service innovations enabled by the “internet of things”€¦ · service innovations enabled by...
TRANSCRIPT
IMP JournalService innovations enabled by the “internet of things”Per Andersson Lars-Gunnar Mattsson
Article information:To cite this document:Per Andersson Lars-Gunnar Mattsson , (2015),"Service innovations enabled by the “internet ofthings”", IMP Journal, Vol. 9 Iss 1 pp. 85 - 106Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IMP-01-2015-0002
Downloaded on: 27 April 2015, At: 03:41 (PT)References: this document contains references to 46 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 36 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Paul Brody, Veena Pureswaran, (2015),"The next digital gold rush: how the internet of things willcreate liquid, transparent markets", Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 43 Iss 1 pp. 36-41 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SL-11-2014-0094William H. Dutton, (2014),"Putting things to work: social and policy challenges for the Internet ofthings", info, Vol. 16 Iss 3 pp. 1-21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/info-09-2013-0047Tor W. Andreassen, Line Lervik-Olsen, Giulia Calabretta, (2015),"Trend spotting and serviceinnovation", Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 25 Iss 1 pp. 10-30 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-09-2013-0178
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 407323 []
For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emeraldfor Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submissionguidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, aswell as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources andservices.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative fordigital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time ofdownload.
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
Service innovations enabled bythe “internet of things”Per Andersson and Lars-Gunnar Mattsson
Department of Marketing and Strategy, Stockholm School of Economics,Stockholm, Sweden
AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a new conceptual framework that reflects networkdynamics in Internet of Things (IoT)-enabled service innovation processes.Design/methodology/approach – Based on literature on service innovations, business networksand IoT, dynamic concepts are selected. Aided by information about an evolving case “The connectedvehicle”, propositions about interaction between the variables in the framework are formulated.Findings – A conceptual framework consisting of four interacting variables: overlapping, intermediating,objectification of actors and business modelling is developed, linking several streams of research.Propositions are motivated and issues for further research questions formulated.Research limitations/implications – The frameworkmay stimulate further research on IoT-enabledservice innovations.Practical implications – Understanding network dynamics for developing and implementingbusiness models for service innovations.Originality/value – The conceptual framework provides an original contribution to understandingIoT-enabled service innovations.Keywords Internet of things, Business modelling, Intermediating, Network processes,Service innovationsPaper type Research paper
IntroductionIt is often said, in contemporary economic and political debates, that we live in a “servicesociety”. It is argued that growth, employment, efficiency, international competitivenessas well as living standards in society depend on service innovations.
Contemporary service innovation is to an important extent stimulated and enabledby developments of information and communication technology (ICT). A fairly recentICT development is labelled Internet of Things (IoT). IoT means that individual,man-made or natural, objects and interrelated collections of objects, e.g. in homes andcars, can be made uniquely identifiable by radio tags, sensors and actuators, and therebybecome virtually represented in wireless and wired internet structures.
The dominating focus in IoT discussions between business and academia (mostlytechnical universities) has been on technology, infrastructure and technology suppliers.Less has been devoted to understand IoT-based service innovation processes. Suchprocesses engage resources across many industries and knowledge areas, requiringinteraction and restructuring of roles and relationships including also the users. Serviceinnovations are in business practice often perceived as network processes. However, aspointed out above, there is a lack of academic inquiries and analytical frameworks forfurther research on IoT-based service innovations. The purpose of the paper is thereforeto develop a conceptual framework fromwhich propositions on the nature of IoT-enabledservice innovation processes can be derived and ideas about further research beformulated. Our initial selection of variables is based on IoT attributes found in literatureon IoT-based service innovations and on conceptual theoretical perspectives relating to
IMP JournalVol. 9 No. 1, 2015
pp. 85-106©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0809-7259DOI 10.1108/IMP-01-2015-0002
Received 28 January 2015Revised 28 January 2015
Accepted 28 January 2015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/0809-7259.htm
85
Serviceinnovationsenabled by
the IoT
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
these attributes. We use a case describing an on-going IoT-based innovation process toillustrate interaction between the variables in the framework. Our research approached ispresented in detail in Research method.
The disposition of the paper is as follows. We start with the research method.We then elaborate on the service innovation phenomenon and on the IoT as a base forservice innovations before we present and motivate a conceptual model. First wediscuss, one by one, the four basic concepts in the model. Thereafter, we present anevolving IoT-based service innovation case (“The Connected Vehicle”), and illustratehow the case represents concepts, and interaction between concepts in our framework.We then develop propositions on how the variables in the model interact and suggestsome directions for further research.
Research methodWe have for some years studied service innovations based on use of mobile phones,especially mobile payments (Andersson et al., 2009, 2011a, b, 2012). For the current IoTproject we have consulted survey articles on service innovation (Carlborg et al., 2014;Henneberg et al., 2013) and searched for contemporary articles with titles and keywordsincluding “service innovation”. The review indicated that a more systemic view onservice innovation has emerged (e.g. Maglio and Spohrer, 2008; Ford and Mouzas,2013). We found IMP related texts on how innovation processes in general should beapproached in a network perspective. Håkansson and Waluszewski (2007) andWaluszewski (2011) argued that an innovation must be understood as embedded inseveral network contexts for the innovation process to succeed.
