Unravelling the Potential of Digital Servitization in Sustainability-Oriented Organizational Performance—Does Digital Leadership Make It Different?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Research Motivation
1.2. Research Questions
- RQ1. What is the impact of DS on SOOP?
- RQ2. Does SSSIE mediate the interconnection between DS and SOOP?
- RQ3. Does DL act as a moderator of the interconnections between DS, SOOP, and SSSIE?
1.3. Research Structure
2. Literature Review
2.1. Theorical Background
2.2. Conceptual Framework
3. Hypothesis Formulation
4. Methodological Features
4.1. Construct Domains Determination and Scale Items Generation
4.2. Sample and Data Collection
5. Research Analysis Exposition
5.1. The Outer Model Extrapolation
5.2. Fitting the Proffered Model
5.3. The Inner Model Exploration
6. Final Remarks
6.1. Implications
6.2. Limitations and Future Scopes
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Adam, Everett Adam, Jr. 1994. Alternative quality improvement practices and organization performance. Journal of Operations Management 12: 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adner, Ron. 2006. Match Your Innovation Strategy to Your Innovation Ecosystem. Harvard Business Review 84: 98–107. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Adner, Ron. 2016. Ecosystem as Structure. Journal of Management 43: 39–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adner, Ron, and Rahul Kapoor. 2010. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal 31: 306–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alaimo, Cristina, Jannis Kallinikos, and Erika Valderrama. 2020. Platforms as service ecosystems: Lessons from social media. Journal of Information Technology 35: 25–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alderson, Wroe. 1957. Marketing Behavior and Executive Action: A Functionalist Approach to Marketing Theory. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. [Google Scholar]
- Alderson, Wroe. 1965. Dynamic Marketing Behavior: A Functionalist Theory of Marketing. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Samman, Eyad, and Murad Mohammed Al-Nashmi. 2016. Effect of corporate social responsibility on nonfinancial organizational performance: Evidence from Yemeni for-profit public and private enterprises. Social Responsibility Journal 12: 247–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, James, and David Gerbing. 1988. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin 103: 411–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andres, Lesley. 2012. Designing and Doing Surveys. London: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Arbuckle, James. 2003. AMOS 5.0: Update to the AMOS User’s Guide. Chicago: Smallwaters Corporation. [Google Scholar]
- Ardolino, Marco, Mario Rapaccini, Nicola Saccani, Paolo Gaiardelli, Giovanni Crespi, and Carlo Ruggeri. 2017. The role of digital technologies for the service transformation of industrial companies. International Journal of Production Research 56: 2116–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Autio, Erkko, and Llewellyn D. W. Thomas. 2014. Innovation ecosystems: Implications for innovation management. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management. Edited by Mark Dodgson, David Gann and Nelson Phillips. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 204–28. [Google Scholar]
- Avolio, Bruce, Surinder Kahai, and George Dodge. 2000. E-leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 11: 615–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basiago, Andrew. 1999. Economic, Social, and Environmental Sustainability in Development Theory and Urban Planning Practice: The Environmentalist. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar]
- Bekkers, Victor. 2007. Modernization, public innovation and information and communication technologies: The emperor’s new clothes? Information Polity 12: 103–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogers, Marcel, Henry Chesbrough, and Carlos Moedas. 2018. Open Innovation: Research, Practices, and Policies. California Management Review 60: 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bustinza, Oscar, Marco Opazo-Basáez, and Shlomo Tarba. 2021. Exploring the interplay between Smart Manufacturing and KIBS firms in configuring product-service innovation performance. Technovation, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, Yuzhuo, Jinyuan Ma, and Qiongqiong Chen. 2020. Higher Education in Innovation Ecosystems. Sustainability 12: 4376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carayannis, Elias, and Ruslan Rakhmatullin. 2014. The Quadruple/Quintuple Innovation Helixes and Smart Specialisation Strategies for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in Europe and Beyond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 5: 212–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carayannis, Elias, Evangelos Grigoroudis, David Campbell, Dirk Meissner, and Dimitra Stamati. 