participants’ references and their frequencies in
interviews and documents for the first theme; service innovation strategies.
The participants in the study described managers controlling a process
for service innovation involving strategic innovation, seeking a competitive
advantage, establishing a dual organization, and implementing
standardization to offer business services. Participants followed a strategic
process to offer service innovations by seeking a competitive advantage,
establishing a dual organizational structure to separate management of
manufacturing from services, and implemented standardization between
manufacturer’s product and service offerings. Sundbo (1997) described
managers increasing focus on strategic service innovation organized through
a systematic process. Manufacturing managers followed a process to develop
service innovations to provide solutions to customers (Chakkol et al., 2018).
Manager’s control of strategy. Manufacturing managers control the
service innovation process through strategy to offer services. Manager’s
control strategy to transition to from manufacturing products to establish
organizational culture capable of nurturing services innovations (Rabetino et
al., 2017). Manufacturing managers control strategy enabled the strategic
service innovation process. All participants described the manager’s control
of strategy to offer business services to customers; their descriptions
supported in the publicly available supporting documents.
Manufacturing managers control of strategy enabled crucial changes
to offer services to customers. When asked what guidance the participant
provided stakeholders to implement service-based innovation strategies,
P3PC replied,
Ok, going from a manufacturing focus to a primarily serviced-based
or at least trying to make a transition to more of a service consulting
type of business requires quite some paradigm shift. After all, we have
been in business for ten years in this market, and now you are trying
to make that shift. So, it requires a lot of mentoring. It requires some
restructuring of the department setting a new focus area, putting
employees in charge of those focus areas to become subject matter
experts, and those are some very different skill sets from
manufacturing or even very specific skill sets within service offerings.
P3PC’s supporting documentation described manager’s pursuit of efficient
means to improve the quality of services offerings to customers by
communicating strategy to meet the highest levels of performance and
customer satisfaction. P3PC’s description of manager’s control of strategy
aligned with Ambroise et al. (2018) discussion of manufacturing managers
control of strategy through implementing guidance to ensure internal
stakeholders take advantage of opportunities to meet external needs of
customers. Similarly, P1P described manager’s control of strategy in the
service innovation process by changing focus to meet external market needs
through responding internally to adapt labor through training. P1P’s
establishment of a formal training program enables managers control of
strategy to be communicated in service offerings. P1P’s training program
invites customers to participate, which enables manufacturing managers
control of strategy through direct communication. P1P discussed the
establishment of “a training program to invite people who work specifically
in the Northeast region.” P1P described in the publicly available supporting
documentation how managers control of strategy to co-locate service
operations with customer’s operations. Both P1P and Chakkol et al. (2018)
discussed manager’s control of strategy to overcome business challenges to
provide service offerings through employment and training of employees
capable of establishing relationships with customers to provide services.
However, P2P discussed how manufacturing managers control
strategy to provide service offerings by communicating strategy with
external stakeholders. P2P expressed, “So, I sit down with my customer and
try to say you do not have the manpower anymore to keep up maintaining
these products, so here is what we need to do.” Similarly, P2P provided
publicly available capabilities statement document showing manager’s
control of strategy to set service offering prices strategically to attract
customers.
The participants and supporting documents aligned with the
conceptual framework strategic service innovation (Sundbo, 1997) through
the common thread of manager’s control of strategy through manager’s
communication of strategy to facilitate internal change to offer services to
customers. Sayar and Er (2018) described how managers of manufacturing
business provided strategic guidance on how to change to pursue strategic
service innovations with customers. Manufacturing manager’s control
strategy through a decision process on how to transition from a product
focus to service offerings to take advantage of opportunities to meet
customers’ needs (Rabetino et al., 2018). In this study, the manager’s control
of strategy emerged as a crucial element of service innovation strategies.
Strategic innovation. Managers followed a strategic process to
innovate from manufacturing products to offering services. Baines et al.
(2017) viewed manufacturers developing service innovation as a strategic
process. Manufacturing managers strategically innovate to adapt to the
difference between providing products and offering services. All participants
described strategic processes managers used to innovate to offer business
services to customers and documents described service innovation as a
process.
Strategic innovation involved a process in changing the business focus
from how a manufacturer produces products to a focus on providing
services. When asked what guidance the participant provided stakeholders to
implement service-based innovation strategies, P3PC stated, “Ok, going
from a manufacturing focus even though it was service-supported to a
primarily serviced-based or at least trying to make a transition to more of a
service consulting type business requires quite some paradigm shift for the
employees.” P1P and P2P discussed a strategic innovation process to change
the focus from manufacturing products to offering services. For example,
P2P stated, “So we had to adjust our abilities to meet the demands of the
new customers that they wanted to grow into.” All participants aligned with
the conceptual framework in describing strategic innovation as a process.
Sundbo (1997) described strategic service innovation as a complex process
to focus on meeting customer’s demands.
Similarly, P2P’s supporting document described a strategic process to
innovate to meet new customers’ needs. All participants described how
changing focus from manufacturing products to offering services required a
strategic innovation process. Bohm et al. (2017) found manufacturers focus
through a strategic innovation process to design services to satisfy
customer’s needs when transitioning from a manufacturing production
culture to provide customers with service offerings. Manufacturing
managers follow a strategic innovation process to offer services to
customers.
Managers following a strategic innovation process to offer services
was consistent with the existing literature and aligned with the conceptual
framework. Managers strategically innovated to offer services through
realignment to meet the demands of different operating environments
between products and services (Kanninen et al., 2017). Sundbo’s (1997)
strategic service innovation theory described how manufacturing managers
used a strategic process to provide service innovations. When asked how
they assessed the effectiveness of the service innovation strategies used,
P3PC answered,
“Well it is an ongoing process, as I said I have been in the role of the
business leader since 2006, it took some time to develop a strategy going
forward and restructure the department and so on.”
Similarly, P1P discussed in supporting documentation the managers’
commitment to innovation strategically and profitably. Both P3PC’s
response and P1P’s supporting document describe a strategic process for
innovation. Manufacturing managers took advantage of a strategic
innovation process to transition to providing business services to customers
(Rabetino et al., 2018). In this study, managers used a strategic innovation
process to focus on offering business services to customers.
Competitive advantage. Managers focused on the strategic process to
gain a competitive advantage as a function of a strategic service innovation
process to offer business services to customers. Manufacturing managers
pursued service innovations through a process to gain a competitive
advantage (Szasz et al., 2017). All participants in this study sought
competitive advantages through the strategic service innovation process. For
example, when asked what service-based innovation strategies managers
used to create a competitive advantage over competitors with service
offerings, P3PC responded:
So, we developed an approach or a product based on our service
experiences. So that gave us quite a competitive advantage in
providing services, because we became subject matter experts, but
also provide a very competitive, rugged, and superior product versus
our competitors.
Managers sought to gain a competitive advantage for the business through
strategic service-based innovations.
Manufacturing managers sought a competitive advantage over
competitors by satisfying customers’ multiple needs for products and
services through a continuous strategic innovation process. Manufacturing
managers gain a competitive advantage through a strategic process to engage
customers with service offerings freeing customers’ resources from tasks
(Saul & Gebauer, 2018). P3PC’s supporting documentation stated that
managers’ goal was to support the growth, profitability, and sustainability
goals of customers. Participants in this study sought to provide strategic
service innovations, which developed a dependency for the customer,
therefore, providing a competitive advantage. For example, P1P discussed
training as a service was a competitive advantage because manufacturing
managers differentiate from competitors by providing a service value
proposition answering customers lack time to prepare employees for various
tasks. Manufacturing managers gain a competitive advantage through a
strategic service innovation process supporting customers’ growth by taking
on service tasks value proposition (Rau et al., 2017). Manufacturing
managers gain a competitive advantage through a strategic innovation
process to develop a value proposition freeing customer from tasks and
resources.
