Cited by 224Service and Product InnovationBusiness Strategies and InnovationCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty

Archetypes of Service Innovation: Implications for Value Cocreation

Open access
Helkkula, Anu, Kowalkowski, Christian, Tronvoll, Bård·2018·Journal of Service Research

Abstract

Service innovation is a key source of competitive differentiation across firms and markets. Despite growing attention from practitioners and academics alike, systematic scholarly inquiry into service innovation’s diverse theoretical foundations has to date been limited. This article explores different approaches to service innovation and proposes a typology of four archetypes, each informed by a distinct theoretical perspective and by different underlying assumptions. Process-based and output-based archetypes focus on value-adding phases and output value, respectively. Experiential and systemic archetypes have attracted less attention but become central for firms seeking to cocreate phenomenologically determined value within the service ecosystem. The article also contributes to service innovation research and practice by bringing together the existing archetypes, which were previously treated separately. Juxtaposing these archetypes and emphasizing value and value cocreation, the article proposes an integrative view of how novel value cocreation can be enhanced in service innovations. Finally, we develop an agenda for future research, encouraging researchers and managers to plan service innovations systematically, deploying each archetype in value cocreation, and combining them within an integrative approach.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1094670517746776

Cites

115 of 115 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The concept of imposed service innovations highlights disruptive forces of change that must be viewed through a strategic lens.

    “The concept of imposed service innovations highlights disruptive forces of change that must be viewed through a strategic lens, complementing the archetypal structure of innovations based on features, processes and actor configurations (Helkkula et al., 2018;Snyder et al., 2016).”

    From Reframing service innovation: COVID-19 as a catalyst for imposed service innovation (2020) · cites this paper as Helkkula et al., 2018

    The Abstract describes shifts in service innovation and archetypes grounded partly in strategy; the Discussion and Implications and Implications for Practice sections describe output-, process-, experiential-, and systemic archetypes and recommend considering them together. But the searched passages do not identify a concept of “imposed service innovations” or say that it highlights disruptive forces that must be viewed through a strategic lens. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Helkkula et al. (2018) proposed a typology of four archetypes after exploring different approaches to service innovation.

    “For example, after exploring different approaches to service innovation, Helkkula et al. (2018) proposed a typology of four archetypes.”

    From Designing conceptual articles: four approaches (2020) · cites this paper as Helkkula et al. (2018)

  • Helkkula et al. (2018) suggested that variance within the extant research could be explained by differences of theoretical perspective and argued that each type had distinct implications for value creation.

    “They suggested that variance within the extant research could be explained by differences of theoretical perspective and argued that each type had distinct implications for value creation.”

    From Designing conceptual articles: four approaches (2020) · cites this paper as Helkkula et al. (2018)

  • Helkkula et al. (2018) synthesized a novel conceptualization of service innovation that exploited the strengths of each type and mitigated their limitations.

    “For example, after distinguishing types of service innovation in terms of their conceptual underpinnings, Helkkula et al. (2018) synthesized a novel conceptualization of service innovation that exploited the strengths of each type and mitigated their limitations.”

    From Designing conceptual articles: four approaches (2020) · cites this paper as Helkkula et al. (2018)

  • Service innovation has typically been considered a key factor in organizational differentiation and growth and a matter of management discretion.

    “Service innovation has typically been considered a key factor in organizational differentiation and growth (Feng et al., 2020;Helkkula et al., 2018;Kowalkowski and Witell, 2020) and a matter of management discretion.”

    From Reframing service innovation: COVID-19 as a catalyst for imposed service innovation (2020) · cites this paper as Helkkula et al., 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Edvardsson Bo Tronvoll Bård Gruber Thorsten (2011), “ Expanding Understanding of Service Exchange and Value Co-Creation,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (2), 327– 339.
  2. Lusch Robert F. Vargo Stephen L. (2014), Service-Dominant Logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Smith David Woodruff (2007), Husserl. London, UK: Routledge.
  4. Toivonen Marja Tuominen Tiina Brax Saara (2007), “ Innovation Process Interlinked with the Process of Service Delivery: A Management Challenge in KIBS,” Economies et sociétés, 41 (3), 355– 384.
  5. Witell Lars Snyder Hannah Gustafsson Anders Fombelle Paul Kristensson Per (2016), “ Defining Service Innovation: A Review and Synthesis,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (7), 2401– 2408.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Helkkula, A., Kowalkowski, C., & Tronvoll, B.
Affiliations
  • Hanken School of Economics (FI)
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • University of Inland Norway (NO)
Corresponding author
Helkkula, Anu
Venue
Journal of Service Research
Published
2018-01-01
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
284-301
ISSN
  • 1094-6705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7379
OpenAlex
W2782007424
Cited by
224
References
115
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 4
FWCI
36.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Service Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
Funders
Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (P15-0232:1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Innovation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
Keywords
service innovation, archetypes, typology, value co-creation, system innovation, service ecosystems, competitive differentiation, integrated approach

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review