Initially we also studied various industry reports on IoT, with a business focus.The majority of reports were of three kinds: general telecom and information technologyindustry reports and analyses with a business rather than technology focus, reports onspecific application areas for IoT technology (e.g. in healthcare, in transportation, in mediasectors, etc.) and major research and consultancy reports on business related challengesfor actors engaging in IoT related innovation processes. Around 12 longer reports wereincluded in this second step. The reading and text analysis of the industry reports resultedin the extraction of some common, recurrent ideas. One central recurrent idea in secondarysources on IoT and innovation is that the involved actors need to develop new or adaptedbusiness models. This challenge was seen as considerable for two reasons. First, thenew business models required attention to the new innovative services that would result,rather than a continued focus on the IoT technologies as such. Second, the businessmodels would require new forms of cooperation between actors in different contexts.It was also discussed in the reports that some actors probablywould take new positions asbridges between these emerging contexts.
As part of our on-going research on ICT-based innovations, we established in 2013and 2014 contacts with one of the central actors in the IoT contexts, the telecom companyEricsson. Application areas for IoT related technological platforms and services wereanalysed in a set of initial sub projects. One area was selected for the continued empiricalwork: IoT related services in the transportation and automotive industry. During 2013,two preliminary interviews were also performed with Volvo, one of Ericsson’s majorpartners in this field. This step was also complemented with a review of secondaryreports and sources similar to those analysed in Step Two, this time with a delimitedfocus on the automotive industry, and reports on the “Connected Vehicle” projects inEurope and USA. This time, the reports, which also included studies and texts presentedby single companies (mainly automakers, telecom and IT suppliers, telecom operators)
86
IMP9,1
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
were analysed with a focus on ideas related to the themes and concepts that emergedfrom Step One and two. This included ideas on business models, new connections betweenindustries, emergence of new IoT-based services, position changes by single actors androles of the new technologies.
The contribution of our paper is mainly conceptual and has been achieved in threephases: first, extracting and elaborating on four central concepts associated with serviceinnovation, second, relating the four concepts to each other and to service innovation in aconceptual model aided by the case illustration and third, deducting from this conceptualframework a set of propositions that may be used for further studies. We mayhere refer to MacInnis (2011) on the role in research of conceptualization based ontheory and empirical observations as “the process of understanding a situation orproblem abstractly by identifying patterns or connections and key underlyingproperties. Such thinking can include a range of information-processing activities,among which are inductive and deductive reasoning, logical reasoning […]”(MacInnis, 2011, p. 140).
In MacInnis’ terms the first phase was aimed at envisioning the IoT phenomenonlinked to service innovation and potentially to identify new concepts, revising existingconcepts and delineating concepts. We relied in the first step, as a theoreticalfoundation, on the IMP business network perspective.
A recurrent aspect in IoT texts referred to “converging industries”, “intersectingindustries”, “gaps/bridges between previously unrelated industries”, etc. Theseobservations connected back to IMP perspectives and to the first concept in ourframework: “overlapping”.
Another recurrent aspect in IoT texts was that the technology would potentiallychange the intermediary roles and positions of actors depending on design of IoTstructures for service production, delivery and use. These observations connected backto IMP perspectives and to the second concept: “intermediating”. Our use of thedynamic concept intermediating instead of the static concept intermediary is an aspectof conceptual revision according to MacInnis (2011).
In IoT texts, the new technologies were described as “interacting/communicatingmachines and other artefacts”, “technical platforms with central roles/positions”, andtechnologies as more or less “acting” objects in these new emerging infrastructures.This motivated the emergence of a third of the four variables in our emergingframework: “objectification of actors”. In an abductive manner, this led back to theoriesabout materiality and agency, especially to STS and ANT.
A fourth line in IoT texts emphasized the need to develop new or revised businessmodels during the innovation process. These observations connected back to researchliterature on business models and motivated a fourth concept: “business modelling”;a conceptual revision of “business model”.
Thus, the first phase in our research resulted in four central concepts described inA conceptual framework.
The second phase was to analyse the interaction between the concepts during aninnovation process. To aid this analysis we used the case of an emerging process, theConnected Vehicle, and perusal of theoretical literature relating to the concepts. Ofparticular interest in the case were indications of causalities between two or several ofthe variables. For example, texts describing how the problems of commercializing theConnected Vehicle concept was due to “uncertainties about the new business modelsneeded and who should take the lead in coordinating previously unrelated industries”entailed traces of explicating interdependencies, sometimes also causalities.
87
Serviceinnovationsenabled by
the IoT
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
The third phase was mainly deductive, serving to generate a set of theoreticalpropositions for further studies. We decided to let the most central of them, as found inthe second phase, intermediating, be a common variable in the deductive reasoningto arrive at propositions. Although this phase was mainly based on “the processof abstract thinking involving the mental representation of an idea” (MacInnis, 2011,p. 140), we also returned to the case material used in phase two. The theoreticalpropositions also stimulated ideas for further research.
Service innovationAlready Penrose (1959) argued that the value of physical products depended on theiruse in the buyer’s operations. The service dominant logic (SDL) developed in Vargo andLusch (2004) takes this idea much further as a perspective on creation of value byexchange of services. Researchers like Maglio and Spohrer (2013) continue on this lineof research and argue for a new service science and dominant logic perspective onbusiness models and service innovation. As indicated in a service innovation review(Carlborg et al., 2014), a growing stream of marketing and management researchers havebegun to devote interest in the field. Service innovation has begun to be a research topic inits own right, not only a side activity to product innovation. The evolving view during thelast decades is to focus on interrelation of service innovation and product innovation.There is a need then also to consider how service innovations include changes oforganizational design and the nature of producer-user interactions (Araujo and Spring,2006) as well new service-based business models in manufacturing industries (Kindström,2010). With reference to the general characteristics of innovations in Waluszewski (2011)service innovations will have to compete with existing value creating services and copewith the different economic logics of “use”, “supply” and “development” in the networks.