2017. The ecosystem as helix: An exploratory theory-building study of regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation Models. R&D Management 48: 148–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Ching-Fu. 2008. Investigating structural relationships between service quality, perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions for air passengers: Evidence from Taiwan. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42: 709–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Jennifer, Dennis Patten, and Robin Roberts. 2007. Corporate Charitable Contributions: A Corporate Social Performance or Legitimacy Strategy? Journal of Business Ethics 82: 131–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Jian, Xielin Liu, and Yimei Hu. 2016. Establishing a CoPs-based innovation ecosystem to enhance competence—The case of CGN in China. International Journal of Technology Management 72: 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cherrington, David. 1989. Organizational Behavior: The Management of Individual and Organizational Performance. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
- Cheung, Gordon, and Rebecca Lau. 2007. Testing Mediation and Suppression Effects of Latent Variables. Organizational Research Methods 11: 296–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, Tom, and Per Lægreid. 2007. The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review 67: 1059–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Churchill, Gilbert. 1979. A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16: 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colovic, Ana. 2021. Leadership and business model innovation in late internationalizing SMEs. Long Range Planning 55: 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conner, Kathleen. 1991. A Historical Comparison of Resource-Based Theory and Five Schools of Thought Within Industrial Organization Economics: Do We Have a New Theory of the Firm? Journal of Management 17: 121–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coreynen, Wim, Paul Matthyssens, and Wouter Van Bockhaven. 2017. Boosting servitization through digitization: Pathways and dynamic resource configurations for manufacturers. Industrial Marketing Management 60: 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coreynen, Wim, Paul Matthyssens, Johanna Vanderstraeten, and Arjen van Witteloostuijn. 2020. Unravelling the internal and external drivers of digital servitization: A dynamic capabilities and contingency perspective on firm strategy. Industrial Marketing Management 89: 265–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyer, Jeffrey, and Harbir Singh. 1998. The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage. The Academy of Management Review 23: 660–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Esty, Daniel, and Michael Porter. 1998. Industrial Ecology and Competitiveness. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2: 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fliess, Sabine, and Eva Lexutt. 2017. How to be successful with servitization—Guidelines for research and management. Industrial Marketing Management, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, Claes, and David Larcker. 1981. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredette, Christopher, and Patricia Bradshaw. 2012. Social capital and nonprofit governance effectiveness. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 22: 391–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fukuda, Kayano, and Chihiro Watanabe. 2008. Japanese and US perspectives on the National Innovation Ecosystem. Technology in Society 30: 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furr, Nathan, and Andrew Shipilov. 2019. Digital doesn’t have to be disruptive. Harvard Business Review 97: 94–103. [Google Scholar]
- Furrer, Olivier, Howard Thomas, and Anna Goussevskaia. 2008. The structure and evolution of the strategic management field: A content analysis of 26 years of strategic management research. International Journal of Management Reviews 10: 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gawer, Annabelle, and Michael Cusumano. 2014. Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 31: 417–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gebauer, Heiko, Anders Gustafsson, and Lars Witell. 2011. Competitive advantage through service differentiation by manufacturing companies. Journal of Business Research 64: 1270–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gebauer, Heiko, Marco Paiola, Nicola Saccani, and Mario Rapaccini. 2020. Digital servitization: Crossing the perspectives of digitization and servitization. Industrial Marketing Management 93: 382–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Georgopoulos, Basil, and Arnold Tannenbaum. 1957. A Study of Organizational Effectiveness. American Sociological Review 22: 534–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gill, Mel, Robert Flynn, and Elke Reissing. 2005. The governance self-assessment checklist: An instrument for assessing board effectiveness. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 15: 271–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gioia, Dennis, and Kumar Chittipeddi. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal 12: 433–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomes, Leonardo Augusto de Vasconcelos, Ana Lucia Figueiredo Facin, Mario Sergio Salerno, and Rodrigo Kazuo Ikenami. 2016. Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 136: 30–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graafland, Johan, Sylvester Eijffinger, and H. SmidJohan. 2004. Benchmarking of Corporate Social Responsibility: Methodological Problems and Robustness. Journal of Business Ethics 53: 137–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gupta, Vipin, Ian MacMillan, and Gita Surie. 2004. Entrepreneurial leadership: Developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. Journal of Business Venturing 19: 241–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, Joe F., Christian Ringle, Siggi Siegfried Gudergan, Andreas Fischer, Christian Nitzl, and Con Menictas. 2018. Partial least squares structural equation modeling-based discrete choice modeling: An illustration in modeling retailer choice. Business Research 12: 115–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hair, Joe F., Marko Sarstedt, Lucas Hopkins, and Volker Kuppelwieser. 2014. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Business Review 26: 106–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hallstedt, Sophie, Ola Isaksson, and Anna Öhrwall Rönnbäck. 2020. The Need for New Product Development Capabilities from Digitalization, Sustainability, and Servitization Trends. Sustainability 12: 10222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helfat, Constance, and Margaret Peteraf. 2014. Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 36: 831–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helm, Scott, and Fredrik Andersson. 2010. Beyond taxonomy. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 20: 259–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, Jörg, Christian Ringle, and Rudolf Sinkovics. 2009. Advances in International Marketing. Advances in International Marketing 20: 277–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Herman, Robert, and David Renz. 2004. Doing Things Right: Effectiveness in Local Nonprofit Organizations, A Panel Study. Public Administration Review 64: 694–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrmann, Pol, and Sucheta Nadkarni. 2013. Managing strategic change: The duality of CEO personality. Strategic Management Journal 35: 1318–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hess, Thomas, Christian Matt, Alexander Benlian, and Florian Wiesböck. 2016. Options for Formulating a Digital Transformation Strategy. MIS Quarterly Executive 15: 103–19. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Xiaobei Beryl, and Luke Watson. 2015. Corporate social responsibility research in accounting. Journal of Accounting Literature 34: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huikkola, Tuomas, Rodrigo Rabetino, Marko Kohtamäki, and Heiko Gebauer. 2020. Firm boundaries in servitization: Interplay and repositioning practices. Industrial Marketing Management 90: 90–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Humbeck, Philipp, Kathrin Pfähler, Marc Wiedenmann, and Georg Herzwurm. 2019. The Impact of Servitization and Digital Transformation—A Conceptual Extension of the IPOO-Framework. Procedia CIRP 81: 914–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunt, Shelby, and Donna Davis. 2008. Grounding supply chain management in resource-advantage theory. The Journal of Supply Chain Management 44: 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iansiti, Marco, and Roy Levien. 2004. The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. [Google Scholar]
- Jacobides, Michael, Carmelo Cennamo, and Annabelle Gawer. 2018. Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal 39: 2255–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jovanovic, Marin, David Sjödin, and Vinit Parida. 2021. Co-evolution of platform architecture, platform services, and platform governance: Expanding the platform value of industrial digital platforms. Technovation, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jovanovic, Marin, Jawwad Raja, Ivanka Visnjic, and Frank Wiengarten. 2019. Paths to service capability development for servitization: Examining an internal service ecosystem. Journal of Business Research 104: 472–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamalaldin, Anmar, David Sjödin, Dusana Hullova, and Vinit Parida. 2021. Configuring ecosystem strategies for digitally enabled process innovation: A framework for equipment suppliers in the process industries. Technovation 105: 102250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khanra, Sayantan, Amandeep Dhir, Vinit Parida, and Marko Kohtamäki. 2021. Servitization research: A review and bibliometric analysis of past achievements and future promises. Journal of Business Research 131: 151–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kharlamov, Alexander, and Glenn Parry. 