1 

Conceptualizing the interplay of knowledge accumulation and integration capabilities in

service innovation-based competitive strategy: A project-oriented firm context

Abstract

While past knowledge-based approaches to service innovation have emphasized the role of

integration of knowledge in the provisioning of solutions, these approaches fail to address

complexities involved with knowledge integration in project-oriented context, specifically, how

the firm’s capability to acquire new knowledge from clients and past project episodes influence

the development of new service solutions. Adopting a dynamic capability framework and

building on knowledge-based approaches to innovation, this paper presents a conceptual model

that captures the interplay of learning capabilities and the knowledge integration capability in

the service innovation-based competitive strategy. Implications to theory and directions for

future research are discussed.

1. Introduction

Taking a customer-centric view, sustained competitive advantage essentially involves

providing greater value to customers (Shah, Rust, Parasuraman, Staelin, & Day, 2006). An

inherent component of this strategic shift is providing solutions to customer problems which

serve as a point of differentiation particularly for industrial firms in customer value creation.

Tapping into these opportunities, several global firms such as IBM, Ericsson, GE and UPS

have transformed their offerings to provide service intensive end-to-end customer solutions

(Sawhney, Walcott & Arroniz, 2006). Increasingly firms are using project-oriented

organizational forms to tailor-make and deliver unique service solutions1 (c.f., Hobday, 2000).

Project-oriented firms such as architectural and engineering service firms have greater
                                                            
1
Solutions are “individualized offers for complex customer problems that are interactively designed and whose
components offer an integrative added value by combining products and/or services so that the value is more than
the sum of the components” (Storbacka, 2011).
 
 2 
 

flexibility to integrate knowledge resources for the provision of service solutions and co-create

value in close collaboration with customers/clients (de Brentani & Ragot, 1996). In business

marketing the customer solutions development process involves building operational linkages

and extensive information exchanges (Day, 2000) leading to long term collaborative

relationships with clients. The high-switching costs involved in these collaborative

relationships create an inimitability barrier to competitors providing greater scope for sustained

competitive advantage to the service provider.

In developing new solutions, project firms face two strategic concerns. First, producing

effective solutions require firms to orchestrate resources to assemble products and services that

align with the problems presented by clients (Sawhney, 2006). In this process, traditional

boundaries of the service firm have to be expanded to include clients as participants (Mills &

Morris, 1986). This requires service providers to possess superior client focused knowledge to

balance the asymmetry arising from the context-rich knowledge the client possesses and the

solution specific knowledge and expertise that the service provider possesses. Second, multiple

project forms may be the best vehicles, to effectively deliver these service solutions

(Pennypacker & Dye, 2002). However, developing such unique resource combinations each

time may hinder ‘economies of repetition’ (Davies & Brady, 2000), eroding the firm’s cost

base which will be detrimental to the firm’s quest for long-term competitive advantage. A

strategic issue for these firms then is how best to achieve synergies through economies of

repetition, but at the same time judiciously incorporate new knowledge in a sustained manner

into new solutions. As projects by nature are episodic, knowledge gained from one project can

be usefully transposed to other projects (Blazevic, Lievens & Klein, 2003, p. 130).

In spite of the increased interest in service innovation-based competitive advantage over the

recent years, the mechanisms involved with the solution-focused knowledge integration

specific to project settings and its impact on service firm competitive strategy remain limited to
 3 
 

a few studies (e.g., Marsh & Stock, 2003). Several important aspects require deeper

investigation. First, the service firm’s capacity to acquire and integrate knowledge resources in

the provision of solutions which underpins the service firm’s ability to produce ‘repeatable

solutions’. Second, service firm’s capacity to learn from external and internal sources which is

suggested to be a pre-requisite for innovation requires attention. Organizational learning-based

approaches to innovation suggest that both externally focused and internally focused learning

are critical inputs for greater innovation. Internal and external learning activities are not

substitutes for one another, but complementary (Arora & Gambardella, 1990) and have been

observed to be important precursors to innovation (Hartman, Tower & Sebora, 1994) and firm

performance (Bierly & Chakrabarti, 1996). Third, whether the service innovation-based

competitive advantages can be sustained. Whilst a substantial body of literature suggests that

service innovation-based advantages cannot be sustained (Davison, Watkins, & Wright, 1989;

Martin & Horne, 1993) this observation is predominantly comes from financial services where

imitation is rampant and there is limited scope for longer service provider-customer

relationship. To the contrary, a growing number of researchers suggest that service innovation-

based advantages can be sustained (e.g. Bharadwaj, Varadarajan & Fahy, 1993; Storey &

Kahn, 2010). Whilst this debate remains inconclusive, the suggested relationship has received

scant attention. Specifically, the literature examining the role of the firm’s capacity to integrate

knowledge and its interplay with learning capabilities in the delivery of service solutions in a

project-oriented service firm competitive advantage is yet to be explored.