Services involve products both for supply and use, i.e. services have materiality.Thus also service innovations engage innovation in physical products and systems.Service innovations involve many knowledge areas and actors from several industriesin combination between established and new actors. Service innovation may be new interms of how individual services are connected to each other (bundled or unbundled),the role of different actors (including the users), the organization of services, thedistribution of services, as well as the price and payment for services.
When different knowledge areas and industries are involved in service innovation,cooperative and competitive relationships in business practice change. Uncertainty andcomplexity need to be handled. The service providers’ interfaces with the customers/users may change when services are bundled, or de-bundled, or when distributionof services change. The allocation of costs and revenue for a service may change.The value of the new service for a user may be more or less difficult to perceiveand evaluate. Furthermore, several actors may jointly be involved in the use of aspecific service.
Service innovation processes involve a number of, often heterogeneously designed,pilot projects aimed to test technical feasibility, organization, use and value co-creation(Andersson et al., 2012). Such pilot studies can also be seen as design and test of potentialbusiness models for a service innovation. The complexity of and interdependencies inservice networks, demonstrated in Henneberg et al. (2013), illustrate the problems thatpilot tests are aimed to identify and contribute to a solution of. The perspective on valueof a service needs to be widened to more actors than a supplier and a user. Value creationneeds to be analysed and handled through interaction and co-creation (Ford and Mouzas,2013). It is easy to agree with Henneberg et al. (2013) when they conclude that business
88
IMP9,1
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
network studies have yet to fully devote research efforts to the complexity ofdevelopment of service networks.
IoTIt is often argued that with the IoT we are witnessing the next major step in the evolutionof ICT industries and infrastructures. IoT is said to represent a major departure in thehistory of the internet, “as connections move beyond computing devices, and begin topower billions of everyday devices, from parking meters to home thermostats”[1]. EPoSS(2008) provides a short definition stating that IoT is a world-wide network of uniquelyaddressable interconnected objects[2]. An impressive number of devices will, or potentiallymay, be connected in the new IoT infrastructure. Objects can communicate regardless oftheir position in space. Their spatial position, and changes in position, may be observed.
IoT has been selected as one of the most promising innovations. Atzori et al. (2010)state that the main enabling factor of the new promising paradigm is the integration ofseveral technologies and communications solutions (e.g. identification and trackingtechnologies, wired and wireless sensor and actuator networks, enhanced communicationprotocols and distributed intelligence for smart objects). IoT opens new opportunitiesto connect activities, resources and actors in business networks. Examples includeinnovative bundling of services and establishment of new business actors. Analysts havedeveloped strong visions of future application. Cisco, an IT company, for example, hasestimated that more things are connecting to the internet than people – over 12.5 billiondevices in 2010 alone. Cisco’s Internet Business Solutions Group predicts some 25 billiondevices will be connected by 2015, and 50 billion by 2020[3]. A large and diffuse layerof devices, sensors and computing power that overlays various industry sectors is depictedwhere the emerging IoT systems account for an increasingly huge number of connectionsbetween the devices.
IoT technology currently covers many application areas, sometimes in combination,such as security (e.g. access control, security care for elderly, time reporting for home care),tracking and tracing (e.g. fleet management, logistics for goods transportation), payment(e.g. mobile payments), health (e.g. e-home care), remote control and maintenance (e.g.smart homes, environmental monitoring) and metering (e.g. smart power grids). Thebusiness press describes application of IoT technology in the automotive industry as oneof the forerunners in the devlopment towards the new networked society:
In the rapidly evolving networked society, everyone, everything and everywhere will beconnected in real time. Smart connected devices, broadband networks and cloud-basedservices will further drive networking among consumers, enterprises and within society ingeneral. An early beneficiary of this revolution will be the automotive industry. Consumerswill enter an era where vehicles understand who is inside them and how to connect them towhat they consider important (Wirelessweek.com, 15 October 2013).
It is important to know more about how technically feasible opportunities to innovate,might result in major changes in business and societal practices. Analysts believe thatIoT technology will become widely adopted but that it will take time due to institutionalconsiderations (regulations and standards, trust/security) and existing networkstructures and processes (barriers to reconfigure existing business networks, developnew business models).
Academic research in management and marketing focused on IoT are yet quite few.Consultants and specialists in information technology have been more active in attemptsto analyse its emergence and growth from a business perspective. Chui et al. (2010), for
89
Serviceinnovationsenabled by
the IoT
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
example, discusses how IoT technology, such as sensors and network technology, ischanging company processes and consumer interactions, and even entire businessmodels. The dominating focus in discussions between business and academia has beenand still is on technology, infrastructure and technology suppliers, represented by newbooks like, e.g. Höller et al. (2014), Vermesan and Fries (2014), and academic/industryconferences like IoT 2012 in Fudan, China.
How, and about what, things interact is predominantly designed by organizationalactors, likely in cooperation with each other. But analysts also foresee that IoT-basednetworks might become less dependent on design, more non-deterministic and moreopen (Chui et al., 2010). IoT opens opportunities for development of new resourceconstellations in which objects interact and affect the behaviour and attributes of eachother without direct human interference.
A conceptual frameworkIn the research method section we have motivated in detail our selection of variables tobe overlapping, intermediating, objectification of actors and business modelling. Wewill in this section further discuss these variables.
The double-headed arrows in Figure 1 indicate that service innovation processesinvolve feed-back between variables, are only temporary stabilized and unclear in termsof temporal profiles (e.g. speed, timing and sequencing of the sub-processes in Figure 1).However, to advance knowledge beyond that “everything depends on everything” it isimportant to better understand the dynamics of the processes. In the following subsectionwe analyse each variable independently. We then discuss interaction between thevariables in the model.