2020. The impact of servitization and digitization on productivity and profitability of the firm: A systematic approach. Production Planning & Control 32: 185–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, Heinz, and Michael Myers. 1999. A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly 23: 67–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohtamäki, Marko, Jukka Partanen, Vinit Parida, and Joakim Wincent. 2013. Non-linear relationship between industrial service offering and sales growth: The moderating role of network capabilities. Industrial Marketing Management 42: 1374–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kohtamäki, Marko, Rodrigo Rabetino, Suvi Einola, Vinit Parida, and Pankaj Patel. 2021. Unfolding the digital servitization path from products to product-service-software systems: Practicing change through intentional narratives. Journal of Business Research 137: 379–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohtamäki, Marko, Rodrigo Rabetino, Vinit Parida, David Sjödin, and Stephan Henneberg. 2022. Managing digital servitization toward smart solutions: Framing the connections between technologies, business models, and ecosystems. Industrial Marketing Management 105: 253–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohtamäki, Marko, Vinit Parida, Pankaj Patel, and Heiko Gebauer. 2020. The relationship between digitalization and servitization: The role of servitization in capturing the financial potential of digitalization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 151: 119804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohtamäki, Marko, Vinit Parida, Pejvak Oghazi, Heiko Gebauer, and Tim Baines. 2019. Digital servitization business models in ecosystems: A theory of the firm. Journal of Business Research 104: 380–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kortmann, Sebastian. 2014. The Mediating Role of Strategic Orientations on the Relationship between Ambidexterity-Oriented Decisions and Innovative Ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management 32: 666–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowalkowski, Christian, Heiko Gebauer, and Rogelio Oliva. 2017. Service growth in product firms: Past, present, and future. Industrial Marketing Management 60: 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuliga, Saskia, Benjamin Nelligan, Ruth Dalton, Steven Marchette, Amy Shelton, Laura Carlson, and Christoph Hölscher. 2019. Exploring individual differences and building complexity in wayfinding: The case of the seattle central library. Environment and Behaviour 51: 622–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kummitha, Rama Krishna Reddy. 2018. Entrepreneurial urbanism and technological panacea: Why Smart City planning needs to go beyond corporate visioning? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 137: 330–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lavie, Dovev. 2006. The Competitive Advantage of Interconnected Firms: An Extension of the Resource-Based View. Academy of Management Review 31: 638–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lerch, Christian, and Matthias Gotsch. 2015. Digitalized Product-Service Systems in Manufacturing Firms: A Case Study Analysis. Research-Technology Management 58: 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Feng. 2018. The digital transformation of business models in the creative industries: A holistic framework and emerging trends. Technovation 92–93: 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Jiatao, and Donald Hambrick. 2005. Factional Groups: A New Vantage on Demographic Faultlines, Conflict, and Disintegration in Work Teams. Academy of Management Journal 48: 794–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lichtenstein, Paul, Tom Fuhremann, and Ken Schulz. 1974. Translocation and metabolism of carbon-14-labeled phorate as affected by percolating water in a model soil-plant ecosystem. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 22: 991–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Linde, Lina, Johan Frishammar, and Vinit Parida. 2021. Revenue Models for Digital Servitization: A Value Capture Framework for Designing, Developing, and Scaling Digital Services. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marić, Josip, and Marco Opazo-Basáez. 2019. Green Servitization for Flexible and Sustainable Supply Chain Operations: A Review of Reverse Logistics Services in Manufacturing. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 20: 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, Jeffrey. 2011. Dynamic Managerial Capabilities and the Multibusiness Team: The Role of Episodic Teams in Executive Leadership Groups. Organization Science 22: 118–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, Scott, Hui Liao, and Elizabeth Campbell. 2013. Directive versus Empowering Leadership: A Field Experiment Comparing Impacts on Task Proficiency and Proactivity. Academy of Management Journal 56: 1372–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez León, Hilda C., and Javier Calvo-Amodio. 