Addressing the forgoing issues, this paper aims at presenting a conceptual model that captures

the interplay of knowledge accumulation capabilities and the knowledge integration capability

in the service innovation-based competitive strategy. Our model makes several contributions to

the literature. First, by conceptualizing internal and external learning activities as dynamic

capabilities driven by entrepreneurship, our model incorporates the role of entrepreneurial key
 4 
 

decision-makers of project-oriented service firms in the knowledge acquisition to pursue

innovation. Second, by assigning a central position to the interplay between firm’s capacity to

integrate knowledge (as a dynamic capability) with learning capabilities, the study facilitates

deeper insights on its mediating role in the solution-based service innovation and in turn on

sustained competitive advantage. Overall, the proposed theoretical relationships in our model

paves way for a greater understanding of the sources and linkage between dynamic capabilities

that enable service firms to innovate and stay ahead. While dynamic capabilities are critical to

service firm innovation, the question remains whether firms that operate in project-oriented

environments are able to draw upon and integrate knowledge using dynamic capabilities from

temporary settings that require extensive customization and alignment to client needs.

2. Literature review

The literature on the accumulation and reconfiguration of knowledge resources in firm

competitive strategy has progressed in significance over the last decade. On a broader level, the

importance of internal (Nelson & Winter, 1982; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997) and external

sources (Argote, 1999; Moorman & Miner, 1997) of knowledge is recognized. Firms tend to

integrate internally and externally generated knowledge for value creation. With this ability

firms synthesize and apply current and acquired knowledge in the pursuit of marketplace

opportunities (Kogut & Zander, 1992).

Knowledge integration and innovation has been linked to strategic advantage. Innovation

represents change undertaken by firms through the discovery of superior resource

combinations, often replacing combinations that have been traditionally dominant

(Schumpeter, 1950). The subsequent implications of this activity on competitive strategy are

two-fold: first, superior resource combinations create new value and bestow benefits upon

firms enabling them to gain advantages over their rivals. Second, new combinations, embedded
 5 
 

in difficult-to-imitate routines, ensure that the competitive advantages gained cannot be

matched easily by competitors (McGrath, Tsai, Venkataraman, & MacMillan., 1996). Combination

of knowledge resources is particularly relevant to project-oriented service firms as they are

task-oriented, adaptable and flexible and aimed at providing specific services for clients (Acha,

Gann, & Salter, 2005). These firms produce complex solutions for their clients (de Brentani &

Ragot, 1996) which usually involves the integration of products or systems, such as IT

systems, delivered in a business-to-business environment (Blindenbach-Driessen & Ende,

2006).

The literature on service innovation and competitive strategy in general suggests that service

innovation positively affects performance and enables the firm to offer superior value in

comparison to competitors (Menor & Roth, 2008; Melton & Hartline, 2010). However, there is

a substantial debate on whether service innovation-based competitive advantage can be

sustained. The ease of copying services (e.g., Teixeira & Ziskin, 1993) and difficulties in

patenting services (Cowell, 1988) are commonly cited by those who argue that service

innovation-based competitive advantage cannot be sustained. However, this view is primarily

based on evidence from financial service firms where the ease of copying and imitation is

rampant with limited scope for long-term customer-service provider relationship. Those who

argue in favor observe that the cornerstone of persistent performance lies in the capabilities or

core competencies that are identified, built and nurtured by the firm (c.f. Grant, 1996). The

inimitability of capabilities or the “capability differential” is suggested as a key element of

sustained competitive advantage (e.g., Bharadwaj, et al., 1993; Grant, 1991; Salunke,

Weerawardena and McColl-Kennedy, 2011). This debate remains inconclusive and has

escaped empirical scrutiny. It highlights the need for further research into service innovation-

based competitive strategy in particular in other service industry settings where long-term

customer/client involvement is evident (Salunke, et al., 2011).