The participant’s supporting documentation showed manufacturers
offering services focused on gaining a competitive advantage through
exceeding performance and quality expectations. In alignment with Baines et
al. (2017), P2P described the competitive advantage P2P’s business achieved
as an ongoing strategic innovation process when P2P stated:
So, when you have a manufacturer, supplier, and service provider, that
calls you
back all the time asks you all the right questions, and has the product
that actually works, then that is the one you keep going to all the time.
Manufacturing managers experience a competitive advantage through
strategic alignment of service offerings with customers’ processes (Sakyi-
Gyinae & Holmlund, 2018). P2P’s description of manufacturing managers
gaining a competitive advantage by offering services enabled customers to
depend on manufacturing managers on multiple fronts, including
manufactured products and service offerings.
Participants viewed providing service offerings as a process to sustain
a competitive advantage with product offerings with services. Participants
stressed the importance of providing a manufactured product and service as
a competitive advantage. The importance of providing a manufactured
product and service as a competitive advantage strategy was consistent with
Sundbo’s (1997) framework, including managers’ control service innovation
through strategy to gain a competitive advantage. In this study, managers
controlled the strategic service innovation process to gain a competitive
advantage by providing manufactured products and service offerings.
Dual organization. All participants described the need for a dual
organization structure, which managers separated the functions of
manufacturing products and service offerings. Kuijken et al. (2017)
recommended managers offering services establish an organizational
structure allow changes in focus from products to services. Establishing a
dual organization was a function of the strategic service innovation process
for manufacturers as the focus of the businesses needed different
organizational structures to manage the different business offerings.
Participants from this study described the change in organizational
structure to a dual organization as a necessary function of the strategic
service innovation process. P2P described the organizational structure as
having two separate senior managers with equal authority in the business
with one managing manufacturing products and the other managing service
offerings. P1P showed in the organizational documents managerial
separation of manufacturing and services by geography and organizational
structure. In the organizational documents, P1P showed a centralized
organizational structure for manufacturing with the manufacturing facility
directly managed by and co-located with the central office, and the
decentralized management and co-location with customers for the services
organizational structure. When asked how the participant organized their
business to generate service-based innovations used to sustain their business,
P3PC responded, “Everybody in this department focused on building the
product, installing the product, and servicing the product for this particular
product. So, with that market breaking away you cannot sustain a structure
like this or a focus like this.”
Managers in this study showed consistency with existing literature on
the research topic. Managers find the right fit for an organization to support
both products and strategic changes to provide service offerings (Kanninen
et al., 2017). Neither the participants nor the authors of existing literature
agreed on a specific organizational structure beyond establishing a dual
organizational structure with separate managers for products and services.
All the participants in this study described different interactions between
organizational structures with the common theme emerging as all
participants business established a dual organizational structure one for
products and one for services.
Standardization. Participants described a need for standardization
both as a competitive advantage and as a function of the strategic service
innovation process. Managers engaged in the strategic service innovation
process achieve a competitive advantage from focusing the scope of service
configurations and standardization (Valtakoski, 2017). Similarly, all the
participants in this study discussed the importance of providing standardized
services. The participants focused on mentoring and training as methods of
providing standardized services.
P1P stressed the importance of training both employees within the
organizational structure providing service offerings and with customers.
When asked what service-based innovation strategies the participant used to
create a competitive advantage over competitors with service offerings, P1P
answered, “Today, the answer is as simple as training.” Participants focused
on training and mentoring employees to follow standard means to provide
service innovations strategically. Manufacturing managers focused on
employees providing service solutions through education and training
(Chakkol et al., 2018).
For example, P3PC discussed the need for managers to mentor
employees to adjust to providing services, which P3PC stated that
employees require some pressure to get out of their comfort zone to
standardize services in a strategic service innovation process through a
focused scope that allows for successful delivery of the service to the
customer. P2P described the need to have employees work with
manufacturing to support the product as a service, this collaboration with
manufacturing showed managers need for employees possess a common
understanding of the standards operating the product as a service offering for
the customer. All participants’ public documents showed standardization in
services through certifications or commitment towards quality standards for
service offerings.
The theme from participants that managers required standardization as
a strategic service innovation process was consistent with the existing
literature. Sayar and Er (2018) described the need for managers to
standardize processes and align all functions of the business to the same
standard despite the difference of organizational structures. Participants
described specifying the scope of the service down to allow to sustain
satisfying customers as a function of the strategic service innovation process
to reach customers’ satisfaction.
This finding from the data collected in this study conflicted with You
and You’s (2016) suggestion manufacturing managers face barriers to
standardize services based on customer’s requirements for flexibility in
services, customization, and perception. Instead, all the participants
described experiences when managers providing service offering explained
to the customer that the customer’s requests for customization or flexibility
were outside of the scope of the service offering. All the participants
expressed the customers’ reaction as positive in showing how the services
standardized were not an appropriate fit for the business to provide to the
customer.
Like the participants’ data collected during this study, Sundbo (1997)
recognized manufacturers offer business services through a strategic
innovation process focused on changes tailored to each customer.
Manufacturing managers offering business services in this multiple case
study effectively offer business services by going through a strategic
innovation process. Participants, recent literature, and the conceptual
framework, strategic service innovation, align with the theme strategic
service innovation was a process.
Theme 2: Customer-Focus Strategies
Manufacturing managers’ customer-focus developed as a main theme
in this study. Manufacturers focus on customers to transform from product-
oriented strategies to service innovation strategies (Brax & Visintin, 2017).
Sundbo (1997) described the need for managers to focus on customers in
strategic service innovations and teach employees how to manager
customer-centric services. All participants and supporting documents
displayed the importance of customer focus as a strategic service innovation
strategy. The customer focus theme consists of five key elements, including
(a) identifying customer’s needs, (b) customer’s knowledge resources, (c)
providing solutions, (d) employee and customer relationship, and (e)
customer feedback.
Table 2
Findings for Theme 2, Customer-Focus Strategies
References Frequencies
Customer’s Needs 104
Customer’s Knowledge Resources 101
Providing Solutions 74
Employee and Customer Relationship
Customer Feedback
60
43
Note. Table 2 displays the participants’ references and their frequencies in
interviews and documents for the second theme; customer-focus strategies.
Participants’ and supporting documentation collected as data for this study
highlighted the importance of customer focus as a critical strategy for
manufacturers offering business services.
Customer’s needs. Manufacturers need to focus on understanding
customer’s needs to innovate to offer business services. Participants and
supporting documentation collected as data during this study described the
importance of the strategy to focus on customer’s needs for manufacturers to
offer business services. Similarly, Sakyi-Gyinae and Holmlund (2018)
concluded manufacturers must focus on customers’ needs to provide value
through service offerings to meet customer’s priorities and goals. Effective
manufacturing managers offering business services fit customer’s needs with
services to add value to the customer (Coreynen et al., 2017). All
participants in this study discussed finding the customer’s needs as a key
element to developing a customer focus strategy.
Sundbo (1997) identified determining customer’s needs as a key
element of the strategic service innovation theory. Each participant and their
supporting documents described a focus on customer’s needs. P2P stressed
the importance of focusing on customer’s needs as a competitive advantage.
P2P stated, “So when you say competitive advantage: we try to understand
what the customer’s needs are and work towards that.” Similarly, the
supporting documentation showed focus on customer’s needs. P3PC’s
supporting documentation stated the manufacturer’s goal of providing
services was to exceed the quality requirements set by customers.