2017. Towards lean for sustainability: Understanding the interrelationships between lean and sustainability from a system thinking perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 142: 4384–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín-Peña, María-Luz, José-María Sánchez-López, and Eloísa Díaz-Garrido. 2019. Servitization and digitalization in manufacturing: The influence on firm performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 35: 564–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matt, Christian, Thomas Hess, and Alexander Benlian. 2015. Digital Transformation Strategies. Business & Information Systems Engineering 57: 339–43. [Google Scholar]
- Mensah, Justice, and Francis Enu-Kwesi. 2018. Implication of environmental sanitation management in the catchment area of Benya Lagoon, Ghana. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 16: 23–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mishra, Supriti, and Damodar Suar. 2010. Does Corporate Social Responsibility Influence Firm Performance of Indian Companies? Journal of Business Ethics 95: 571–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, James. 1993. Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition. Harvard Business Review 71: 75–86. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Naik, Parikshit, Andreas Schroeder, Kawaljeet Kaur Kapoor, Ali Ziaee Bigdeli, and Tim Baines. 2020. Behind the scenes of digital servitization: Actualising IoT-enabled affordances. Industrial Marketing Management 89: 232–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neal, Zachary, Jennifer Watling Neal, and Amelia Piteo. 2020. Call Me Maybe: Using Incentives and Follow-Ups to Increase Principals’ Survey Response Rates. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 13: 784–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ness, David, John Swift, Damith Ranasinghe, Ke Xing, and Veronica Soebarto. 2015. Smart steel: New paradigms for the reuse of steel enabled by digital tracking and modelling. Journal of Cleaner Production 98: 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Connor, Martin Paul, and Joachim Spangenberg. 2008. A methodology for CSR reporting: Assuring a representative diversity of indicators across stakeholders, scales, sites and performance issues. Journal of Cleaner Production 16: 1399–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Opazo-Basáez, Marco, Ferran Vendrell-Herrero, and Oscar Bustinza. 2018. Uncovering Productivity Gains of Digital and Green Servitization: Implications from the Automotive Industry. Sustainability 10: 1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Opazo-Basáez, Marco, Ferran Vendrell-Herrero, and Oscar Bustinza. 2022. Digital service innovation: A paradigm shift in technological innovation. Journal of Service Management 33: 97–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otache, Innocent, Kadiri Umar, Yakubu Audu, and Ugbede Onalo. 2019. The effects of entrepreneurship education on students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Education + Training 63: 967–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paiola, Marco, and Heiko Gebauer. 2020. Internet of things technologies, digital servitization and business model innovation in BtoB manufacturing firms. Industrial Marketing Management 89: 245–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panetti, Eva, Adele Parmentola, Marco Ferretti, and Elisabeth Beck Reynolds. 2019. Exploring the relational dimension in a smart innovation ecosystem: A comprehensive framework to define the network structure and the network portfolio. The Journal of Technology Transfer 45: 1775–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paschou, Theoni, Mario Rapaccini, Federico Adrodegari, and Nicola Saccani. 2020. Digital servitization in manufacturing: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Industrial Marketing Management 89: 278–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pawar, Kulwant, Ahmad Beltagui, and Johann Riedel. 2009. The PSO triangle: Designing product, service and organisation to create value. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 29: 468–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Persaud, Ajax. 2005. Enhancing Synergistic Innovative Capability in Multinational Corporations: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 22: 412–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rabetino, Rodrigo, and Marko Kohtamäki. 2018. To Servitize Is to (Re)position: Utilizing a Porterian View to Understand Servitization and Value Systems. Practices and Tools for Servitization 18: 325–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rabetino, Rodrigo, Willem Harmsen, Marko Kohtamäki, and Jukka Sihvonen. 2018. Structuring servitization-related research. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 38: 350–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raddats, Chris, Christian Kowalkowski, Ornella Benedettini, Jamie Burton, and Heiko Gebauer. 