 6 
 

Overall, although the literature on service innovation-based competitive strategy has grown in

significance, the literature is fragmented with the majority of researchers primarily focusing on

success factors of innovation. Studies attempting to model the service innovation-based

competitive strategy process have been limited. Our review of literature suggests that although

the role of firm’s capacity to combine resources is evident as a central process in service

innovation-based competitive strategy, the combinative capability and how it relates to other

knowledge-based capabilities in the innovation process has received scant researcher attention.

Similarly, the debate on whether innovation-based competitive advantages can be sustained

remains inconclusive.

3. Conceptual foundation

A central focus of our research is the service firms’ capability to integrate knowledge resources

and its interplay with the firm’s learning capabilities in service innovation-based competitive

strategy. Service firms actively integrate knowledge resources to deliver services in both

standard and non-standard settings, which is more evident in project-oriented service context

where each customer will substantially vary in terms of their service expectations. We

therefore theorize that the firm’s capacity to integrate knowledge resources is a critical

capability in a project-oriented firm context. The presence of externally focused and internally

focused learning capabilities thus is a prerequisite for service innovation in a project-oriented

firm context. The development of service solutions involves the combination of both tangible

and intangible resources (Sawhney, 2006)

In our approach to capture the firm’s ‘s capacity to integrate knowledge resources and its

interplay with firm’s externally focused and internally focused learning activities we draw on

the dynamic capability view of competitive strategy. Although, early contributors to DCV

suggest that organizations possessing dynamic capabilities gain competitive advantage (Teece,
 7 
 

Pisano & Shuen, 1997), this view has been extensively debated in the subsequent literature.

Eisenhardt and Martin (2000: 1118) distancing themselves from this view argue that “long-

term competitive advantage lies in resource configurations and not dynamic capabilities”.

While this debate is unresolved, there is growing consensus that the primary task of dynamic

capabilities in the competitive strategy process is to transform the organization’s knowledge

resources and operational routines (Cepeda & Vera 2007). The new resource combinations

enable the organization to pursue its primary value creating strategy through, ability to solve

problems, addressing change or anticipated change of problems, and ability to change the way

the organization solves problems (Zahra, Sapienza & Davidson, 2006). In a project-orient

service innovation context dynamic capabilities, by making new knowledge resource

configurations available, enable organizations to pursue innovative client focused new

solutions and in turn gain competitive advantage.

Compared to prior models of competitive strategy the DCV assigns a prominent role to

entrepreneurial managers in the value creating process suggesting it as a prerequisite for

building and nurturing dynamic organizational capabilities. Dynamic capabilities do not merely

accrue to the organization from a good fit with industry or environmental requirements, but are

developed consciously and systematically by the willful choices and actions of the

organization’s managers (Grant, 1991; Teece et al., 1997).

4. Conceptual Model and Theoretical Propositions

Building on the capability view of competitive strategy, this research posits that entrepreneurial

project-oriented service firms pursuing innovation-based competitive strategy build and nurture

dynamic capabilities in episodic learning, client-focused learning and knowledge integration.

The first two capabilities represent the firm’s capacity to generate knowledge from internal

sources and external sources and the integrative capability reflects the judicious application of
 8 
 

the accumulated knowledge. It is proposed that these constructs lead to new knowledge

combinations enabling the firm develop new and value enhancing service solutions addressing

different customer requirements. . The model depicted in Figure 1 suggests that service

entrepreneurship (SE) drives three capabilities. The two learning capabilities impact the

knowledge integration capability which in turn leads to two forms of service innovation

(interactive and supportive). Supportive innovation has a positive effect on interactive

innovation and both forms of service innovation influence SCA. The key constructs and

theoretical propositions are introduced next.

Figure 1: Dynamic combinative capability and learning in service innovation-based

performance

Episodic
Learning
Capability
Interactive
innovation
Service Knowledge Sustained
 
Entrepreneurs Integration Competitive
hip Capability Advantage
Supportive
innovation
Client-
focussed
Learning

Service Entrepreneurship (SE)

Entrepreneurship refers to the ability of the firm to initiate change, innovate, and rapidly react

to environmental changes with an intention to exploit opportunities (Naman & Slevin, 1993).

Entrepreneurial behavior has been positively linked to the firm’s wealth creating efforts

(Ireland, Hitt, Camp, & Sexton, 2001), higher order learning (Slater & Narver, 1995) or new
 9 
 

product introduction or market entry (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) and superior market-

based performance (Sarkar, Echambadi, & Harrison, 2001).

Salunke, Weerawardena and McColl-Kennedy (2012) argue that the behavioral approach

(Covin & Slevin, 1991; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996) that predominantly uses the dimensions of

innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking in the operationalization of firm level

entrepreneurship is inadequate to capture the unique operational characteristics in service

firms, in particular, adaptiveness needed for greater interaction with clients as part of their

entrepreneurial posture. They propose the additional dimension of adaptiveness to strengthen

the behavioral entrepreneurship construct.

Service entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities

The dynamic capability-based view assigns a prominent role to entrepreneurial key decision-

makers in the competitive strategy (e.g. Zahra et al., 2006) in that it argues that these

capabilities that provide the foundation to gain competitive advantages are built and nurtured

by entrepreneurial key decision makers. Consequently, entrepreneurial firms are likely to build

dynamic capabilities in order to pursue an innovation-based strategy. Such capabilities are

based upon the foundation provided by the structured and persistent efforts of the firm towards

innovation-directed learning. This is consistent with recent literature on entrepreneurial

learning that assigns a critical role to entrepreneurship in a firm’s learning process (Day, 1992;

Rae, 2000).

Episodic learning capability

The service innovation literature and project-based literature in particular suggest that episodic

learning leads to innovation in project oriented service firms (e.g., MacCormack, Verganti, &

Iansiti, 2001). As projects by nature are episodic, knowledge gained from one project can be
 10 
 

usefully transposed to other projects. Blazevic et al. (2003, p. 130) provide evidence of this

form of learning and application. With the traditional model of technological development

through a central R&D unit, becoming more unworkable for project-based environments

episodic learning becomes a key source through which the firm achieves cost-efficiencies in

multiple project settings (Acha, Gann & Salter, 2005). They must draw the lessons from

particular episodes of innovation into an overall strategy for organizational development. They

must ensure project-to-project, project-to-business and business-to-project knowledge

exchange. These meta-routines for the capture of learning and innovation are not automatic

behaviors, but rather an organizational response in the form of policies and processes of human

resource management, knowledge management and R&D (Acha et al., 2010, P.261 ).

Proposition 1: Service entrepreneurship in project-oriented firms is positively related to its

episodic learning capability.

Client-focused learning capability

Client-focused learning by the firm refers to acquisition of knowledge from interactions with

its customers/clients with a view to understanding and satisfying their needs and wants. As

customers/clients of today are more aware and demanding, firms are increasingly adopting a

customer-oriented perspective as a source of competitive advantage (Woodruff, 1997). Prior

research has highlighted the importance of learning from customers/clients: lead users (Von

Hippel, 1989); customer as a resource (Gouthier & Schmid, 2003); creation of superior

customer value (Narver & Slater, 1990) and customer linking capabilities (Day, 1994) (to name

a few) and has been linked to entrepreneurship (Slater & Narver, 1995). Similarly, in the

services literature, there is considerable emphasis placed on customer/client as an important

resource of the service firm. Understandably, the co-creation aspect unique to services is based

on customer/client participation. In the current research, client-focused learning capability is

 11 
 

defined as the project-oriented firm’s capacity to purposefully create new knowledge from its

direct and indirect interactions with clients, extend such knowledge to value creating activities

and modify such knowledge to address the changing market conditions.

Proposition 2: Service entrepreneurship in project-oriented firms is positively related to its

client-focused learning capability.

Knowledge integration capability

The integrative capability represents the ability of the firm to synthesize and apply current and

acquired knowledge in the pursuit of business opportunities. Using this capability, firms

activate and alter resource configurations and learn new skills by recombining their current

capabilities (Kogut & Zander, 1992). In project environments, Davies and Hobday (2005)

describe how firms possess systems integration capabilities which enable them to combine

various production inputs such as skills, knowledge, software and technology to produce

project outcomes. Building on their views, in the current research, knowledge integration

capability is defined as the project-oriented firm’s capacity to purposefully create new

knowledge from combination of tangible and intangible resources, extend such knowledge to

value creating activities and modify such knowledge to address the changing market

conditions. As noted earlier, entrepreneurial initiatives underlie this process. Based on this

discussion it is hypothesized that:

Proposition 3: Service entrepreneurship in project-oriented firms is positively related to

knowledge integration capability.