Similarly, Sakyi-Gyinae and Holmlund (2018) concluded
manufacturing managers need to include customer value perspective into
service offerings. P1P’s document described offering comprehensive
services to deliver based on customer’s needs of time and location and
ensuring customer’s success. Sundbo’s (1997) focus on providing value to
meet customers’ needs aligns with P1P’s document description and P2P’s
publicly available document statement that a variety of specific technical
skills are at the customer’s fingertips ready for customer’s tasks.
Also, P2P focused the discussion on searching to find customer’s
needs. For example, P2P’s said, “But, we are trying to be customer-centric,
and I try to give folks guidance to be listening to the customer, to engage the
customer and find their needs.” Similarly, P1P described the importance of
researching to understand the customer’s needs. P1P discussed taking
advantage of the data gained from the use of an outside firm to ask
customers about their needs for the next 5 years as a crucial element to
understanding customer’s needs and developing a customer focus. Bohm et
al. (2017) found manufacturers effectively transition to providing services
through service innovations designed to fit customer’s needs.
Also, P2P drew attention to the importance of understanding
customer’s needs to offer business services. P2P stated, “One advantage that
we have is that we know and understand our customer’s needs.”
Manufacturers showed the importance of satisfying the customer’s needs as
all the supporting documents pointed to the capability to satisfy customer's
needs. Also, P3PC discussed the importance of talking to customers to find
what keeps them up at night as a key element to using service-based
innovation strategies to offer business services to customers. Manufacturing
managers effectively offer business services through strategic service
innovations by focusing on customers’ needs (Sundbo, 1997). P3PC’s
supporting document supported the focus on customer’s needs through the
claim, “First and foremost, we listen to gain a deep understanding of our
client’s needs and business objectives…” In this study, manufacturing
managers effectively offer business services provided finding and fitting
customer’s needs as the most important element to a customer focus
strategy.
Customer’s knowledge resources. Another key element of the
strategy managers developing a customer-centric focus was manufacturing
managers offering services gaining an understanding of customer’s
knowledge resources. Manufacturers offering business services to customers
need to understand the customer’s knowledge resources, as customers decide
to make-or-buy based on their internal knowledge of the service offering
(Valtakoski, 2017). Bohm et al. (2017) concluded manufacturers focus on
customer’s knowledge resources to offer service innovations. All
participants and supporting documentation referenced customer’s knowledge
resources in the data collected for this study.
P1P focused on the importance of understanding customer’s
knowledge resources as a functional element of customer focus. P1P
described how customer’s knowledge resources declined in the early 2000s
due to large numbers of employees exiting the workforce. Therefore
customers faced a deficit in internal knowledge resources hindering the
customer’s ability to innovate. P2P conveyed the customer’s knowledge
resource shortfall when P2P answered, “I will go see a customer, and he has
an incident or an issue where there is a real problem and a lot of people
cannot answer.” Manufacturers offering services coordinate the customer’s
knowledge resources to allow for the more effective use of resources (Green
et al., 2017).
Participants’ supporting documentation focused on customer’s
knowledge resources. For example, one supporting document invited
customer to try to the manufacturer’s service offerings in their statement,
“Please give us a try, and we may all learn something.” The manufacturer
focus on learning by all parties shows the manufacturer offering services
focus on both a gap in the customer’s knowledge resources as well as
highlights the customer’s knowledge resources could benefit the
manufacturer. Rabetino et al. (2017) found manufacturing managers offering
services focused on customer’s knowledge resources influence in adaptation
decisions. P1P stressed the influence of customer’s knowledge resources to
change decisions, as P1P conveyed, risks, consequences, and potential
concerns when customers considered the adaptation of new processes,
configurations, and equipment.
P3PC and P1P further highlighted customers lacked knowledge
resources to maintain capabilities within the industry. P3PC focused on
customer’s lack of knowledge resources on external factors, such as changes
in regulation, to develop innovative service offerings. P1P described
customer’s lack of knowledge resources after the customers faced a rapid
increase in demand when P1P stated,
And, the second element of that is that because I went out into
the field and see this with my own eyes, I was able to see that
not only service companies like myself but my competitors
were affected by this kind of reduction of general knowledge,
but the customer base was as well.
Manufacturing managers innovated to offer services focused on strategies to
understand customer’s knowledge resources gaps and influence the
customer’s adaptation decisions. Sundbo’s (1997) strategic service
innovation focused on knowledge and learning as an internal resource. The
results of this qualitative research differ from Sundbo’s strategic service
innovation theory, as participants focused on customer’s knowledge
resources as a critical element to customer focus. Similarly, to Sundbo the
participant’s focus on the customer’s knowledge resource. Also, Raddats et
al. (2017) found manufacturers offering services need to understand
customer’s knowledge resources to influence the customer’s decision to
manage risk by controlling the closeness of the manufacturer. Sundbo
focused on manufacturing manager’s use of internal knowledge resources to
meet customer’s needs; however, the results my study showed customer’s
knowledge resources as a critical element to the customer focus theme.
Sundbo considered customer’s knowledge resources shortfall as a function
of customer’s needs. However, I found the participant’s recognition of
customer’s knowledge resources gaps and influence on decision making to
be an important element of customer focus.
Providing solutions. Manufacturing managers focused on customers by
providing solutions was a critical element in this study for customer focus
theme. All the participants and supporting documentation described the need
for manufacturing managers to provide solutions to customers as a key
strategy to innovate service offerings. Chakkol et al. (2018) found
manufacturers offering services move from product-focused strategies to
strategies to provide customers with solutions.
All the participants and supporting documentation described
providing solutions as a critical element of manufacturers offering business
services. P2P said, “When you find their pain, and you take care of it.” P2P
stressed how providing solution was an essential element of managers
developing a customer-centric focus. Similarly, P1P described providing
customers a solution in the form of a combination of manufactured products
and training as a service to overcome barriers related to the customer’s lack
of knowledge of how products and processes functioned. Coreynen et al.
(2017) discussed manufacturing managers effectively offered business
services through value solutions incorporating product and service
customization and integration in the customer’s processes. P3PC’s
supporting documents discussed the business’ objective was to deliver
innovative solutions multiplying value to customers. P3PC responded that
managers integrated products and services into value solutions to the point it
was difficult to distinguish between services and manufacturing. Participants
discussed the importance of providing solutions to customers throughout the
data collection.
Additionally, P2P focused on providing solutions to customers
through products and consulting focused on solving customers’ problems.
For example, P2P said, Well I would do some investigation and find out
well it looks all the same on the outside, it is different on the inside. So, I
offer a backing of the situation again and engineering, information,
guidance, and support to try and explain to people, “look this is what you
had, but you changed your operation, so this is not going to work for you
anymore, and we need to change gears a little bit, and I have something that
will possibly help you.” Brax and Visintin (2017) found as product service
systems increase in complexity customers rely on manufacturers to provide
solutions in the form of technical assessments, which customers previously
took responsibility for completing. Sundbo (1997) viewed manufacturing
managers providing solutions as a function of satisfying customer’s needs,
however recent literature points to manufacturers providing solutions as an
element to customer focus. For example, Rabetino et al. (2017) concluded
manufacturing managers offering services structure their business model to
provide solutions to customers. Alignment occurred between data collected,
literature, and conceptual framework that manufacturing managers
effectively offer strategic service innovations through providing value
solutions to customers.
Employee and customer relationship. Manufacturing managers
effectively offered business services through customer focus by leveraging
the employee and customer relationship for feedback. Sundbo (1997)
pointed to employees’ and customers’ interaction as a critical element for
manufacturing managers offering business services. Coreynen et al. (2017)
concluded manufacturing managers effectively offer business services
through relationships between employees and customers that leverage data
gathering and learning from the customer about the quality of service. All
the participants responded with commitments to the importance of employee
and customer relationships. Participants expressed commitment to the
employee and customer relations. For example, when asked how the
participant used service-based innovation strategies to offer business
services to customers, P2P responded,
And, I visit the production customers and try to solve their problems
and say buy a product from my business, because I am here helping
you. And, another thing I will do is support my product, so if you
have any issues, if you need a startup, if you have any questions, I,
from the manufacturing company will come directly and visit with
you.
Similarly, Kreye (2017) found manufacturing managers effectively offered
business services when employees and customers jointly commit to a close
relationship. P2P’s capability statement described how the manufacturer
when offering services gave up a strong negotiation position to establish a
strong relationship between employees and customers focused on solving
customers’ challenges. Additionally, P1P sought innovative means of
building the employee and customer relationship, through developing
training videos on YouTube to connect and build a relationship with
customers through other than face-to-face interaction. P1P explained,
But, if we offered them these videos online with a general overview of
how this works or that works, I think that would be a resource to our
customer base. Not only to our existing customer base but new
customers because I think those folks would reference these videos
and our name would be in it so that we would be associated as an
expert. So, when the customer needs to make a purchase or call
vendors into view products or services, we would be at the top of the
call list because again we have our name associated with these
product service lines, because of these videos they just watched.
P1P’s capability statement aligned with P1P’s explanation managers commit
to employees developing long-term relationships with customers to deliver a
service innovation value proposition. Chakkol et al. (2018) concluded
manufacturing managers established boundary-spanning relationships with
customers to provide service innovations effectively. P1P’s capability
statement described the manager’s commitment to providing product service
value propositions by developing long-term partnerships with customers.
Similarly, P3PC stressed the importance of customer engagement to build
relationships between employees and customers to find the customers’
needs. P3PC’s supporting documentation discussed how manufacturing
managers offering business services focus on listening to customers to “gain
a deep understanding” of customers goals and objectives to provide product
service solutions. Hakanen et al. (2017) concluded managers focus service
innovation strategies on employee and customers interactions to gain a
competitive advantage.
While Sundbo (1997) discussed interactions with customers, the
researcher concluded strategy works to tell employees customers’ needs. The
employee and customer relationship element of customer focus them differs
Sundbo’s conclusion. However, the importance of employee and customer
relationship aligns with recent research on the study topic, such as Chakkol
et al.’s (2018) conclusion to effectively provide services manufacturing
managers must develop boundary-spanning relationships and Kreye’s (2017)
findings of the importance of employee and customer joint commitment in
service offerings. Employee and customer relationship as a key element in
the customer focus theme expands on the current body of knowledge of
strategic service innovation as a conceptual framework.
Customer feedback. Another critical element to customer focus
apparent in the data collected in this study was customer feedback. Kanninen
et al. (2017) found manufacturing managers offering business services
collect customer feedback and develop services aligned with customers’
feedback. Sundbo (1997) described the role of customer feedback
involvement in strategic service innovation as limited mostly to the
development process. Participants stressed the importance of customer
feedback as a critical element to customer focus in the data collected.
When asked the question about assessing the effectiveness of strategic
service innovation strategies, P1P replied, “We received negative feedback
in the past, because they said they wanted us to perform this offering ‘Why
are you not doing it?’. So, I had to sit down with the customer and lay it out
for them.” P1P’s guiding principles document aligned with P1P’s response,
because the managers Similarly, P2P expressed that customers provided
feedback through repeat business. P2P said, “And then have them
continuously call you regarding more of the same product or new solutions
to new problems.” P2P capability statement described customer feedback as
a learning process between the manufacturer and the customer, which
furthered the relationship with customers.
P3PC described both the importance of repetitive business as the
customer feedback discussed by P2P and incorporation of customer
feedback in developing of products and services stated by P1P. P3PC
described customer feedback measured in metrics, such as an increase in
same customer sales. Also, P3PC stated, “Using our own products to
perform service processes and we were able to take our input from clients
and keep developing the product to make the product as superior as it could
be.” P3PC’s capability statement summarized the importance of customer
feedback to satisfy customers with strategic service innovations. P3PC’s
capability statement described listening to the customer to gain a deep
understanding of client’s needs and objectives to leverage business resources
to support customers’ goals. Manufacturing managers offering business
services approached customer feedback as a critical element to customer
focus in this study.
The participants expanded the role of customer feedback beyond
Sundbo’s (1997) assertion customer feedback was limited to the
development stage of manufacturing managers offering business services.
Rau et al. (2017) described customer feedback as critical in several stages of
designing and developing products and services manufacturing managers use
to provide value to propositions to customers. P1P and P3PC’s discussion on
customer feedback aligns with Rau et al.’s (2017) findings and Sundbo’s
(1997) conceptual framework that manufacturing managers develop strategic
service innovations with customers’ feedback. However, Hakanen et al.
(2017) concluded both taking customers’ feedback to develop service
offerings and measuring the customer's feedback in sales served as a critical
element to manufacturing managers effectively offering business services.
The findings from participants data expand the body knowledge in the
conceptual framework. Manufacturing managers in this study sought
customer feedback to develop strategic service innovations and measured the
effectiveness of service offerings through repetitive sales.
Theme 3: Resources Consideration Strategies
Manufacturing managers offering business services aligned with the
conceptual framework as resources consideration strategies emerged as a
theme in this study. Manufacturing managers effectively offer business
services through consideration of resources (Sundbo, 1997). Hakanen et al.
(2017) concluded manufacturing managers offering business services
evolved to consider resources in both tangible and intangible formats.
Participants’ data collected in this study pointed to two critical elements of
resources consideration as a theme in this study, including (a) internal
resources, and (b) knowledge resources. All the participants and supporting
documentation discussed resources consideration as a strategic service
innovation strategy throughout the data collected.
Table 3
Findings for Theme 3, Resources Consideration Strategies
References Frequencies
Internal Resources 70
Knowledge Resources 64
Note. Table 3 displays the participants’ references and their frequencies in
interviews and documents for the third theme; resources consideration
strategies.
Internal resources. In this study, manufacturing managers offering
business services considered internal resources when describing strategic
service innovations. Sundbo’s conceptual framework described how
manufacturing managers analyzed internal resources in strategic decisions
about offering service innovations to customers. Kanninen et al. (2017)
found manufacturing managers effectively offered business services through
consideration of internal resources integration. Manufacturing managers
need to make decisions based on internal resources to offer services value
propositions to customers. Managers considering internal resources was a
critical element of the resources theme and present in both data collected
from participants, conceptual framework (Sundbo, 1997), and recent
literature (Kanninen et al., 2017). P1P provided examples of how
manufacturing managers consider internal resources, such as balancing
finances, training, staff, time, and service offerings. For example, when P1P
was asked about overcoming market condition challenges to implement
service innovation strategies, P1P replied,
Again, what I am seeing is just simple economics. It costs money to
train people and when you have people in training versus out in the field
earning revenue and finding the right time to do it, because right now we
are so shorthanded. It is hard to pull people out of the rotation and send
them for training for a few days. P1P’s supporting document discussed how
the success of the business depended on the skill, professionalism, and
dedication of employees. P1P’s response and assertions in the supporting
documentation show how managers consider internal resources in the forms
of finance, trained staff, and time as both a limitation and a method to
effectively offer business services.