2019. Servitization: A contemporary thematic review of four major research streams. Industrial Marketing Management 83: 207–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raffaelli, Ryan, Mary Ann Glynn, and Michael Tushman. 2019. Frame flexibility: The role of cognitive and emotional framing in innovation adoption by incumbent firms. Strategic Management Journal 40: 1013–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reim, Wiebke, David Sjödin, and Vinit Parida. 2018. Mitigating adverse customer behaviour for product-service system provision: An agency theory perspective. Industrial Marketing Management 74: 150–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ren, Shan, Yingfeng Zhang, Yang Liu, Tomohiko Sakao, Donald Huisingh, and Cecilia Almeida. 2018. A comprehensive review of big data analytics throughout product lifecycle to support sustainable smart manufacturing: A framework, challenges and future research directions. Journal of Cleaner Production 210: 1343–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rettab, Belaid, Anis Ben Brik, and Kamel Mellahi. 2008. A Study of Management Perceptions of the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organisational Performance in Emerging Economies: The Case of Dubai. Journal of Business Ethics 89: 371–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robbins, Stephen. 1987. Organizational Theory: Structure, Design, and Application. San Diego: Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
- Robinson, Oliver. 2013. Sampling in Interview-Based Qualitative Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology 11: 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roman, Alexandru, Montgomery Van Wart, XiaoHu Wang, Cheol Liu, Soonhee Kim, and Alma McCarthy. 2018. Defining E-leadership as Competence in ICT-Mediated Communications: An Exploratory Assessment. Public Administration Review 79: 853–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saunders, Mark, Philip Lewis, and Adrian Thornhill. 2009. Research Methods for Business Students. New York: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
- Schroeder, Andreas, Parikshit Naik, Ali Ziaee Bigdeli, and Tim Baines. 2020. Digitally enabled advanced services: A socio technical perspective on the role of the internet of things (IoT). International Journal of Operations & Production Management 40: 1243–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaw, Duncan, and Tim Allen. 2016. Studying innovation ecosystems using ecology theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 136: 88–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sjödin, David, Vinit Parida, Marko Kohtamäki, and Joakim Wincent. 2020. An agile co-creation process for digital servitization: A micro-service innovation approach. Journal of Business Research 112: 478–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sklyar, Alexey, Christian Kowalkowski, David Sörhammar, and Bård Tronvoll. 2019. Resource integration through digitalisation: A service ecosystem perspective. Journal of Marketing Management 35: 974–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stoddart, Hannah, Kirsty Schneeberger, Felix Dodds, Andrew Shaw, Milena Bottero, Jack Cornforth, and Robert White. 2011. A Pocket Guide to Sustainable Development Governance. New York: Stakeholder Forum. [Google Scholar]
- Storbacka, Kaj. 2018. Extending service-dominant logic—Outside marketing and inside managerial practice. In The SAGE Handbook on Service-Dominant Logic. Edited by Robert Lusch and Stephen Vargo. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, pp. 639–54. [Google Scholar]
- Teo, Timothy, and Jan Noyes. 2011. An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education 57: 1645–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiglao, Noriel Christopher, Janna De Veyra, Niki Jon Tolentino, and Mark Angelo Tacderas. 2020. The perception of service quality among paratransit users in Metro Manila using structural equations modelling (SEM) approach. Research in Transportation Economics 83: 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilson, David, Kalle Lyytinen, and Carsten Sørensen. 2010. Research Commentary—Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda. Information Systems Research 21: 748–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tronvoll, Bård, Alexey Sklyar, David Sörhammar, and Christian Kowalkowski. 2020. Transformational shifts through digital servitization. Industrial Marketing Management 89: 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vandermerwe, Sandra, and Juan Rada. 1988. Servitization of business: Adding value by adding services. European Management Journal 6: 314–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visnjic, Ivanka, and Bart Van Looy. 2012. Servitization: Disentangling the Impact of Service Business Model Innovation on the Performance of Manufacturing Firms. SSRN Electronic Journal 31: 169–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Visnjic, Ivanka, Andy Neely, and Marin Jovanovic. 