Overlapping between networksBusiness networks are inherently open. However, connectivity in the overall networkis not evenly distributed. Some actors, activities and resources are more stronglyconnected to each other than others are. Thus the overall network can be seen asconsisting of more limited networks, within which interdependencies are strongerthan with other networks. Connectivity and interdependence between networkschange all the time due to such phenomna as globalization, mergers and acquisitions,“technical and market convergence”, internet and electronic trade, bundling ofservices, etc. We conceptualize such processes as overlapping between networks.(Mattsson, 1998; Andersson, 2002; Hertz, 1998). “Overlapping changes the networkstructure and thus also actors’ positions and the conditions for network coordination”(Mattsson, 1998, p. 245).
Objecti-ficationof actors
Interme-diating
Businessmodelling
Serviceinnovation
Over-lapping
Figure 1.Network processes inservice innovation
90
IMP9,1
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
IoT-enabled service innovations provide many examples of network overlapping, sincethey require or stimulate new resource combinations accessed by network connectionsbetween actors and resources positioned in what may be considered as differentnetworks. Such overlapping between networks implies the need to consider and handlenew relationships, changes in old ones and closer indirect relationships. With referenceto the three interdependet network layers (actor, resource and activity layers) in theARA framework (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995), overlapping confronts actors withuncertainties and tensions, threats to established network positions and opportunitiesto handle new resource interfaces in innovative ways (cf. Andersson, 2002).
IntermediatingThe concept “intermediary” is in main-streammarketing literature mostly used for actorsintervening between production and consumption like wholesalers and retailers. Ina business network perspective the concepts has a wider meaning. All actors areintermediaries in the sense that they make other actors indirectly related to each other(Snehota and Gadde, 2001). With reference to the ARA model, also all activities and allresources might be seen as intermediaries within a network’s activity pattern andresource constellation. Intermediaries intermediate in network processes. Intermediariesare engaged in material and immaterial transformation. Intermediating is thus a networkprocess that also has technological attributes in terms of relationship substance andnetwork effects (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995) that are of special interest in an IoTcontext. Hoholm and Håkansson (2012) discuss how interaction in industrial networksare important for bridging gaps between specialized resources in different networks thatneed to be combined during an innovation process. Bridging thus can be interpreted bothas force for overlapping and as an aspect of intermediating.
Service innovation processes might require, or stimulate, changes in intermediationsometimes also entry of new actors as intermediaries (Andersson et al., 2011a).Application of IoT results in changes in intermediating technology. An example iswhen individual services are bundled and become available via a common platform,instead of via separate platforms (Andersson et al., 2009).
Objectification of actorsAn object, a device equipped with sensor, actuator, etc. can be seen as an actor in itsown right. The object may act with or without interference from a human actor, even ifthere is, or has been, a human element in the programming of how, why and when, toact. These sensor-laden, “intelligent” devices will be able to communicate with otherobjects in people’s lives and in the activities of organizations. In the everyday life ofconsumers many products have already crossed over into the IoT on a smaller scale,including kitchen equipment and home appliances, lighting and heating products,insurance company-issued car monitoring devices. This leads to what we here label,objectification of actors. By this we mean an increasing role for objects/devices, alone orrelated to humans and other objects, as capable of agency in network processes. Thisincrease is due to the evolution of ICT applications, and especially IoT technologies.The socio-material nature of actors in innovation processes is an important aspect ofSTS/ANT-related studies of markets (Latour, 2005; Callon, 2008). STS/ANT inspiredmethodology and conceptual frameworks are not new to IMP-related studies, e.g. ofinnovation (Hoholm, 2011), of distribution (Kjellberg, 2001) and of market practice(Araujo et al., 2010). There are some principal differences between ANT and IMP interms of how networks are represented in research (Olsen, 2013). In ANT, a network is
91
Serviceinnovationsenabled by
the IoT
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
a particular, persuasive, purposeful socio-material agency. In IMP a network is an open,inter-organizational economic governance form in which the outcome is dependent oninteraction between heterogeneous entities. To understand IoT-based innovations, aswe have characterized them above in an IMP perspective, we find it useful to introduceelements from ANT methodology, specifically including material objects as actors andto acknowledge the performative role of technology for overlapping and intermediatingin industrial networks.
Business modellingIn the intersection between ICT and business, a concept that emerged during the 1990shas become widely adopted in practice: the business model. It originated when the rapidICT developments stimulated entrepreneurial activities to develop new services.Traditional industry and market boundaries became blurred and it became necessaryfor new ventures to explicitly consider how to relate to complementary resources forco-creation of values (Osterwalder et al., 2005). Later the business model concept wasalso diffused to established firms involved in ICT-enabled innovations (Ehret et al., 2013).
There is a diversity of understanding and use of business models (Osterwalder et al.,2005). Some business models are customer-value oriented and some are moretechnology oriented. The former are more outward looking and the latter are moreinward looking. Even if there exists a plethora of definitions of the business modelconcept, the dominating perspective is that they are mediating constructs betweentechnology and economic value, a sort of blueprint for how a service provision may beorganized and how values and revenues should be realized. A business model expressesthe business logic of the firm, what value the company offers to customers and, relatingthe concept to a business network perspective, the architecture of the network ofpartners. The main function of the business model is to connect technical potential withrealization of economic value (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002). The business modelserves as a link between business strategy, ICT and business organization (Osterwalderet al., 2005). The papers in a Special Issue on Business Models (2010) in “Long RangePlanning” are focused on the business model of the individual firm, underplaying theembeddedness of business modelling in a dynamic network context.