P2P supported the concept of manufacturing managers consideration
of internal resources in offering business services to customers. P2P
recognized to grow into service offerings the business requires growth in
capabilities in service areas. For example, P2P stated, “I have gone to the
company and said we need to grow our abilities in these certain areas if we
want to grow in these certain markets.” Similar, to P1P’s statements P2P
described manufacturing managers’ strategic consideration of internal
resources to grow into offering service innovations. P2P’s capability
statement showed managers relied on the experience of employees as an
internal resource to offer service solutions to customers. P2P’s and P1P’s
supporting documentation both asserted internal resources as experienced
and skilled staff serve as offerings of service innovations to customers. P3PC
stressed managers both consider internal resources as a balance of effective
use of resources and an opportunity to provide service solutions to
customers. For example, in response to the question of howP3PC used
resources to implement service-based innovation strategies, P3PC expressed
managers consider limitations of internal resources, but managers use
internal resources to offer business services. P3PC replied, First, we are a
small group, so we are quite resource limited. I started to empower my
employees to free up time, basically to free up resources or better yet not tie
up resources unnecessarily. So, the idea is to use empowerment to become
more efficient to free up resources to start to go out and be able to look at
besides daily operational task, besides that, to be able to look at new
challenges.
P3PC highlighted the use of internal resources to support innovative service
offerings when P3PC stated, “So we were able to pick up a few projects that
now use our existing expertise and apply it to this very custom niche
market.” Also, P3PC’s capabilities statement discussed how knowledgeable
and experienced people served as internal resource manufacturing managers
consider to offer business service innovations effectively.
Participants and supporting documentation aligned with Sundbo’s
(1997) strategic service innovation concepts and recent literature. For
example, Zhang and Banerji (2017) found manufacturing managers faced
barriers to strategic service innovation, including, internal resources to offer
customers services. Manufacturing managers used strategy to align service
innovations with customers’ needs and limited internal resources to
effectively offer business services to customers (Sundbo, 1997).
Additionally, Coreynen et al. (2018) found manufacturing managers
considered the limitation of internal resources as both an area to improve,
such as retraining staff and seeking internal efficiencies to offer business
services to customers. Findings of this study show internal resources was a
critical element to strategic service innovation strategies for manufacturing
managers to effectively offer business services.
Knowledge resources. A critical element of the resources theme was
knowledge resources, which differs from internal resources. Experience of
staff served as an internal resource in the findings of this study. However,
knowledge resources expanded beyond internal resources of employees’
experience to networking and technological resources used to obtain and
provide knowledge for manufacturing managers to effectively offer business
services. In this study, knowledge resources showed scarcity with
participants considering how to obtain and retain knowledge resources and
to strategically take advantage of knowledge resources to offer innovative
services to customers. Hakanen et al. (2017) concluded manufacturing
managers effectively offered services through increased requirements for
knowledge transactions to for the manufacturer to obtain and retain
knowledge about the customer’s needs and the customer to acquire
knowledge through services from the manufacturer.
Participants in this study showed strategic service innovations through
obtaining knowledge as a strategic internal resource and service innovation
development to offer customers knowledge-based solutions. P1P expressed
the importance of knowledge resources throughout the discussion about how
during economic turbulence limited knowledge resources for both P1P’s
business and customers. P1P stated,
And because you had that big ramp up after such a sharp drop off, the
industry is left with a lot of people who are in my opinion way under
qualified… And if you do not understand why step 2 is step 2, then
you have a hard time understanding the consequences of if we are
going to do step 2a instead. So, what I see happening is a lot of things
in the field taking a lot longer than they should, because people cannot
improvise on the fly because they do not have that overall product
knowledge.
P1P further discussed the opportunity to take advantage of the lack of
customer knowledge resources. P1P described a competitive advantage with
internal knowledge of products and processes to train customers as service
innovation. Participants sought opportunities to leverage internal knowledge
as a service to fulfill the needs of customers who lacked knowledge in
specific areas. For example, P1P stated,
I was able to see that not only service companies like myself, but my
competitors were affected by this kind of reduction of general
knowledge, but the customer base as well.
P1P’s supporting document stated that the success of the business relied on
the knowledge of employees. P1P considered knowledge as a resource from
two perspectives, including as an internal resource requirement for internal
operations, and as an opportunity to provide existing knowledge externally
as a service to customers. Likewise, P2P described how manufacturing
managers gained precious knowledge resources over time through changes
in the industry cycle. P2P stated, I have been in the business for over 35
years and have seen the business grow and fall and seen a couple of different
things happen. So, I brought a lot of things with me including field-based
knowledge and customer base, or potential customer base, because I have
come to know a lot of people over the past 35 years. Similar to P1P, P2P
sought to take advantage of the opportunity to provide knowledge resources
as a service to customers as a service. For example, P2P replied,
Well I would do some investigation and find out well it looks all the
same on the outside, it is all different on the inside. So, I offer a
backing of the situation, including engineering, information, guidance,
and support to try and explain to people, ‘Look this is what you had,
but you changed your operation, so this is not going to work for you
anymore. And we need to change gears a little bit, and I have
something that will possibly help you.’
P2P’s supporting documentation relied on offering a large amount to
experience to successfully provide services aligned with knowledge
resources stated in the interview. P2P’s supporting document does not
discuss taking advantage of a lack of customer knowledge resources,
because business managers use the document to focus on capabilities of the
business, not to discuss customers’ weaknesses.
P3PC aligned with both P1P and P2P views of knowledge resources
as both an internal resource need for manufacturing and service operations
and as an external opportunity to fulfill customers’ needs. P3PC recognized
the need to grow internal knowledge resources by developing expertise in
niche functional areas to produce products and provide services.
Additionally, P3PC sought the opportunity where customers lacked the
knowledge to provide expertise as a service in specific functional areas.
P3PC’s capabilities statement described how the company provides services
through knowledgeable and experienced people with advanced technology to
provide valuable products and services to meet customers’ needs.
Recent literature and the conceptual framework align with the
participants’ assertions on knowledge resources as a success strategy.
Manufacturing managers lack knowledge resources, including tacit
knowledge and reputation to shift strategies from providing products to
services (Kanninen et al., 2017). Valtakoski (2017) found manufacturing
managers offering services consider knowledge as both an internal resource,
where employees possess the tacit knowledge to make products and provide
services, and external opportunity to fulfill customers’ needs for complex
solutions. Sundbo (1997) described manufacturing managers strategically
adapted to provide service innovations in complex and knowledge-intensive
functional areas. Similar, to both the participants’ descriptions and the
conceptual framework, Coreynen et al. (2017) discussed manufacturing
managers offering service innovations strategies to take advantage of
internal product knowledge to train and educate customers lacking
knowledge resources.
The findings of this study demonstrated resources as a key theme
aligned with the conceptual framework. Manufacturing managers in this
study sought internal resources and knowledge resources as a critical
element of strategic service innovation offerings. Participants recognized
both the importance of the key elements in the resources theme through
internal resources such as finances, and skilled employees, and knowledge
resources needed to both continue internal operations and provide external
service offerings to customers lacking functional knowledge.
Theme 4: External Networks Strategies
Manufacturing managers offering business services aligned with the
conceptual framework as an external network emerged as a key theme in this
study. Sundbo (1997) described manufacturing managers’ strategy to
consider external networks and customers in service innovation offerings to
customers. Manufacturers considered external markets to innovate service
offerings through strategically leveraging relationships with stakeholders for
resources and opportunities (Raddats et al., 2017). Participants described two
critical elements of the external network within the thematic analysis (a)
external markets, and (b) relationships.
Table 4
Findings for Theme 4, External Networks Strategies
References Frequencies
External Market 73
Relationships 25
Note. Table 4 displays the participants’ references and their frequencies in
interviews and documents for the fourth theme; external networks strategies.
External market. Manufacturing managers offering business services
in this study showed the importance of external markets in managers’
strategic decisions to innovate to offer services to sustain their business.
Sundbo (1997) theorized services innovations as mostly market-driven and
framed through managers’ strategy. Manufacturing managers considered
external market conditions when developing value propositions to satisfy
customers’ service needs (Sakyi-Gyinae & Holmlund, 2018). All
participants and their supporting documents described the external market as
a critical element of the external network.