2018. The path to outcome delivery: Interplay of service market strategy and open business models. Technovation 72–73: 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wareham, Jonathan, Paul Fox, and Josep Lluís Cano Giner. 2014. Technology Ecosystem Governance. Organization Science 25: 1195–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weill, Peter, and Stephanie Woerner. 2015. Optimizing your digital business model. IEEE Engineering Management Review 43: 123–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, Amanda, Steve Kennedy, Felix Philipp, and Gail Whiteman. 2017. Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research. Journal of Cleaner Production 148: 866–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xia, Yan, and Yanyun Yang. 2018. RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods 51: 409–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, Miying, and Steve Evans. 2019. Product-service system business model archetypes and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 220: 1156–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeow, Adrian, Christina Soh, and Rina Hansen. 2018. Aligning with new digital strategy: A dynamic capabilities approach. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 27: 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, Dao, Xinguo Ming, and Xianyu Zhang. 2020. Sustainable and Smart Product Innovation Ecosystem: An integrative status review and future perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production 274: 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahra, Shaker, and Satish Nambisan. 2012. Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in business ecosystems. Business Horizons 55: 219–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, Delin, Jingbo Hu, and Taohua Ouyang. 2017. Managing Innovation Paradox in the Sustainable Innovation Ecosystem: A Case Study of Ambidextrous Capability in a Focal Firm. Sustainability 9: 2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zheng, Maokuan, Xinguo Ming, Liya Wang, Dao Yin, and Xianyu Zhang. 2017. Status Review and Future Perspectives on the Framework of Smart Product Service Ecosystem. Procedia CIRP 64: 181–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ziaee Bigdeli, Ali, Tim Baines, Andreas Schroeder, Steve Brown, Eleanor Musson, Victor Guang Shi, and Armando Calabrese. 2018. Measuring servitization progress and outcome: The case of “advanced services”. Production Planning & Control 29: 315–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zybery, Ilirjana, and Lindita Rova. 2014. The role of the accountants in the framework of the modern technological developments and digital accounting systems. European Scientific Journal 24: 30–48. [Google Scholar]
Construct | Item Acronyms | Convergent Validity | Construct Reliability | Discriminant Validity | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Factor Loadings Ranges | AVE | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | |||
Digital Servitization | ||||||
Identity | ||||||
Legitimization | LEG | 0.757–0.818 | 0.581 | 0.894 | 0.896 | Yes |
Agility | AGI | 0.729–0.853 | 0.577 | 0.899 | 0.902 | Yes |
Dematerialization | ||||||
Data-centricity | DC | 0.736–0.851 | 0.612 | 0.858 | 0.859 | Yes |
Data-related opportunities | DRO | 0.719–0.758 | 0.594 | 0.879 | 0.801 | Yes |
Collaboration | ||||||
Multiactor coupling | MAC | 0.753–0.846 | 0.571 | 0.885 | 0.886 | Yes |
Reciprocal value proposition | RVP | 0.785–0.841 | 0.552 | 0.856 | 0.857 | Yes |
Sustainable and Smart Service Innovation Ecosystem | ||||||
Diversity | DIV | 0.811–0.873 | 0.582 | 0.886 | 0.887 | Yes |
Innovation resource decentralization | IRD | 0.728–0.804 | 0.664 | 0.851 | 0.852 | Yes |
Dynamism of co-innovation | DCI | 0.771–0.814 | 0.650 | 0.867 | 0.868 | Yes |
Open collaboration | OC | 0.740–0.847 | 0.646 | 0.871 | 0.873 | Yes |
Coevolution | CE | 0.786–0.823 | 0.673 | 0.895 | 0.897 | Yes |
Sustainability-Oriented Organizational Performance | ||||||
Economic performance | ECP | 0.804–0.833 | 0.652 | 0.879 | 0.881 | Yes |
Environmental performance | ENP | 0.782–0.844 | 0.679 | 0.874 | 0.875 | Yes |
Community performance | CP | 0.775–0.840 | 0.587 | 0.866 | 0.867 | Yes |
Human performance | HP | 0.792–0.852 | 0.668 | 0.870 | 0.872 | Yes |
Governance performance | GP | 0.711–0.796 | 0.595 | 0.848 | 0.849 | Yes |
Digital Leadership | ||||||
E-communication competency | ECC | 0.779–0.819 | 0.601 | 0.845 | 0.847 | Yes |
E-Social Competency | ESC | 0.809–0.847 | 0.557 | 0.876 | 0.877 | Yes |
E-Change Management Competency | EMC | 0.838–0.857 | 0.529 | 0.894 | 0.895 | Yes |
E-Team Competency | ETAC | 0.818–0.860 | 0.534 | 0.884 | 0.886 | Yes |
E-Tech Competency | ETEC | 0.834–0.841 | 0.555 | 0.868 | 0.869 | Yes |
E-Trust Competency | ETRC | 0.801–0.826 | 0.527 | 0.841 | 0.842 | Yes |
LEG | DC | AGI | DRO | ECP | MAC | HP | RVP | DIV | DCI | ECC | IRD | ENP | ETEC | ETAC | OC | CP | ESC | CE | EMC | GP | ETRC | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LEG | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
DC | 0.054 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
AGI | 0.322 | 0.073 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
DRO | 0.041 | 0.279 | 0.033 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
ECP | 0.055 | 0.037 | 0.286 | 0.057 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
MAC | 0.007 | 0.087 | 0.048 | 0.224 | 0.054 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
HP | 0.107 | 0.019 | 0.008 | 0.036 | 0.058 | 0.052 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
RVP | −0.006 | 0.099 | 0.003 | 0.058 | 0.031 | 0.039 | 0.037 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
DIV | 0.078 | 0.005 | 0.063 | 0.016 | 0.011 | 0.031 | 0.041 | 0.084 | 1 | |||||||||||||
DCI | 0.076 | 0.090 | 0.014 | 0.065 | 0.036 | 0.071 | 0.017 | 0.028 | 0.185 | 1 | ||||||||||||
ECC | 0.086 | 0.116 | 0.087 | −0.004 | 0.008 | 0.014 | 0.011 | 0.081 | 0.014 | 0.152 | 1 | |||||||||||
IRD | 0.060 | 0.045 | 0.051 | 0.096 | 0.121 | 0.113 | 0.093 | 0.055 | 0.146 | 0.005 | 0.103 | 1 | ||||||||||
ENP | 0.084 | 0.030 | 0.072 | 0.125 | 0.015 | 0.123 | 0.084 | 0.049 | 0.203 | 0.115 | −0.013 | 0.093 | 1 | |||||||||
ETEC | 0.058 | 0.098 | 0.034 | −0.003 | 0.123 | 0.057 | 0.094 | −0.036 | 0.173 | 0.179 | 0.038 | −0.003 | 0.120 | 1 | ||||||||
ETAC | 0.052 | 0.048 | 0.080 | 0.029 | 0.072 | 0.061 | 0.045 | 0.095 | 0.043 | 0.182 | 0.176 | 0.082 | 0.003 | 0.118 | 1 | |||||||
OC | 0.056 | 0.081 | 0.055 | 0.071 | 0.092 | 0.077 | 0.065 | 0.049 | 0.077 | 0.051 | 0.097 | 0.106 | 0.108 | 0.086 | 0.024 | 1 | ||||||
CP | 0.034 | 0.016 | 0.027 | 0.022 | 0.078 | 0.287 | 0.068 | 0.055 | 0.026 | 0.067 | 0.013 | 0.081 | 0.126 | 0.006 | 0.098 | 0.089 | 1 | |||||
ESC | 0.028 | 0.017 | 0.033 | −0.011 | 0.003 | 0.044 | 0.075 | 0.040 | 0.071 | 0.039 | 0.083 | −0.006 | 0.097 | −0.064 | −0.008 | 0.163 | 0.040 | 1 | ||||
CE | 0.047 | 0.014 | 0.032 | 0.016 | 0.042 | −0.006 | 0.019 | 0.070 | 0.101 | 0.062 | 0.066 | 0.129 | 0.017 | 0.151 | −0.052 | 0.040 | 0.002 | 0.023 | 1 | |||
EMC | 0.069 | 0.065 | 0.028 | 0.028 | 0.056 | 0.041 | 0.076 | 0.038 | 0.072 | −0.046 | 0.021 | 0.045 | 0.110 | 0.068 | 0.116 | −0.044 | 0.020 | −0.018 | 0.046 | 1 | ||
GP | 0.053 | 0.106 | 0.066 | 0.018 | 0.010 | 0.037 | 0.011 | 0.064 | 0.078 | 0.076 | 0.090 | 0.022 | 0.065 | 0.162 | 0.058 | 0.147 | 0.065 | 0.017 | 0.078 | 0.142 | 1 | |
ETRC | 0.033 | 0.104 | 0.040 | 0.049 | 0.088 | 0.053 | 0.036 | −0.031 | 0.199 | 0.147 | 0.026 | −0.002 | 0.039 | 0.093 | 0.136 | 0.045 | 0.055 | 0.087 | 0.069 | 0.004 | 0.097 | 1 |
The Goodness of Fit Measures | Minimum Cut-Off | Measurement Model | Structural Model | Recommended by |
---|---|---|---|---|
Chi-square/df | <3 | 1.847 | 1.983 | Tiglao et al. (2020) |
TLI | ≥0.9 | 0.973 | 0.946 | Tiglao et al. (2020) |
CFI | ≥0.9 | 0.938 | 0.924 | Tiglao et al. (2020) |
GFI | ≥0.9 | 0.909 | 0.893 | Tiglao et al. (2020) |
RMSEA | <0.06 | 0.032 | 0.038 | Xia and Yang (2018) |
Hypothesis No. | Hypothesized Path | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | Results | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | DS | → | SSSIE | 0.564 *** | 0.179 | 3.693 | Undergirded |
H2 | DS | → | SOOP | 0.316 ** | 0.161 | 2.842 | Undergirded |
H3 | SSSIE | → | SOOP | 0.297 ** | 0.122 | 2.724 | Undergirded |
Route of Paths | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Mediation | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
DS → SSSIE → SOOP | 0.476 *** | 0.331 ** | Partial mediation | H4 was undergirded |
Causal Relationship | Low DL (n = 277) | High DL (n = 135) | Difference between Parameters (Low DL–High DL) | Hypothesis Testing Results | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | p | Estimate | p | Estimate | p | ||||
DS | → | SSSIE | 0.483 | 0.715 | 0.552 | 0.000 | −0.069 | 0.715 | H5a was undergirded |
DS | → | SOOP | 0.378 | 0.530 | 0.332 | 0.000 | 0.046 | 0.530 | H5b was undergirded |
SSSIE | → | SOOP | 0.343 | 0.410 | 0.301 | 0.003 | 0.042 | 0.407 | H5c was undergirded |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pham, H.Q.; Vu, P.K. Unravelling the Potential of Digital Servitization in Sustainability-Oriented Organizational Performance—Does Digital Leadership Make It Different? Economies 2022, 10, 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10080185
Pham HQ, Vu PK. Unravelling the Potential of Digital Servitization in Sustainability-Oriented Organizational Performance—Does Digital Leadership Make It Different? Economies. 2022; 10(8):185. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10080185
Chicago/Turabian StylePham, Huy Quang, and Phuc Kien Vu. 2022. "Unravelling the Potential of Digital Servitization in Sustainability-Oriented Organizational Performance—Does Digital Leadership Make It Different?" Economies 10, no. 8: 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10080185
APA StylePham, H. Q., & Vu, P. K. (2022). Unravelling the Potential of Digital Servitization in Sustainability-Oriented Organizational Performance—Does Digital Leadership Make It Different? Economies, 10(8), 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10080185