A literature review conducted by Coombes and Nicholson (2013) and published in a“Special Issue of Business Models” in Industrial Marketing Management finds thatbusiness models is a subject that has been sparsely treated in marketing journals,compared to journals focused on ICT, organization and strategy. Bottom of Form Coombsand Nicholson (2013) suggest that marketing studies, including business network studies,with a focus on value co-creation would contribute importantly to knowledge aboutbusiness models. Also Ehret et al. (2013) and Mason and Spring (2011) propose a networkapproach to understand the role of business models, in line with the original use of theconcept in analyses of how new ventures might manage to integrate resources bymeans ofnetwork relationships. Palo and Tähtinen (2013) present and analyse a case of ICT-enabledservice development including urban computing services. They refer to “networkedbusiness models” as dynamic devices to develop “strategic nets” of cooperating actors,with a more or less defined leadership, serving as mental models and devices to explore themarket, to shape and coordinate action and to aid the development from pilot stage tofull scale market introduction. Mason and Spring (a.a.) discuss how business modelsof networked firms must in some way overlap or be complementary. Business modelsmust have multiple sites. Business model processes are incrementally emerging,ever-changing and have performative power (Mason and Spring, 2011) The performative
92
IMP9,1
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
role of business models, as a market device that contributes to the techno-economicnetwork of an innovation, is discussed, with an ANT methodology in Doganova andEyquem-Renault (2009).
Adding to the above arguments for a network perspective on business models, Olssonet al. (2013) find that the three network layers of the ARA model fit well with what in theliterature is declared to be the main aspects of business model (cf. Zott and Amit, 2010).Thus, the network structure and processes that a specific business model represents, forits implementation needs to be seen as embedded in a wider dynamic network with aheterogeneous history. Different actors that need to cooperate in a business model mayprefer different designs of the model. Conflicts between actors with different businessmodels need to be handled. The design and implementation of the business model needsto take into account how a specific architecture can be realized.
For an innovation of the magnitude and uncertainties represented by IoT, with themultitude of network interdependencies, it is not possible for an individual actor toindependently develop and implement a sustainable business model for serviceinnovation. Interaction with other actors, whose business models may be in harmonyand/or conflict with each other, are needed. More or less new configurations of businessunits involved in co-creation of the value of a service innovation challenge traditionalroles and network positions. To develop and stabilize new business models in practiceis problematic since the network configuration and old business models of actorsinvolved in co-creation of value of the service innovation need to change.
Following our introduction to service innovation, we have discussed, one by one,the four basic concepts in the model. Next, we present an evolving IoT-based serviceinnovation case.
The connected vehicle – an evolving service innovation processThe Connected Vehicle case, in which we are involved as academic observers, concernsa fairly new process leading to the emergence of systems in which cars and trucksincreasingly become connected to the internet and to wireless networks. In theMethodology section we presented the data collection for the case.
The case only refers to service innovation processes in early stages: plans, visions,technical feasibility, pilot projects. Even if it will take a long time before the specificIoT-based services have come into wide-spread use we believe that studies of earlystages will reflect important aspects related to changes in market practice during suchinnovation processes.
Ericsson and Volvo cooperating on connected vehicle servicesIn December 2012, the auto manufacturer Volvo Car Group and the telecom companyEricsson announced their new partnership to take new “Connected Vehicle Services” tomarket[4]. The Connected Vehicle concept was not new, but this announcementsignalled a step towards commercialization of the technical innovation, and associated,new services. Ericsson’s “Multiservice Delivery Platform” and “Connected VehicleCloud” solution formed the technical foundation for providing new services in Volvo’snew cars. Drivers and passengers would be able to access applications for information,navigation, entertainment and more from a screen in the car. Volvo Car Group wouldalso be able to open parts of the platform to several other members of the automotiveindustry’s “eco-system”. Content providers would be able to have agreements withVolvo and internet radio providers, road authorities, cities’ governments, toll-road
93
Serviceinnovationsenabled by
the IoT
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
operators and others. The car would become a new hub for a number of connectedservices, by allowing the car to share internet access to other devices, inside andoutside the vehicle. IoT technology would provide additional benefits, e.g. automaticnotification of crashes. Interaction between the car and the driver’s Smartphone, andapps would be available from any distance. Drivers could unlock their cars, check thestatus of batteries in electric cars, find the location of the car, etc. Various sensors inthe car would allow for continuous, remote diagnostics and interaction with variousfunctions of the vehicle. Drivers would be able to download applications and interactwith many new partners through the Connected Vehicle Cloud built on Ericsson’sService Enablement Platform.
The new technical platforms would allow for the emergence of new “ecosystems” ofactors in different sectors coming together as parts of the new interconnectedinfrastructure (see Figure 2)[5].
Overlapping between industries with different logicsThus, one of the consequences of the growing importance of the connected car is thefact that previously weakly connected or unconnected business actors and “industries”are drawn into closer collaboration. Actors in the mobile operator business and in theautomotive industry take initiatives to closer cooperation, including a variety of actors.Different industrial networks become inter-connected, as described in the ConnectedCar Report 2014[6]:
Connecting the car to the Internet could lead to major changes in the automobile industry.It introduces the IT business to a traditional industry segment. This new field of businessfollows different rules and has contrasting characteristics. There are some advantagesand also a number of challenges that accompany the introduction of the Connected Car.However, not only carmakers stand to benefit from the development of the ConnectedCar. The industry is set to undergo a great many changes and see new market entrantswithin the next few years. These new market participants have the opportunity to
ConnectedVehicle Cloud
Dealer
AutomotiveOEM
Driver &Owner
Vehicle
NetworkOperator Repair Shop Support Center
FleetCompany
Content ProviderServiceProvider
InsuranceCompanies
Media Agencies
Source: Ericsson: Connected Vehicle Cloud. Under the hood
Figure 2.The connectedvehicle cloudecosystem
94
IMP9,1
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
expand their businesses and enter the automobile sector. This is especially true for thetelecommunications industry and the digital sector. These markets are very consumer-driven(p. 4).