P1P surveyed the external market of both product and service
customers to determine what manufacturing managers capabilities fit
customers’ service needs. For example, P1P said,
They did not feel the current service base is up to snuff and they were
seeing a general labor shortage in their business for the next three
years. It was their concern as to how they were going to be able to
support their business for the next 3 to 5 years.
P1P’s surveillance of the external market allowed P1P to find customers
faced a labor shortage of skilled employees. P1P’s consideration of external
market developed multiple service solutions to satisfy customers’ needs for
training and experienced employees. In P1P’s publicly available capabilities
statement document supported a focus on the external market in the
description of the business role in communities. The managers wrote that
communities benefit from managers operating the business as a “good
corporate citizen.” P1P’s supporting document demonstrates the managers
consider external market through consideration for communities.
Similarly, P2P expressed how focusing on changes in the external
market lead to opportunities to innovate services. For example, P2P stated,
“But in the past 10 years the entire market has changed the volume of gas,
the type of gas, the processes, the environmental concerns, and everything
has changed.” P2P explored external market trends, changes, and challenges
in consideration of how to strategically innovate to offer services to
customers. For example, P2P stated,
Also, I see the trend in the oil and gas business, and what I feel they
need 3, 5, and 10 years down the road, I try to begin to look at our
products and services to do what I think is a possible need for them
down the road.
P2P’s supporting document showed the managers focus on taking advantage
of trends in the external market. P2P’s capabilities statement recognized the
opportunity of new markets for solutions as customers’ processes changed to
new innovative methods. P2P described a trend in the external market for
customers to reduce labor by increasing the workload of skilled labors to
monitor more business assets based on technological advances.
P3PC described an external market focus as the managers focused on
changes and challenges in the market provide innovative service solutions.
P3PC explored the business managers external market as a critical strategy
in service innovations. P3PC stated,
In order to excel, we find markets that are very specialty-driven. And
about two to three years ago there was some federal regulation that
affected existing customers of ours or the entire company, industrial
customers. And so, we became experts in this product, and we got in
front of customers and tried to help them deal with this regulation.
P3PC’s recognition of customers’ challenges from changes in the external
market aligns with the other participants expressed strategies to survey the
external market to take advantage of opportunities in changes, which
challenge customers to provide innovative services.
Manufacturing managers exploring external markets in consideration
for strategic service innovations align with relevant literature and the
conceptual framework for this study. Like P1P’s surveillance of the external
market to find trends in labor shortages and the need for training as a
service. Kreye (2017) found manufacturing managers offering services
explored external market trends to identify a risk of lack of qualified labor
required to produce products and offer services and developed innovative
approaches by partnering with external sources to train and educate future
employees. Sundbo (1997) described managers seeking opportunities to
provide services based on changes in the external markets as a key element
in the conceptual framework. Manufacturing managers offering business
services must understand the external market to strategically innovate
services to provide solutions to customers challenges (Kanninen et al.,
2017). Also, participants described providing solutions to customers by
leveraging technological changes in the market, which aligned with Sayar
and Er (2018) integration of products and services through the Internet of
Things to analyze external market requirements. All participants expressed
the importance of the strategy of considering the external market to develop
service innovations a critical element of this study.
Relationships. Manufacturing managers leveraged relationships to
provide strategic service innovations in this study, which aligned with
literature discussing the conceptual framework. Managers leveraged
relationships as a critical element to offer service innovations to solve
customers’ problems in the market (Sakyi-Gyinae & Holmlund, 2018).
Sundbo (1997) described how manufacturing managers providing services
developed close relationships with customers to align service innovations
strategically. Participants in this study described the importance of
relationships to provide strategic service innovations aligned with literature
and the conceptual framework.
P1P leveraged relationships to establish trust with customers as an
expert through technology and listening to other experts on service
innovation topics to engage customers. P1P focused on establishing a
connection as a trusted expert through use of posting videos sharing
functional process applications through social media video content to
develop relationships with customers lacking skills and experience. For
example, P1P demonstrated how to establish a relationship with customers
as P1P expressed, So, when the customer actually needs to make a purchase
or call vendors into view products, we would be at the top of the call list
because again we have our name associated with these product lines,
because of these videos they just watched. P1P described the importance of
a relationship based on trust between customers and manufacturing
managers to allow strategic service innovation offerings. P1P established a
link between manufacturers sharing knowledge resources and customers’
trust when offering services. P1P’s publicly available supporting document
expressed the relevance of the relationship with stakeholders “built on a
framework of mutual benefit and trust.” P1P’s strategy to establish a
relationship with customers was consistent with other participants.
Similarly, P2P used relationships to offer innovative services through
the establishment of trust. However, P2P focused on establishing a
relationship through personal relationships to establish trust in contrast to
P1P’s use of social media to establish relationships. P2P described the
importance of knowing customers by name and their individual preferences
in a relationship. For example, P2P stated, “So, definitely try to gain a more
personal relationship with them. We absolutely have to be on a first name
basis.” While P1P and P2P contrasted on the medium of establishing a trust-
based relationship both participants agreed on the need for trust-based
relationships to offer services to customers.
Also, P2P described the importance of establishing a network of
industry experts through trust-based relationships to solve customers’
problems. For example, P2P said, “So, if I have an issue and I cannot figure
it out or understand it myself, I start to call these people, hundreds of them.
All the numbers in the Rolodex are the most important thing you can have.”
P2P’s statement aligned the capabilities statement, which managers
described the ability to access multiple outside service providers to assist
with solutions to customers’ service challenges. P2P’s statements aligned
with P1P’s strategy to leverage relationships through a social media network
channel to be at the top of customers’ list when a customer needs assistance.
Additionally, P3PC described leveraging relationships from other
departments in the company to offer service innovations to customers.
P3PC’s capability statement showed a focus on relationships within the
broader community based on the establishment of trust. P3PC described the
need to take responsibility for the impact of their work on the surrounding
community and being good stewards to establish relationships based on
trust. All the participants focused on establishing relationships on trust to
provide service innovations to customers and leveraged networks to provide
solutions to customers’ challenges. However, all participants showed
different mediums in establishing trust-based relationships, including social
media engagement, personal first name basis, and leveraging other
departments coupled with dedicated responsibility to the broader
community.
Manufacturing managers focused strategy on developing deep
relationships with customers to innovate service offerings (Raddats et al.,
2017). Like the participants in this study, Coreynen et al. (2017) found
manufacturing managers leveraged long-term relationships by offering
customized service innovation solutions. Additionally, manufacturing
managers leverage relationships within the broader market (Kanninen et al.,
2017), through technology advancements, and community networks (Spring
& Araujo, 2017). Similarly, Sundbo (1997) recognized manufacturing
managers offering services strategically developed close relationships with
customers to offer service innovations.
Participants described the importance of relationships as a critical
element to external networks in this study. Also, participants explore
external markets to align service innovations with customers’ needs
strategically. Both elements in the external network as a thematic finding in
this study aligned with the conceptual framework. For example, Sundbo
(1997) described managers’ strategy to consider market conditions as the
most crucial success factor for service innovations. Manufacturing managers
offer service innovations through strategies to leverage external markets and
relationships to sustain their business (Sakyi-Gyinae & Holmlund, 2018).
The findings of this study include four main themes, including service
innovation, customer focus, resources, and external networks. The themes
from this study aligned with manufacturing managers strategic service
innovation strategies discussed in the conceptual framework. Technological
advances change the mediums manufacturing managers used to strategically
innovated services, such as the Internet of Things (Sayar & Er, 2018).
However, the themes of this study aligned with assertions of Sundbo (1997)
and relevant literature discussed in this study.
Applications to Professional Practice
Business managers may use the findings of this qualitative multiple
case study to apply professional practices formed on strategic service
innovation strategies from three successful manufacturing managers.
Specifically, manufacturing managers may apply the findings of this study to
develop strategies to increase the success of manufacturing business service
offerings and increase business stability through reduced risk of product
market economic instability. Manufacturing managers use effective service
innovation strategies to leverage opportunities to sustain the business and
reduce uncertainty (Kreye, 2017). Business managers may apply strategies
described in the findings of this study to sustain their business beyond 5
years.
Manufacturing managers must understand how to use strategic service
innovation strategies to sustain their business. Manufacturing managers from
this study used service innovation strategies, including manager’s control in
developing strategic innovation services. Manufacturing managers offering
services depend on the flexibilities of strategic innovations to take advantage
of opportunities (Cheng & Krumwiede, 2017). Manufacturing managers
strategically approach service innovation to gain a competitive advantage
(Baines et al., 2017). Manufacturing managers offering services sustained
their business effectively by establishing a dual organizational structure
considering both products and services (Kuijken et al., 2017). Manufacturing
managers standardize business processes to offer services within different
functional organizational structures (Sayar & Er, 2018). Manufacturing
managers effectively offer services through the application of service
innovation strategies considering strategic innovation, competitive
advantage, dual organization, and standardization.
Manufacturing managers offerings services relied on customer focus
strategies to effectively sustain their business beyond 5 years. Manufacturing
managers focused on customers’ needs to provide value propositions
meeting customer’s needs (Sakyi-Gyinae & Holmlund, 2018).
Manufacturing managers developed an understanding of customer’s
knowledge resources to offer service innovations (Bohm et al., 2017).
Manufacturing managers offering services focused on gaps in customer’s
knowledge resources to make adaptation decisions (Rabetino et al., 2017).
Manufacturing managers offering services change focus from product-
focused strategies to strategies to provide customers with solutions to
problems (Chakkol et al., 2018). When employees and customers commit to
developing a relationship to solve problems, manufacturing managers can
effectively offer business services to customers (Kreye, 2017).
Manufacturing managers leveraged relationships solving problems with the
customer to gain feedback to effectively offer business services (Hakanen et
al., 2017). Manufacturing managers offering services can sustain their
business beyond 5 years through strategies focused on customers’ needs,
understanding customers’ knowledge resources, solving customer’s
problems, committing to relationships with customers, and gaining
customer’s feedback.
Manufacturing managers offering services can apply resource
strategies, including internal resources and knowledge resources to
successfully sustain their business beyond 5 years. Manufacturing managers
take inventory of limitations of internal resources to gain efficiencies in
business processes to effectively offer customers services (Coreynen et al.,
2018). Manufacturing managers effectively offered business services
through the integration of internal resources (Kanninen et al., 2017).
Manufacturing managers utilized employees’ tacit knowledge to improve
products and provide services to fulfill customers’ needs for solutions to
complex problems (Valtakoski, 2017). Manufacturing managers effectively
sustain their business by applying resource strategies to gain efficiencies
through leveraging internal resources and improving services based on
knowledge resources.
Manufacturing managers offering service innovations to sustain their
business for 5 years effectively used external network strategies. External
network strategies consist of manager’s consideration of external markets
and leveraging relationships to gain a competitive advantage. Manufacturing
managers offering services reconnoitered external market trends to provide
customers solutions, such as some managers recognized the lack of qualified
labor and partnered with external sources to develop a qualified labor pool
through industry training (Kreye, 2017). Manufacturing managers provided
customized service innovations establishing long-term relationships to grow
customer’s dependency on the manufacturer’s products and services
(Coreynen et al., 2018). Manufacturing managers can apply strategic service
innovation strategies to consider external networks through external market
analysis and leverage relationships to successfully sustain their business
beyond 5 years.
Manufacturing managers may use the findings of this study to apply
strategic service innovation strategies to sustain their business beyond 5
years. Manufacturing managers can strategically develop service-based
innovations through understanding the need to resource strategic innovation
processes adequately. Managers can apply strategies found in this study to
understand providing service innovations to customers requires the process
to evolve continuously, and the process does not end with one final solution
to customers’ problems. Manufacturing managers can apply the strategies in
this study to understand the requirement of continuous adaptation to the
external market through a strict focus on customers’ needs and application of
resources. Business managers may apply the findings of this study to
understand what effective strategies managers of manufacturing business
offering services use to sustain their business successfully beyond 5 years
and replicate those strategies to contribute to effective business practices to
increase the longevity of the business.
Implications for Social Change
Manufacturing managers may use the results of this study to
contribute to positive social change through the strategies within the findings
to increase business longevity, improve socioeconomic conditions of the
community, and increase employment opportunities for residents of
communities with petroleum and coal manufacturing companies in the mid-
Atlantic region of the United States. For example, business managers in
resource sectors increase the socioeconomic sustainability of surrounding
communities by developing alternative economic opportunities to counter
business declines in manufacturing (Fordham et al., 2017).
Participants in this study sustained their business beyond 5 years
through economic turbulence using the strategies analyzed in this study to
avoid substantial reductions in workforce employment opportunities.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
(2015), on average, managers whose business successfully remained in
business for 5 years showed double the employment opportunities of their
manufacturing businesses over the same 5-year period. Managers, who
succeed in sustaining their business beyond 5 years, can increase
employment opportunities (Strydom, 2017). Managers of manufacturing
businesses offering services may adopt effective service-based innovation
strategies from this study to enable more businesses to be competitive in the
broader U.S. and global markets and increases in employment opportunities
in their communities.
Recommendations for Action
The four major themes from this study inspired several
recommendations for action. Manufacturing managers, energy business
consultants, energy business publications, and regional petroleum or coal
professional networking associations possess the best opportunities to
implement the recommendations to sustain manufacturing businesses in the
petroleum and coal industry by offering service innovations. Professional
networking associations include Virginia Oil and Gas Association,
Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association, Virginia Coal & Energy
Alliance, Inc., West Virginia Manufacturers Association, and other industry
networking associations. Recommendations for action suggested
implementing management strategies to sustain business beyond 5 years,
including service innovations, customer focus, resources, and external
network.
The first recommendation is for manufacturing managers offering
services to control a strategic innovation process in changing the business
focus from how a manufacturer produces products to multiple functions
efforts to provide services, too. Manufacturing managers pursued service
innovations through a strategic process to gain a competitive advantage
(Szasz et al., 2017). Manufacturing managers offering services should
establish dual organizations to encourage the development of service
innovations. Manufacturing managers offering services can take advantage
of opportunities to standardize service processes to gain a competitive
advantage through training staff on service innovations. Also, managers
should develop joint customer manufacturer training on field processes to
strategically innovate to offer services.
Manufacturing managers offering services can center strategies to
focus on customers’ needs through evaluating customer’s knowledge
resources and developing a line of communication for feedback. Managers
leverage employees and customers’ relationships, identify customers’
knowledge resources to find gaps and provide solutions to fulfill customers’
needs. Manufacturing managers offering services focused on customers’
needs to strategically transition to service innovations (Brax & Visintin,
2017). Manufacturing managers offering services increase the depth of
business relationships by solving customers’ problems (Rabetino et al.,
2017). A recommendation is manufacturing managers, energy business
consultants, Chambers of Commerce, and regional petroleum or coal
professional networking associations engage in joint problemsolving
seminars or industry days to develop capabilities to provide solutions to
customers problems.
Manufacturing managers and energy business consultants should
develop mechanisms to take advantage of resources strategies, including
internal resources and knowledge resources. Manufacturing managers
improve some internal resources by retraining staff and seeking efficient use
of internal resources to effectively offer business services to customers
(Coreynen et al., 2018). A recommendation is for manufacturing managers
and consultants to develop inventories of internal resources, such as
qualified labor pools, and tacit knowledge resources to offer services.
Manufacturing managers and energy consultants should map internal
resources to service innovation processes to improve efficient uses of
internal resources. Manufacturing managers and energy business consultants
should develop and publish process training, how-to job aids, and lessons
learned to aid in development expanding knowledge resources.
Manufacturing managers offering services must develop external
networks by surveying the external market and developing relationships.
Manufacturing managers strategically survey the external market to innovate
service offerings to customers (Kanninen et al., 2017). Manufacturing
managers offering service innovations take advantage of internal product
knowledge to train and educate customers lacking knowledge resources
(Coreynen et al., 2017). A recommendation is manufacturing managers
jointly with regional professional industry associations should develop both
historical repositories of business managers’ experiences from external
market changes. Also, both the manufacturing manager and regional
professional industry associations should strengthen manufacturers
providing services and customers relationships through jointly publishing
YouTube videos, how-to job aids, and lessons learned to advertise
knowledge resources. Manufacturing managers offering services should
develop relationships with customers as experts through publishing
knowledge resources on industry processes through YouTube videos, how-to
job aids, and lessons learned to assist both up and downstream producers,
service providers, and customers.
Business managers can use the findings of this study to improve
business practices by following the strategies to offer services based on
service innovation processes, developing customer focus, considering
resources, and leveraging external resources. Manufacturing managers can
use the strategies of this study to focus on building feedback mechanisms to
focus on customers through joint problem solving, leveraging relationships,
and offering knowledge resources to gain trust. Managers can build a focus
on customers by instilling a key strategy for guiding employees to find a
customer’s problem and solve it. Manufacturing managers in this study
applied the strategies described to increase their competitive advantage and
take advantage of opportunities to sustain their business throughout product
lifecycles and economic cycles.
There are several main arteries to disseminate the recommendations
presented in this study to manufacturing managers offering services.
Organizers of regional petroleum or coal professional networking
associations, such as Virginia Oil and Gas Association, Pennsylvania
Independent Oil and Gas Association, Virginia Coal & Energy Alliance,
Inc., West Virginia Manufacturers Association, and other industry
associations may disseminate relevant findings and recommendations for
action from this study in discussions at meetings and seminars. Regional
petroleum or coal professional networking associations provides an
opportunity for researchers, service providers, and manufacturing managers
engage in various industry forums. Also, some academic publishers may
publish my findings and recommendations in industry publications, such as
Northeast ONG or other industry publications,
Additionally, the results of this study are available to academics,
researchers, and manufacturing managers through ProQuest/UMI database. I
will provide a copy of this study and a summary to participants and answer
any relevant questions, such as Energy Journal or International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, academic conferences, such as the
International Conference on Business Servitization, and regional
professional conferences and training seminars.
Recommendations for Further Research
The purpose of this qualitative, multiple case study was to explore
effective service-based innovation strategies that manufacturing managers
use to offer business services to sustain their businesses beyond 5 years. The
population for this study was three manufacturing managers offering
business services, from petroleum and coal manufacturing companies, who
sustained their business in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States
beyond than 5 years. Four major themes related to strategic service
innovations emerged from this study for managers to use as strategies to
sustain their business operations. Recommendations for further research
provides researchers opportunities to expand the body of knowledge
strategic service innovation phenomenon.
The specific industry limitations for participation in this study may
cause generalizability challenges to apply the findings and recommendations
for action to all manufacturing managers offering services. While the
selection of manufacturing managers offering business services, from
petroleum and coal manufacturing companies from the mid-Atlantic region
of the United States was to fill voids in the body of knowledge. Further
research replicating the study with a sample population of manufacturing
managers offering services in different geographic regions or industries may
provide rich and deep data leading to other strategies.
Participants of this study provided documentation limited to those
documents publicly available. In this study, participant’s documents served
as a primary source of data collected. In future research, manufacturing
managers offering services may expand on strategic service innovation
strategies through participation in focus groups interviews or participant
observations at customers’ field sites. Analysis of data collected from this
study with data collected in future research through focus groups or
participant observations could facilitate triangulation.
Also, manufacturing managers offering services participated through
semistructured interviews for this study. Future research may include
customers of the manufacturing managers offer services. Customers could
participate in a focus group to expand on strategic service innovation
strategies. Understanding strategic service innovation strategies from
customers’ perspectives through a focus group and from the manufacturing
managers offering services in this study establishes triangulation.
Limitations discussed in this study offer recommendations for future
research in exploring strategic service innovation strategies manufacturing
managers offering services use to sustain their business beyond 5 years.
Further research may contribute through replicating the study with
participants from other geographic locations or industries. Future research
may explore the perspectives of manufacturing managers offering services
or their customers to expand on strategic service innovation strategies.
Additional research may involve other primary data sources, such as focus
group interviews or participant observations at customers’ field sites to
explore strategic service innovation strategies.
Reflections
I framed my relationship with this research topic from my professional
experience in the U.S. military serving in petroleum and logistics fields and
contract management focused on innovations, strategy development, and
acquisitions of products and business services. The innovative and resilient
people Appalachia, who work through the business problem of this study
and other socioeconomic challenges, influenced my interest in studying
strategy in energy markets near my home in Virginia and choosing the
sample population for this study. From the wake of the 2008 economic
downturn, I desired to gain an understanding of successful strategic service
innovation strategies and share the information with other manufacturers to
develop resiliency in employment opportunities during turbulent commodity
lifecycle crashes. Plans consist of incorporation of my experience and the
findings of this study into several organizations, including my military unit,
my civilian employer, and my courses as an adjunct at a public university to
mentor future managers on strategy.
I learned recruiting participants was challenging. I struggled to find
participants through social media. Initially, I believed recruiting through
social media would yield the most participants. After multiple attempts, I
realized recruiting participants through social media was not an effective
recruitment strategy. Instead, I used social media to research potential
participants’ backgrounds. However, I was able to gain participants by
attending professional industry networking events, telephone calls, and face-
to-face engagements directly with managers. If I conducted this study again,
I would not attempt to recruit through social media and focus on attending
industry professional networking events.
After completing this rigorous academic journey, I appreciate the
learning experience and research skills I gained. I was motivated to complete
this study to finish the requirements to earn a terminal degree. However, I
wanted my research to contribute to the success of other managers and build
resiliency into employment opportunities in the petroleum and coal industry.
As the expansion of connectivity between products and services continues to
grow through the Internet of Things and artificial intelligence, I believe the
importance of effective strategic service innovation strategies will grow in
relevance to managers. I seek to take advantage of my findings on effective
strategic service innovation strategies and the academic research skills I
learned from experiences enrolled in Doctor of Business Administration
program at Walden University.
Conclusion
This study began with the discussion of manufacturing managers
taking advantage of innovations to transition from a product focus to
incorporate successful service innovation strategies. Manufacturing industry
lost over 2 million jobs following the 2008 economic decline. However,
most manufacturing managers’ initiatives to transition from a product-
focused strategy to offering services failed, expanding the challenges of
sustaining employment for approximately 12 million manufacturing
employees in the United States. Manufacturing managers of energy
companies, traditionally dependent on energy commodities as a source of
revenue, experienced significant employment declines following the 2008
economic decline.
Manufacturing managers turned to offer services as a path to sustain
their business. Manufacturing business failures affect business stakeholders,
employees, and the surrounding community. Effective service-based
innovation strategies were critical to establishing resiliency for
manufacturing managers sustaining business operations beyond 5 years.
Additionally, manufacturing managers offering business services served as a
barrier to additional unemployment increases and more severe negative
economic impacts to communities dependent on manufacturing industries,
including the petroleum and coal industry in the mid-Atlantic region of the
United States.