Interplay between dynamic capabilities

As discussed earlier the key role of the knowledge integration capability in a firm’s innovation

process to ensure that the required new combinations are made available to the firm’s
 12 
 

entrepreneurial managers. For this to occur, the new knowledge must be present within the firm

knowledge. Based on innovation literature we identified the need to learn and recombine

knowledge knowledge from external and internal sources. In a project-oriented firm setting the

firm’s episodic learning capability and client-focused learning capability represent the two

sources of learning. Recombinant activity is central to a project structure, where firms try to

make efficient use of resources by combining internal and external resources to create new

resources or competencies (Davies & Hobday, 2005). Therefore we argue that episodic and

client focused drive the knowledge integration capability. Thus it is hypothesized;

Proposition 4: Episodic learning capability in project-oriented firms is positively related to

knowledge integration capability.

Proposition 5: Client-focused learning capability of in project-oriented firms is positively

related to knowledge integration capability.

Dynamic capabilities and service innovation

Innovation is an effective way to accelerate growth and profitability in service firms,

contributing to novel ways of value creation (Berry, Shankar, Parish, Cadwallader, & Dotzel,

2006), both for the firms and their customers (Moller, Rajala, & Westerlund, 2008). While

early attempts to conceptualize service innovation have examined service innovation

dimensionality (Den Hertog, 2000; Edvardsson & Olsson, 1996) as well as the type and degree

of service innovations (e.g. Hipp & Grupp, 2005; Johne & Storey, 1998), the manner in which

service firms create value for themselves through innovation that is customer-centric has

received scant empirical attention. Building on prior studies (e.g. Carman & Langeard, 1980;

Edvardsson & Olsson, 1996) Salunke and others (2012) operationalize service innovation as

comprising (1) Interactive innovation and (2) Supportive innovation. Interactive service

innovation refers to the value creating service solutions offered by the service firm in the
 13 
 

service provider and customer context. Supportive innovation: Supportive innovation refers to

the indirect value creating changes at the back-end that support the new value proposition. A

new service offering has to be seamless in providing an adequate “backstage” configuration to

support the new value proposition with which the customer interacts. Supportive aspects of

innovation which indirectly create value for the firm and its clients are critical to ensure an

uninterrupted flow of core solutions and supporting services to the client/customer (e.g. Martin,

Horne, & Schultz, 1999).

Dynamic capabilities are linked to firm innovation. In relation to this, Zahra et al. (2006, p.

950) state that “building dynamic capabilities allows firms to conceive new resources and

explore new uses for their resources”, which reflects the link between dynamic capabilities and

innovation (also see Lawson & Samson, 2001). Recent research is also consistent with this

view and supports the notion that dynamic capabilities are important antecedents of innovation-

directed efforts (e.g. Lawson & Samson, 2001). Carrying out new combinations of resources

(Schumpeter, 1934) is an important source of innovation and novelty (e.g., Galunic & Rodan,

1998). As noted, these efforts at new value creation through service innovation are directed

towards the front-end (interactive) and back-end (supportive) by project-oriented firms.. As

noted in the earlier sections tThe primary task of dynamic capabilities is providing new

resource combinations enabling the firm to undertake its primary value creation strategy. We

therefore theorize that whilst the two learning capabilities represents knowledge accumulation

from external and internal sources the knowledge reconfiguration integration capability

represents the firms capacity to provide knowledge combinations needed to develop innovative

client focused solutions. Based on this discussion following hypotheses are advanced::

Proposition 6: Knowledge integration capability in project-oriented firms is positively related

to interactive innovation.
 14 
 

Proposition 7: Knowledge integration capability in project-oriented firms is positively related

to supportive innovation.

We conjecture that supportive innovation is a prerequisite for interactive innovation.

Innovative changes undertaken in the support service structures in project-oriented firms

facilitate those in the firm who interact with customers to provide value-adding solutions to

customers. Therefore, the following hypothesis is advanced:

Proposition 8: Supportive innovation in project-oriented firms is positively related to

interactive innovation.

Sustained competitive advantage

Sustained competitive advantage (SCA) refers to the firm’s ability to achieve a ‘superior

marketplace position’ by outperforming its rivals. This superior position reflects the capture of

superior customer/client value and/or the achievement of lower relative costs, which results in

market share dominance and superior financial performance (Hunt & Morgan, 1995).

However, researchers argue that financial indicators of performance are inadequate to capture

sustained competitive advantage as they represent past advantages (Day & Wensley, 1988). We

adopt Barney’s (1991, p. 102) definition of SCA: “A firm is said to have SCA when it is

implementing a value-creating strategy not simultaneously being implemented by any current

or potential competitors and when these other firms are unable to duplicate the benefits of this

strategy.” The inimitability of distinctive capabilities based on “capability differential” is a key

element of SCA in the capability-based model (Grant, 1991; Hall, 1993; Bharadwaj, et al.,

1993). We argue that by shifting in to the ‘solution-based innovation’ the project-oriented

service firms enter in to a domain where collaborative linkages are necessitated between

service providers and clients/customers. Such relationship erects an inimitability barrier to the

firm’s closest competitors.

 15 
 

Proposition 9: Interactive innovation in project-oriented firms is positively related to SCA.

Proposition 10: Supportive innovation in project-oriented firms is positively related to SCA.

5. Discussion and theoretical implications

A central focus of our model is the interplay between the capabilities for knowledge

accumulation and integration in the delivery of solution-focused service innovation and in turn

on sustained competitive advantage in project-oriented service firms. Our model makes several

important contributions to service innovation-based competitive strategy literature. First, on the

capability view of competitive strategy, our model theorizes that entrepreneurial project-

oriented service firms pursuing innovation-based competitive strategy build and nurture

dynamic capabilities in episodic learning, client-focused learning and knowledge integration.

The first two capabilities represent the firm’s capacity to generate knowledge from internal

sources and external sources and the integrative capability captures the service firm’s capacity

to build new knowledge resource combinations through the integration of knowledge acquired

from external and internal sources. Second, we propose that these constructs lead to new

knowledge combinations enabling the firm develop new and value enhancing service solutions

addressing different customer requirements. Third, we incorporate the role of the strategist as a

key driver of the service innovation-based value creation process. Past service innovation

research has paid scant attention to the role of entrepreneurship in the service innovation

process. Fourth, our model suggests that service entrepreneurship (SE) drives three capabilities.

The two learning capabilities impact the knowledge integration capability which in turn leads

to two forms of service innovation (interactive and supportive). Supportive innovation has a

positive effect on interactive innovation and both forms of service innovation influence SCA.
 16 
 

Limitations and Future Research

As with any other, our study has certain limitations. First, the operationalisation of the model

has to be preceded by development of measures for the constructs of interest. In particular, new

measures have to be developed for episodic learning and client-focussed learning capabilities,

which presents measure development opportunities for future research. Second, the study

precludes the temporal aspect, a critical component in project settings. Firms that deliver

projects over a longer time will have well established client relationships and therefore may

have stronger propensities to develop dynamic capabilities than firms that deliver shorter

duration projects. For parsimony sake, we do not examine these differences, but encourage

future research to do so. Finally, a notable limitation is that the present study focuses only on

project-oriented firms and uses only one context. Future research should examine other service

contexts.

6. Conclusion

The conceptual model presented in this paper facilitates the examination of the role of

knowledge accumulation and integration in the service innovation process. Most importantly it

paves the way for examining the widely debated issue in the service innovation literature

whether service innovation-based competitive advantages can be sustained. We proposed that

the suggested theoretical relationships be tested in project-oriented firm context along with a

comparison sample of manufacturing firms to enable examination of the differences. Project-

oriented service environment provide an appropriate context to examine the gaps of knowledge

discussed above. These firms are characterized by relatively long project life cycles during

which strong client relationships are built and nurtured. In addition to the co-creation aspect in

services, project activities and outcomes are unique and customer centric. Overall, this paper

addresses the call for a unified theoretical framework that facilitates future research. It paves

the way for the examination of knowledge management issues that potential to hinder the
 17 
 

efforts of service firms intending to compete on solution-focused service innovations that have

greater potential to keep their competitors away.

References

Acha, V., Gann, D., & Salter, A. (2005). Episodic innovation: R&D strategies for project-based
environments. Industry & Innovation, 12(2), 255-281.

Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge, Norwell,
MA: Kluwer.

Arora, A. & Gambardella, (1990). Complementarity and external linkages: The strategies of the large
firms in biotechnology. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 38, 361-379.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1),
99-120.

Berry, L. L., Shankar, V., Parish, J. T., Cadwallader, S., & Dotzel, T. (2006). Creating new markets
through service innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(2), 56-63.

Bharadwaj, S. G., Varadarajan, P. R., & Fahy, J. (1993). Sustainable competitive advantage in service
industries: A conceptual model and research propositions. The Journal of Marketing, 57(4),
83-99.

Bierly, P. & Chakrabarti, A. (1996). Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.
Strategic Management Journal, 17, 123-135.

Blazevic, V., Lievens, A. & Klein, E. (2003). Antecedents of project learning and time-to-market during
new mobile service development. International Journal of Service Industry Management,
14(1), 120-147.

Blindenbach-Driessen, F. & Ende, V.J. (2006). Innovation in project-based firms: The context
dependency of success factors. Research Policy, 35(4), 545-561.

Brown, S. & Eisenhardt, K. (1997). The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and
Time-paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42, 1-34.

Carmen, J.M. & Langeard, E. (1980). Growth Strategies of Service Firms. Strategic Management
Journal, 1, 7 - 22.

Cepeda, G. & Vera, D. (2007). Dynamic capabilities and operational capabilities: A knowledge
management perspective. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 426-437.
 18 
 

Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7-25.

Cowell, D. W. (1988). New service development. Journal of Marketing Management, 3(3), 296-312.

Davies, A. & Brady, T. (2000). Organisational capabilities and learning in complex product systems:
Towards repeatable solutions. Research Policy, 29(7-8), 931-953.

Davies, A. & Hobday, M. (2005). The Business of Projects: Managing Innovation in Complex Products
and Systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Davison, H., Watkins, T. & Wright, M. (1989). Developing new personal financial products: Some
evidence of the role of market research. The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 7(1), 8-
15.

Day, G.S. (1992) Marketing’s contribution to strategy dialogue, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 20 (Fall), 323-29.

Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. The Journal of Marketing, 58(4),
37-52.

Day, G. S. (2000). Managing market relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28
(1) (2000), pp. 24–30.

Day, G. S. & Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnosing competitive
superiority. The Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 1-20.

de Brentani, U. & Ragot, E. (1996). Developing New Business-to-Business Professional Services: What
Factors Impact Performance?. Industrial Marketing Management 25, 517–530.

Den Hertog P. (2000). Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation.

International Journal of Innovation Management, 4(4): 491-528.

Edvardsson, B. & Olsson, J. (1996). Key concepts for new service development. Service Industries
Journal, 16(2), 140-164.

Eisenhardt, K. M. & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management
Journal, 21(10/11), 1105-1121.

Gouthier, M. & Schmid, S. (2003). Customers and customer relationships in service firms: The
perspective of the resource-based view. Marketing Theory, 3(1), 119-143.

Grant, R. M. (1991). The Resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy
formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135.

Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as

knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375-387.
 19 
 

Hall, R. (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabilites to sustainable competitive
advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8), 607-618.

Hartman, E., Tower, C. & Sebora, T. (1994). Information sources and their relationship to
organizational innovation in small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 32(1),
37-47.

Hipp, C. & Grupp, H. (2005). Innovation in the Service Sector: The Demand for Service-specific
Innovation Measurement Concepts and Typologies. Research Policy, 34, 517-535.

Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products and
systems?, Research Policy, 29(7-8), 871-893.

Hunt, S.D. & Morgan, R.M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. The Journal of
Marketing, 59(2), 1-15.

Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., Camp, S.M., & Sexton, D.L. (2001). Integrating entrepreneurship and
strategic management action to create firm wealth. Academy of Management Executive,
15(1), 49–63.

Johne, A. & Storey, C. (1998). New service development: A review of the literature and annotated
bibliography. European Journal of Marketing, 32(3/4), 184-251.

Lawson, B. & Samson, D. (2001). Developing innovation capability in organisations: a dynamic

capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), 377-400.

Lumpkin, G.T. & Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it
to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172.

MacCormack, A., Verganti, R. & Iansiti, M. (2001). Developing products on "Internet Time": The
anatomy of a flexible development process. Management Science, 47(1), 133-150.

Marsh, J.S. & Stock, N.G. (2003). Building dynamic capabilities in new product development through
intertemporal integration. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 20, 136-148.

Martin, C.R., Horne, D.A. & Schultz, A.M. (1999). The business-to-business customer in the service
innovation process. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2(2): 55-62.

Martin, C. R., Jr., & Horne, D. A. (1993). Services innovation: Successful versus unsuccessful firms.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 4(1), 49-65.

McGrath, R.G., Tsai, M., Venkataraman, S. & MacMillan, I. (1996). Innovation, Competitive
Advantage and rent: A Model and Test. Management Science 42,389-403.

Melton, H.L. & Hartline, M.D. (2010). Customer and frontline employee influence on new service
development performance. Journal of Service Research, 13(4), 411-425.
 20 
 

Menor, L.J. & Roth, A.V. (2008). New service development competence and performance: An
empirical investigation in retail banking. Production & Operations Management, 17(3), 267-
284.

Mills, P.K. & Morris, J.H. (1986). Clients as "Partial" Employees of service Organizations: Role
Development in Client Participation. Academy of Management Review, 11, 726-735.

Moller, K., Rajala, R., & Westerlund, M. (2008). Service innovation myopia?: A new recipe for client-
provider value creation. California Management Review, 50(3), 32-48.

Moorman, C. & Miner, A.S. (1997). The Impact of Organizational Memory on New Product
Performance and Creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (February), 91-106.

Naman, J.L. & Slevin, D.P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: A model and empirical
tests. Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 137-153.

Narver, J.C. & Slater, S.F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. The
Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20-35.

Nelson, R.R. & Winter, S.G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap
Press/Harvard University Press: Cambridge.

Pennypacker, J.S. & Dye, L.D. (2002). Project portfolio management and managing multiple projects:
Two sides of the same coin?, In J. S. Pennypacker & L. D. Dye (Eds.), Managing multiple
projects, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc., 1-10.

Rae, D. (2000) Understanding entrepreneurial learning: a question of how?. International Journal of

Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 6 (3), 145.

Salunke, S., Weerawardena, J., & McColl‐Kennedy, J.R. (2012). Competing through service innovation:

The role of bricolage and entrepreneurship in project-oriented firms,  Journal  of  Business 
Research, 1‐13. 

Salunke,  S.,  Weerawardena,  J.  &  McColl‐Kennedy,  J  R.,  (2011).  Towards a model of dynamic
capabilities in innovation-based competitive strategy: Insights from project-oriented service
firms, Industrial Marketing Management, 1251‐1263. 

Sarkar, M.B., Echambadi, R.A.J. & Harrison, J.S. (2001). Alliance entrepreneurship and firm market
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 701-712.

Sawhney, M. (2006). Going beyond the product. Defining, designing and delivering customer solutions
in R.F. Lusch, S.L. Vargo (Eds.), The Service-dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate
and Directions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York (2006), 365–380.
 21 
 

Sawhney, M., Wolcott, R.C. & Arroniz, I. (2006). The 12 different ways for companies to Innovate.
Sloan Manage Rev, 47(3), 75-81.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper and Row, New York.

Shah, D., Rust, R.T., Parasuraman, A., Staelin, R. & Day, G.S. (2006). The Path to Customer
Centricity. Journal of Service Research, 9 (2), 113-124.

Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy
of Management Review, 25(1), 217.

Slater, S.F. & Narver, J.C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. The Journal of
Marketing, 59(3), 63-74.

Storbacka, K. (2011). A solution business model: Capabilities and management practices. Industrial
Marketing Management, 40, 699-711.

Storey, C. & Kahn, K.B. (2010). The role of knowledge management strategies and task knowledge in
stimulating service innovation. Journal of Service Research, 13 (4),397-410.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Management Journal (1986-1998), 18(7), 509-533.

Teixeira, D. & Ziskin, J. (1993). Achieving quality with customer in mind. Bankers Magazine, 176(1),
29-35.

von Hippel, E. (1989). New product ideas from 'Lead Users'. Research Technology Management, 32(3),
24-27.

Woodruff (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Society, 25(2), 139-153.

Zahra, S.A., Sapienza, H.J. & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A
review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917-955.