Governments, automotive manufacturers, insurance companies, mobile service providersand other actors are all expected to play key roles for making the connected vehiclevision a reality. The technologies and the central artefacts, the car and the mobile phone,for example, are also expected to get new roles. “Objects”, like the car, are predicted toachieve new roles in the interaction with its users/drivers:
Owning and driving a vehicle will be more convenient with constantly updated and relevantinformation; navigation maps, finding parking services etc. The owner will have an easierservice procedure where the vehicle will be able to detect issues that need to be serviced andautomatically handle the service booking procedure connecting the Dealership and the Repairshop in a Connected Service Booking application.
What do we envisage for the Connected Car over the next ten years? I see this spacedeveloping into a fully personalized, virtual environment with intelligent automation, creatinga totally new relationship between the vehicle, the driver, and the passenger. Cars used to besolitary machines. Not so anymore – some can now detect other vehicles around them andeven “talk” to them. When cars are able to connect to each other in this way, things can gettruly exciting – they can coordinate braking and acceleration, hence distancing themselvesautomatically with lightning-fast reaction times. We could see a single stretch of roadaccommodating more cars safely, automatic use of roundabouts (Connected Car IndustryReport, Telefonica 2013)[7].
To meet the requirements of increased cooperation within and across differentnetworks, various new alliances and cooperation patterns begin to emerge:
On the one hand, they are partnering with smartphone manufacturers and mobile operators todevelop collaborative platforms. A group of ten manufacturers have already partnered withApple, to provide the iPhone-maker with access to in-car screens that could enable apps to beused within their vehicles. The Car Connectivity Consortium, formed by some of the largestmanufacturers with Apple’s smartphone-making rivals, has developed the commonMirrorlink standard to connect smartphone content to vehicles’ dashboard screens viaBluetooth or USB cable. And most recently Google’s Open Automotive Alliance (OAA) hassigned up Audi, GM, Honda and Hyundai to a common platform for Android integration withconnected cars. At the same time as pursuing such collaborative strategies however, everysingle major manufacturer is busily preparing its own connected car system: Renault’s R-Link, GM’s Onstar, BMW’s Connected Drive, Audi’s Connect and Toyota’s Entune. Thisparallel, proprietary approach protects auto brands from over-dependence on a singlesmartphone platform, but it also reveals their serious misgivings about giving up controlof the in-car environment to technology companies, which may not share their vision of wherethe connected car should be going (TNS: “Connected World. Time to set the connected carfree”, p. 5).
In early 2014, several new partnerships and alliances connected to the car platformwere announced. Ericsson’s large customer in the mobile operator business, AT&T,informed that the company was launching, together with Ericsson, a modular, connectedcar platform, packaging connectivity, billing, data analytics and infotainment to carmakers and developers, who could use this platform to create their own customisedofferings. The operator teamed up with Ericsson to create the platform, Ericsson’sConnected Vehicle Cloud, based on Ericsson’s Service Enablement Platform, whichAT&T as supplier would bring to the automakers. AT&T also announced the opening of
95
Serviceinnovationsenabled by
the IoT
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
a new connected car centre in Atlanta, the AT&T Drive Studio, serving as a new hubwhere AT&T would be able to respond to needs of automotive manufacturers and theauto ecosystem at large[8].
New structures of intermediatingWithin one of the involved industries, the automotive industry, the connected vehiclewas expected to have consequences on the roles and positions of established actors inthe traditional “distribution channel”: the car manufacturers, the dealers and the users:
A connected car does offer the significant advantage of being able to alert customers andservice dealerships to poor and failing performance in the vehicles. Proactive maintenancebecomes more common, and issues of warranty management become easier to handle for thedealers. It does however mean that “dealers will also need to become knowledgeable in aworld similar to that of the mobile phone,” says Robert Jagler, Director Connectivity,Marketing Sales and Customer Services at Volvo Cars. The Connected Car offers a uniqueopportunity for automotive OEMs to engage directly with customers. Branded app stores,upgrades to software solutions over-the-air, sharing of vehicle data, and on- and off-boardvehicle solutions provide automotive OEMs with opportunities to maintain brand awarenesswith the customer, and most importantly, to begin to engage directly with customers throughthis connectivity (Connected Car Industry Report, Telefonica 2013)[9].
It was also expected that this would allow some actors to create stronger relations andpartnerships:
Partners such as dealerships, repair shops and other relevant third-party entities will benefitthrough drivers’ enhanced ability to interact with vehicle manufacturer’s CRM interfaces anddatabases (Wirelessweek)[10].
The connected vehicle might dramatically change the operations of the car dealerships.Teaching and supporting customers how to use their car’s advanced technology wasexpected to lead to new relationships between established actors in the car distributionsystem, perhaps also strengthening the relationships with the consumers:
Automotive manufacturers will be able to shift their focus to creating long-term customerrelationships from chasing infrequent, ad-hoc opportunities to sell isolated technologysolutions. They will also be able to develop new revenue streams from integrated services(Wirelessweek)[11].
New innovative developers would likely be attracted by the prospect of access to anopen platform on which they could create new apps or extend existing offerings.Ericsson presented the new interconnections between previously unconnected orweakly connected sub systems in a figure depicting five broad activity and serviceareas involving both private and public actors[12]: vehicle interaction, infotainment,traffic safety, traffic efficiency and fees and charges. Volvo Cars would be able to openparts of the platform to other members of the automotive industry’s eco-system.
New services were also being tested. For example, in February 2014, Volvo Cars inSweden announced the test of a new service based on the connected car concept: fooddelivery to the car[13]. Once an order is placed online by the car owner and the vehicleof choice is selected as the drop-off, a courier is given GPS coordinates to that locationand a one-time use digital key. After the car owner has accepted the delivery viasmartphone or tablet, the digital key is activated, allowing the one-time access to thetrunk. The food supplier “Linas Matkasse” was the first of its kind to participate inthe new delivery service.
96
IMP9,1
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
Uncertainties and barriers to changeHowever, the spread of the connected car concept as a base for service innovations withthe potential to reach mass markets was not believed to be without obstacles[14]. Forexample, Machina Research found one such obstacle to be differences between theautomotive industry and the mobile communication industry:
The difference in lifecycles in the automotive and the mobile industry is a serious challengefor the future of connected cars. New features, such as operating system upgrades and newapplications, are provided almost constantly for the smartphone, whereas car manufacturerswork on five-year cycles (Connected Car Industry Report, Telefonica 2013).
Uncertainties in the relation between mobile operators and car manufacturers alsoconcerned the best way to connect the car to the web. Basically two different options,built in and non-built in car applications were discussed and used. Each had differentimplications for the relations between actors, including those with drivers/consumers.Built-in car applications were expected to be preferred for features that consumersexpect in a vehicle, such as navigation, driver safety, maintenance and security. Manyof these applications could be enhanced by connectivity, but might not require that.Some drivers would prefer non-built in, pocket applications, that were brought into thevehicle on smart phones and other consumer devices. In addition, cloud applicationscould be reached also with the help of a browser or lightweight web app in the vehicle.
It was debated whether the built-in options might provide stronger connections, and ifsome consumers would still prefer to connect their existing smartphone to the car viaBluetooth or USB cable, having full access to their personal contacts and playlists(Cisco, 2011).
Business model discussionsAs a consequence of this increased interconnection, single actors begin to develop new“business models”:
Connectivity will also enable innovative, new business models. It will offer the flexibility to movefrom rigid, bundled packages to services on-demand, and will also allow completely new pricingmodels such as micropayments on a per-feature, per-use, per-mile, or per-minute basis (Cisco, 2011).
Ericsson argued that business modelling would be an area for innovation, when theypresented their connectivity platform for connecting the car:
Ericsson’s Connected Vehicle Cloud enables new communication channels to drivers,passengers and vehicles and enables new business models and revenue streams for the actorsin the eco-system of the automotive industry […]. It also enables new profitable innovativebusiness models for the industry where new actors; government, and third party players areable to share revenues. Several stakeholders share the growing interest in being connected onthe road: Governments wants to enhance road safety and collect road tolls and congestioncharges. Insurance companies wants to be able to offer insurance based on how youdrive, media and content companies want to be present in the vehicle (Ericsson: ConnectedVehicle Cloud).
New business opportunities based on new services would lead to new revenue streams.This leads to the problems to establish completely new business models:
Service bundles, delivery channels, product pipelines, pricing and customer support will beheavily impacted, and in some cases new business models will need to be created from scratchas the dynamics between manufacturer, dealer and customer evolves[15].
97
Serviceinnovationsenabled by
the IoT
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
Expectations regarding one important part of the emerging business model associatedwith the connected car, the revenue streams, were high. It was hoped that the connectedcar would unlock “a multitude of new revenue streams by creating new opportunities toconnect with customers and opening up new business models that will allow for new andprofitable relationships with third parties” (Telefonica, 2013). However, for the mobileoperators, for example, creating a profitable business around this new IoT-enabledcommunication was a challenge. Traditionally, operators had not been geared towardsdelivering large numbers of subscriptions on a very-low-revenue per-connection basis:
A standardized and managed service delivered over the cloud can lower the threshold fornetwork operators hoping to enter the M2M service market. Recruiting the support ofinfrastructure partners who can help present network and data assets in a reusable,standardized way can help the operator take full advantage of the opportunity. This “serviceenablement” approach permits in-house and, critically, external third parties to create newmarketable value-added services quickly and efficiently (Wireless Week, 2013).
Questions were also raised on who will pay for connected car services:
Consumers are used to a one-off payment when purchasing a car, but with an embeddedconnection there is an additional bill to be paid in terms of connectivity. Will you add yourcar as a “device” to your existing mobile bill? Or will the added cost be rolled into your carpayment? Who will pay for roaming and data usage? New business models will need to bedeveloped (Forbes, 2013)[16].
This also raised ideas that the future car customer in some cases would prefer otherbusiness and payment models, that is, connected cars might in the near future be likelyto be shared between users:
Automakers agree that selling ‘just’ cars is no longer feasible. It is mobility – with requiredconnectivity to customer services and advanced functions like power management for electricvehicles – that is needed today. That creates opportunities for new ownership models, likeZipcar’s car-sharing service (Forbes, 2013).
Mikael Gustavsson, Connectivity HUB Leader at Volvo Cars presented his view of thefuture business models and revenue flows[17]:
Increased aftermarket customer spend is probably not a remarkable add to an OEM revenue,except for one area: map updates and added information into navigation applications. Remotediagnostics, predictive maintenance and, by that, reduced warranty cost are some of the mostimportant parts in the connectivity business case, besides the traditional parts of revenue, likecar and option sales. “No one gets rich on apps or Internet content”, especially not a car OEM.No, this is not a direct revenue generator for an OEM. Indirectly, it will create customersatisfaction and, by that, revenue in car and option sales. With competition in the aftermarketin Europe, the connected car and connected customer (CRM) could be very important tools tocreate customer loyalty. One example is the connected service booking that Volvo Cars isrunning a pilot on for the past one-and-a-half years, with thousands of customers connected.This creates customer satisfaction in the TCO (total cost of ownership) area and also increasedworkshop traffic in our workshops instead of the independent workshops.
Ericsson’s Magnus Lundgren, Director-Service Enablement stated:
Connection to your customer is vital to make offers. In the classic “product, place, price andpromotion”, you are with the connected car able to better act on “place” and “promotion”.Ericsson is helping many industries connect their products and enable them to transform as aplayer in the networked society. There is no doubt that the efficiency gains for a connected
98
IMP9,1
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
industry process are large. The automotive industry is no different. Acting on real time datain a correct way will improve the manufacturing process. The connected car opens a world ofpossibilities to engage for actors in the automotive ecosystem. The user of the service mightnot be the one directly paying for the service; there will be many different ways for chargingfor services (Telematics Update, 2013).
The mobile operators’ own industry organization asked for a business model innovation,stating that:
The strategic positioning of automakers on telematics and infotainment services is at theheart of defining their value proposition and the appropriate business model. Up to now, thispositioning generally has been based upon the assumption that automakers will be the ownerof the whole process and the final customer. This position may need to be reconsidered, giventhe greater complexity of forthcoming services and the need for swift deployment. Expandedvalue-chains are going to be required to create multiple revenue streams. Automakers aregoing to have to define how to pursue their core interests while building the strategic alliancesthat can provide a fast time to market. Attracting and leveraging the involvement ofdevelopers will also be important for the evolution of the service supply[18].
It is also argued that the connected cars will likely be associated with shared cars.Selling “just” cars is no longer feasible. This implies a radically changed businessmodel. It is mobility – with required connectivity to customer services and advancedfunctions like power management for electric vehicles that will be needed. That createsopportunities for new ownership models, new business models supporting, for examplecar-sharing services. As stated by Forbes when asking “Who will pay for connected carservices”:
Consumers are used to a one-off payment when purchasing a car, but with an embeddedconnection there is an additional bill to be paid in terms of connectivity. Will you add your caras a “device” to your existing mobile bill? Or will the added cost be rolled into your carpayment? Who will pay for roaming and data usage? New business models will need to bedeveloped (Forbes)[19].
Lastly, in order, e.g. a mobile operator (like AT&T) to be able to support the provisionof new ICT-based services by the automaker, they had to rely on technology supplierslike Ericsson to deliver new technical platforms. Hence, Ericsson delivered a scalableplatform architecture that was required from, e.g. an automaker to be able to managethe ecosystem of actors providing the new set of services. The new technical platformbecame a new important point of connection for actors of many types, deliveringservices associated with the connected cars.
Interpretation of the case in the conceptual frameworkDo we find evidence of relations between the four variables in the model? In IMPresearch, innovation is to a large extent about trying out new combinations and thisoften means bridging different types of “gaps” (Hoholm and Håkansson, 2012, p. 254).In a similar vein, Bernardi et al. (2012) states that although existing relationships in aninnovation process represent an important element of stability that counterbalances theuncertainties in the innovation process, there are situations when innovation emergesin a network by actors with weak or without previous relationships. Furthermore, theinnovation needs to be embedded in different network contexts. Håkansson andWaluszewski (2007) distinguish between the developing, the producing and the usingnetwork contexts. It is suggested that bridging mechanisms/strategies – bridging
99
Serviceinnovationsenabled by
the IoT
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
established networks in a more limited sense or developing new networks in between –should be in focus for innovation research. In our conceptual framework bothintermediating and overlapping are involved in bridging. In our analysis of interactionbetween the four variables we will use intermediating as the common variable. Belowwe present five attributes of service innovation processes and formulate propositionsbased on these attributes.
New technical platforms has an intermediating role in the innovation processThe new technical platform (objectification of actors) delivered by Ericsson, received animportant role as intermediating in the network linking the car and its user to a verydiverse set of actors delivering a new bundle of services (overlapping). Which actor thatwill have the main control or influence over the new intermediary, and hence what setof actors/suppliers that will become connected to it, based on business modelling,seems not to be stabilized in the case. The degree of standardization and openness ofthe technical platforms functioning as intermediaries also seems to affect the structureof the network, including what type of actors, which actors and how many actors thatwould be connected to the technical platform. This also includes the degree to whichdifferent parts of the overall technical platform, serving different functions/activities,would be separated or inter-connected:
P1. Objectification of actors creates opportunities for intermediating.
An IoT object may intermediate between actors in different networks, thereby alsostimulating overlapping. Studies of innovations based on smartphones showed thatassortment of services could be stored in, acquired by or provided by this objectintermediating between providers and users (e.g. Andersson et al., 2009). Intermediatingbecomes of growing interest for understanding IoT-based service innovation. In an ARAframework how objects are connected via the web is thus of major concern since it isrelated to effects on interdependencies due to actor bonds in web of actors, activity linksin activity patterns and resource ties in resource constellations.
Intermediating strategy is based on degree of openness for other actors to connect tothe specific IoT networkWhile the automakers, for many reasons, probably claim an important role incontrolling the technical platform, also powerful mobile operators, like AT&T, seem tohave such ambitions. As the technical platform was built by many separate, technicalmodules (objectification of actors) this opened up for the actor(s) controlling theplatform, to manage (intermediating) the degree of openness and flexibility concerningwhich new actors that would be able to connect their services to the platform. Businessmodelling thus affected overlapping. The tensions between the two main actors, mobileoperators and automakers, involved in the management of the new intermediating,technical platform indicated the difficulties to connect two partly opposedbusiness models (due to different, temporal and spatial business practices). