Relationship Management Capability and Service Innovation Performance: The Joint-Effect of Relationship Learning and Competitive Intensity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents the impact of relational management capabilities on enterprises’ service innovation performance, with special consideration for relational learning and competitive intensity. The research organization, methods and findings description are well presented, however, the theoretical part of the paper is too poor and needs some corrections, such as:

 - the literature review is based on the most basic information, mainly the definitions of the terms; I suggest broadening the literature review due to the presentation of the most crucial research findings within the terms considered;

 - competitive intensity area is defined without indication of literature sources and references; please add most important authors and research findings;

- the relation between customers and service innovation city is not introduced in the literature chapter or introduction; please explain them using  the reference:

 Kadłubek, M.; Thalassinos, E.; Domagała, J.; Grabowska, S.; Saniuk, S. Intelligent Transportation System Applications and Logistics Resources for Logistics Customer Service in Road Freight Transport Enterprises. Energies 2022, 15, 4668. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134668

Author Response

Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Relationship Management Capability and Service Innovation Performance：The Joint-Effect of Relationship Learning and Competitive Intensity” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-1878941). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in revised paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to your comments are as follows:

Point 1: The paper presents the impact of relational management capabilities on enterprises’ service innovation performance, with special consideration for relational learning and competitive intensity. The research organization, methods and findings description are well presented,

RESPONSE 1: Thank you for your comments.

 

Point 2: however, the theoretical part of the paper is too poor and needs some corrections, such as: the literature review is based on the most basic information, mainly the definitions of the terms; I suggest broadening the literature review due to the presentation of the most crucial research findings within the terms considered.

RESPONSE 2: We have rewrite and reorganized the literature review part. Crucial research findings are added to literature review part (section 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4). The detailed content is also copied as below.

(Revised content in section 2.1: line 121-182)

“2.1. Service innovation and its performance

Service innovation is the process by means of which the firm improves service quality and creates new market value by changing service elements, reforming the service system, or applying the service plan formulated for specific customers to general customers [23]. Although, service innovation is clearly distinguished from technological innovation and product innovation, it occurs in both manufacturing and service industries and can be radical, and very often, incremental [24]. Scholars define service innovation from the perspective of its characteristics and value. Service innovation from the perspective of value is defined as a kind of enterprise that uses new ideas, new concepts or new technologies to improve and change service processes and service products in order to meet the diversification of customer needs, thereby improving the quality of products and services [25]. A value improvement process, which creates value for customers, employees, businesses, alliance partners and communities [26,27]. The service innovation from the characteristic perspective is defined by scholars according to the essence of service innovation. For example, Den Hertog [25] defines service innovation as a broad-based innovative behavior and process that includes four dimensions: service concept, relationship between service providers and users, service delivery system, and technological change. Therefore, service innovation no longer refers only to innovation in the service industry, but covers innovative behaviors and processes including service concept, service provider and user relationship, service delivery system, and technological change [28].

Service innovation performance is an important part of service innovation. However, evaluating the innovation performance of service enterprises is more difficult than evaluating the performance of traditional tangible products [29]. As service is intangible, indivisible between production and consumption, heterogeneous and fugitive [30], measurement of service innovation performance is not easy. Some scholars divide service innovation performance into process performance and result performance from the perspective of innovation process and effect. In addition to cost, Voss et al. [31] emphasize the effectiveness and speed of service innovation, while Hsueh et al. [32] more emphasis on the optimization and efficiency of service innovation process. While there are also some scholars divide service innovation performance into financial performance and non-financial performance from the economic and non-economic benefits brought by service innovation [9,24,33,34], the former includes whether the new service is profitable, whether it has achieved the expected market share and profit goals; the non-financial performance mainly covers customer satisfaction, product or service quality, and strategic goals. Torey and Kelly [35] proposed to study innovation performance from three aspects: financial index, customer index and enterprise internal index [10] from the number of new product developments and the ratio of new products to total sales [4] to measure service innovation performance. So far, there is no unified standard for the measurement of service innovation performance in academia.

At present, the academic circles have a certain foundation in the research on the influencing factors of service innovation performance. From the observation of internal factors, specialized innovation R&D departments at the organizational level can promote the generation of service innovation performance Blindenbachdriessen [3,36]. The strategic orientation (customer orientation and competition orientation) of an enterprise can also significantly affect service innovation performance [34]. According to the service-dominant logic [8], the knowledge and ability within the organization are the fundamental source of the performance of enterprise service innovation. Empirical research shows that market capital, service delivery capital, interactive capital and learning capital, as operational resources of enterprises, all have significant effects on service innovation performance [37]. It is also found that enterprises' acquisition of external knowledge through network capabilities affects the generation of service innovation performance [38]. From the perspective of external factors, external knowledge and knowledge networks, value co-creation between customers and partners, and the competitive environment can promote service innovation. Kang [10] found that different knowledge acquisition methods adopted by organizations have different effects on service innovation [9]. Li and Liu [39] proposed through empirical research data on large enterprises in Taiwan that the feedback and support of customers and partners can promote the service innovation behavior of enterprises. Ramendra and Dena [34] believe that the fierce competition environment will make enterprises pay more attention to the needs of customers, and then develop innovative service products to maintain a leading position.”

(Revised content in Section 2.2: line 208-253)

“At present, scholars are most concerned about supply chain relationship management and customer relationship management. Based on a supply chain relationship management perspective, Forkmann [44] conceptualized relationship management capabilities as the unique capabilities of organizational processes and practices developed and implemented by companies, including the development of relationships, the development of relationships, and the termination of relationships with suppliers. With a good relationship network, enterprises can obtain relevant resources (experience, knowledge and skills, etc.) from the relationship to improve enterprise performance [44]. Based on the perspective of customer relationship management, Battor [45] proposed that based on the perspective of customer relationship management, relationship management capability is a valuable and difficult to imitate resource that can bring outstanding value to enterprises.

Due to different research focuses, scholars have different views on the dimensional division of relationship management capabilities. Some scholars believe that relationship management ability is a comprehensive ability, so they think it should be measured from multiple dimensions. For example, Lintukangas [46] proposed that relationship management capability is an extremely complex capability, which should be comprehensively evaluated from five dimensions: relationship operation, trust, commitment, communication and ethics. When Battor [45] studied customer relationship management, starting from the characteristics of relationship management, relationship management capabilities were divided into three dimensions: relationship orientation, configuration and customer information. Moshtari [47] believes that relationship management ability includes three elements: coordination ability, communication ability and bonding ability. Although some scholars measure relationship management ability as a single dimension, the scale reflects all aspects of relationship management ability. Scholars such as Moller and Halinen [48] and Forkmann et al. [44] believe that relationship management capability is "the ability of an organization to create, manage and terminate cooperative transaction relationships", and measure it as a single dimension, including relationships Initiation ability, relationship development ability and relationship termination ability.

RMC is an ability to handle and coordinate direct or indirect partners in external network relationships [47], which is affected by many factors. The internal factors of the organization, such as the open culture, makes the enterprise have the cultural heritage of outward relationship building [49]. At the same time, a good RMC also requires the cooperation and support of senior managers, and more importantly, border employees have the willingness and ability to establish and maintain satisfactory relationships [50]. Akgun et al. [51] found through empirical research that the organizational learning ability of enterprises can also affect the formation of relationship management ability.

RMC determines the network location and resource acquisition of a firm and has an essential impact on the practice and performance of firms’ service innovation [49]. Service innovation aims to provide customers with new solutions, service processes, and enhances the customer experience, so considerable resources related to customer preferences and demands is required. At the same time, in order to prevent imitation or duplication, it is necessary for firms to promote service innovation continuously [53]. By using external resources effectively in service innovation practice, firms achieve excellent service innovation performance and obtain competitive advantages.”

(Revised content in Section 2.3: line 273-287)

“Existing studies have found that relationship learning has a positive impact on enterprise performance, innovation performance and innovation ability. Selnes and Sallis [56] found that relationship learning can promote the relationship performance among channel members when studying the relationship between suppliers and customers, and the promotion effect can be strengthened by trust. Yiu [57] examine the effects of service-dominant orientation (SDO), knowledge sharing, and external network on innovation performance, and found that relationship learning mediates the relationships of SDO to innovation performance, knowledge sharing to innovation performance, and external network to innovation performance. Chen et al. [58] revealed through empirical research on Taiwanese manufacturing enterprises that relationship learning can enhance the competitive advantage of cooperation by promoting the innovation ability of enterprises. Cheung [59] found that relationship learning between suppliers and customers can positively affect relationship value through the analysis of buyer and seller data of cross-border product surveys, and the stronger the environmental uncertainty and environmental complexity, the more effective relationship learning is, the stronger the promotion of relational value.”

(Revised content in Section 2.4: line 304-329)

“Competitive intensity is defined as the degree of competition that a firm confronts, which has been purported to moderate the influence of firms capabilities or joint activities between partners on firm performance. On the one hand, the intensity of competition has a direct impact on a firm's behavior and its performance. Tang [58] found different conclusions in the research, and divided the competition intensity into four dimensions: the difficulty of product substitution, the speed of the emergence of new competitive products, the speed of product elimination, and the speed of product technological change. The degree of ease of production has a negative impact on the product innovation output and process innovation output of the enterprise. On the other hand, competition intensity can moderate the relationship between firm behavior and firm performance. Tsai [62] found The results reveal that the effect of firm innovativeness on business performance varies across the different configurations of market turbulence and competitive intensity. Hou [63] also empirically confirmed that competition intensity plays a moderation role between the entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance.

The competitive environment is the driving force and opportunity for the development of enterprises. However, there is no unified conclusion in the academic circles on how to measure the intensity of competition. Jaworski and Kohli [64] were the first to put forward the measurement method of competition intensity, and the study formulated six measurement items from four aspects: overall competition, competitor behavior, competitor resources and competitor capability: “The competition in our industry is Violent", "There are often promotional wars in our industry", "All products offered by competitors can be quickly imitated by other businesses", "Price competition is the hallmark of our industry", "New competitors often enter" and "We Competitors are relatively weaker” and later studies were mostly adjusted based on the research of it [64].”

(Additional references)

“25.Den Hertog P, Van der Aa W, de Jong M W., Capabilities for managing service innovation: towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Service Management 2010, 21, (4), 490-514.

26.Yen H R., Quantifying the degree of research collaboration: A comparative study of collaborative measures. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6, (1), 27-33.

27.Kim H, Hong J, Park Y U, et al., Sodium Storage Behavior in Natural Graphite using Ether‐based Electrolyte Systems. Advanced Functional Materials 2015, 25, (4), 534-541.

31.Voss C A., Measurement of innovation and Design Performance in Service. Design Management Journal(Former Series) 1992, 3, (1), 40-46.

32.Hsueh J T, Lin N P, Li H C., The effects of network embeddedness on service innovation performance. The Service Industries Journal 2010, 30,(10), 1723-1736.

34.Ramendra T, Dena H., Service innovation: A comparative study of U.S. and Indian service firms. Journal of Business Research, 2013, 66, (8), 1108-1123.

35.Storey C, Kelly D., Measuring the performance of new service development activities. The Service Industries Journal 2001, 21, (2), 71-90.

36.Blindenbachdriessen F., The Locus of Innovation: The Effect of a Separate Innovation Unit on Exploration, Exploitation, and Ambidexterity in Manufacturing and Service Firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2014, 31, (5), 1089–1105.

37.Cheng C C J, Krumwiede D., What makes a manufacturing firm effective for service innovation? The role of intangible capital under strategic and environmental conditions. International Journal of Production Economics 2017, 193, 113-122.

39. LiY Q , Liu C H.,The power of coworkers in service innovation: the moderating role of social interaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2017, 1-21.

44.Forkmann S, Henneberg S C, Naudé, Peter, et al., Supplier relationship management capability: a qualification and extension. Industrial Marketing Management 2016, 57, 185-200.

45.Battor M., The impact of customer relationship management capability on innovation and performance advantages: testing a mediated model. Journal of Marketing Management 2010, 26, (9-10), 842-857.

46.Lintukangas K., Supplier relationship management capability in global supply management. International Journal of Procurement Management 2011, 4, (1), 1-19.

47.Moshtari M., Inter-Organizational Fit, Relationship Management Capability, and Collaborative Performance within a Humanitarian Setting.  Production & Operations Management 2016, 25,(9), 1542-1557.

48.Moller K K, Halinen A., Business relationships and networks: managerial challenge of network era. Industrial Marketing Management 1999, 6, (28), 413-427.

49.Ritter, T & Gemunden, H G., Network competence: its impact on innovation success and its antecedents. Journal of Business Research 2003, 56, (9), 745-755.

50.Wittmann C M, Hunt S D, Arnett D B., Explaining alliance success: Competences, resources, relational factors and resource-advantage theory. Industrial Marketing Management 2009, 38, (7), 743-756.

51.Akgün, Ali Ekber, et al., Bridging organizational learning capability and firm performance through customer relationship management. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2014, 150, 531-540.

52.Pan, Xiongfeng, et al., Innovation network, technological learning and innovation performance of high-tech cluster enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management 2018, 23, (9 ), 1729-1746.

53.Omidi, Fereydoon, Adibeh Jorfi, and Fakhri Jorfi., Study of the relationship between entrepreneurial services and competitive benefits of the staff of Ahwaz University of Medical Sciences with the mediator role of interactive and supportive innovation, European Journal of Management and Marketing Studies 2018, 3(2),109-124.

56.Selnes F, Sallis J., Promoting Relationship Learning. Journal of Marketing 2003, 67, (3), 80-95.

57.Yiu, H. L., Eric WT Ngai, and Chun Fong Lei., Impact of service‐dominant orientation on the innovation performance of technology firms: Roles of knowledge sharing and relationship learning. Decision Sciences 2020, 51, (3), 620-654.

58.Chen, Yu-Shan, Ming-Ji James Lin, and Ching-Hsun Chang., The positive effects of relationship learning and absorptive capacity on innovation performance and competitive advantage in industrial markets. Industrial marketing management 2009, 38, (2), 152-158.

59.Cheung M S , Myers M B , Mentzer J T., Does relationship learning lead to relationship value? A cross-national supply chain investigation. Journal of Operations Management 2010, 28, (6), 472-487.

61.Tang J., Competition and innovation behaviour. Research Policy 2006, 35, (1), 68-82. 

62.Kuen-Hung Tsai, Shu-Yi Yang, Firm innovativeness and business performance: The joint moderating effects of market turbulence and competition, Industrial Marketing Management 2014, 42, (8), 1279-1294,

63.Hou, Bojun, Jin Hong, and Ruonan Zhu., Exploration/exploitation innovation and firm performance: the mediation of entrepreneurial orientation and moderation of competitive intensity. Journal of Asia business studies 2019,13, (4), 489-506.

64.Jaworski, B. J.; Kohli, A. K., Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Marketing 1993, 57, (3), 53-70.”

 

Point 3: competitive intensity area is defined without indication of literature sources and references; please add most important authors and research findings.

RESPONSE 3: Literature sources and references are added in competitive intensity area (line 304 - 329). The detailed content is also copied as below.

“Competitive intensity is defined as the degree of competition that a firm confronts, which has been purported to moderate the influence of firms capabilities or joint activities between partners on firm performance. On the one hand, the intensity of competition has a direct impact on a firm's behavior and its performance. Tang [58] found different conclusions in the research, and divided the competition intensity into four dimensions: the difficulty of product substitution, the speed of the emergence of new competitive products, the speed of product elimination, and the speed of product technological change. The degree of ease of production has a negative impact on the product innovation output and process innovation output of the enterprise. On the other hand, competition intensity can moderate the relationship between firm behavior and firm performance. Tsai [62] found The results reveal that the effect of firm innovativeness on business performance varies across the different configurations of market turbulence and competitive intensity. Hou [63] also empirically confirmed that competition intensity plays a moderation role between the entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance.

The competitive environment is the driving force and opportunity for the development of enterprises. However, there is no unified conclusion in the academic circles on how to measure the intensity of competition. Jaworski and Kohli [64] were the first to put forward the measurement method of competition intensity, and the study formulated six measurement items from four aspects: overall competition, competitor behavior, competitor resources and competitor capability: “The competition in our industry is Violent", "There are often promotional wars in our industry", "All products offered by competitors can be quickly imitated by other businesses", "Price competition is the hallmark of our industry", "New competitors often enter" and "We Competitors are relatively weaker” and later studies were mostly adjusted based on the research of it [64].”

(Additional references)

“58.Chen, Yu-Shan, Ming-Ji James Lin, and Ching-Hsun Chang., The positive effects of relationship learning and absorptive capacity on innovation performance and competitive advantage in industrial markets. Industrial marketing management 2009, 38, (2), 152-158.

59.Cheung M S , Myers M B , Mentzer J T., Does relationship learning lead to relationship value? A cross-national supply chain investigation. Journal of Operations Management 2010, 28, (6), 472-487.

61.Tang J., Competition and innovation behaviour. Research Policy 2006, 35, (1), 68-82. 

62.Kuen-Hung Tsai, Shu-Yi Yang, Firm innovativeness and business performance: The joint moderating effects of market turbulence and competition, Industrial Marketing Management 2014, 42, (8), 1279-1294,

63.Hou, Bojun, Jin Hong, and Ruonan Zhu., Exploration/exploitation innovation and firm performance: the mediation of entrepreneurial orientation and moderation of competitive intensity. Journal of Asia business studies 2019,13, (4), 489-506.

64.Jaworski, B. J.; Kohli, A. K., Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Marketing 1993, 57, (3), 53-70.”

 

Point 4: the relation between customers and service innovation city is not introduced in the literature chapter or introduction; please explain them using the reference:

Kadłubek, M.; Thalassinos, E.; Domagała, J.; Grabowska, S.; Saniuk, S. Intelligent Transportation System Applications and Logistics Resources for Logistics Customer Service in Road Freight Transport Enterprises. Energies 2022, 15, 4668. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134668.

RESPONSE 4: The relation between customers and service innovation city is introduced in the introduction part with the reference (content on line 33-38, and references [5]). The detailed content is also copied as below.

“In the current era of service-centered economies, the service innovation of enterprises plays a vital role in the improvement of service economy, which can also drive a lot of cities’ transformation from traditional city to innovation city. Obviously, an innovative city is an important way to build the sustainable development of economy and society [3,4], which will be beneficial to citizens in the innovative cities, including customers, retailers, suppliers and so on[5]. “

(Additional references)

“5.Kadłubek, Marta, et al., Intelligent transportation system applications and logistics resources for logistics customer service in road freight transport enterprises, Energies 2022, 15, (13), 4668. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We appreciate for your warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

With all best wishes

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Innovation learning is a very important aspect of any relationship management, especially to meet the complex and challenging needs of customers, also due to AI-driven interoperable competitive intensity in the market.

The authors put effort and have done good job in preparing the manuscript and expand the existing literature on innovation performance in services.

For the improvement of the manuscript I have some suggestions:

-        - The hypothetical model in Figure 1 (as a theoretical framework) must be extended to include control variables too, as these are important and crucial inputs to the model!

-        - 4. research method: first explain what type of approach (qualitative, quantitative, mixed...) was used and what type of study was conducted (empirical, cross-sectional, action research...) ...

-        - "Questionnaire approach" (line 355) is not an approach, but a method...

-        - Was an interview or survey also conducted? How was the data collected, through questionnaires or through recorded responses during the interview? Please clarify...

-        - Measurement development: there are several scales, please specify the type of scale for each one, and what is the range for the rating? Is it a Likert scale? Ordinal, categorical, interval...? how many points on it...

-        - Line 441: no indication of discriminant validity! There is only convergent validity as part of construct validity... please give evidence for discriminant validity too!

- Line 444, Table 4 needs to be revised, especially the diagonal values and significance level? What correlation test was used, according data distribution?

- Indicate and run some normality tests (K-S or S-W) before reporting the results, indicating further use of the methods ...

- In Table 4 below, in addition to M and SD, give the measures of skewness and kurtosis with their standard error ...

- Since there are multiple variables in the model, how was multicollinearity checked? Prove this with a test... a variance inflation factor!

- What assumptions were met before hierarchical regression was performed? Was normality of the residuals, multicollinearity, homoskedasticity... were the independent variables uncorrelated with the error term?

- In the "Limitations" section:   discuss also the shortcomings of the method used, hierarchical regression, since the dependent variable was, I assume, not continuous?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

As one of the reviewers I read your manuscript carefully. I found out it is a well-conducted research with no major flaw. I only left two comments on your work: in introduction:

1. The sentences related to the paragraph I mentioned in the file are in such a way that they need to refer to the reference. Mentioning the reference deepens the theoretical richness of the research.

2. The writing of the introduction text isn't coherence. Despite the fact that the first two paragraphs complement each other well and the sentences of the two are properly arranged together, but after that, the logical narrative course of the text is abandoned. The authors have tried to raise the issue around their intended concepts, but this issue has led to the neglect of the coherence of the introduction. Therefore, it is necessary to rewrite the introduction. so that the previous paragraph is the introduction of the next paragraph and the second paragraph is the result of the first paragraph.

I have no special comment on the rest of your work. If there is any revision I will be ready to review. otherwise I recommend the editor to publish it.

Best of luck

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for the opportunity to read your article, which is well written. Therefore, I do not have so many comments. Rather, I have recommendations for some improvements. 

First, it would be better to separate results section as a new Section. 

Next, for managerial implications, I would appreciate it if the authors expanded this section while supporting their arguments as well as references to other studies and their implications.

The same is true for the last sub-section concerning limitations and future research - this part is also important for reader and could guide/inspire other authors.

Even though the paper is well written, I have one doubt. This journal is called Sustainability. I would therefore expect that even in this paper there will be a certain reference to the issue of sustainability and at the same time the importance of this topic for sustainability and the environment will be taken into account more.

Authors could consider including, for example, the following studies that also dealt with issues of innovation and sustainability, among others.

Hojnik, J., Prokop, V., & Stejskal, J. (2022). R&D as bridge to sustainable development? Case of Czech Republic and Slovenia. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(1), 146–160.

Prokop, V., Gerstlberger, W., Zapletal, D., & Striteska, M. K. (2022). The double-edged role of firm environmental behaviour in the creation of product innovation in Central and Eastern European countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 331, 129989.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I confirm I believe the manuscript has been
sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Sustainability. Congratulations for the Authors!

Author Response

We really appreciate all the valuable and helpful comments from you, which do help us a lot for further improving our paper.

Thanks again.

King Regards
Authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

Here are some minor issues:

Line 572: …”the research method of Bagozzi and Yi [82]”. Check the reference 82 : it relates to Bagozzi, R. P.; Fornell, C.; Larcker, D. F. (1981),  -> see Bagozzi et al.

 line 590: p. 14: Table 4. In the "Notes" section, the authors state that: “The value in parentheses on the diagonal is the square root of the average variation extraction (AVE).”  I cannot see any brackets in the diagonal of the table 4. As it is, it now appears as an AVE value. To confirm your statements, just do a calculation and put the square root AVE in the diagonal, e.g. Service Innovation Performance AVE =0.696, the square root of AVE is (0.834)…

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf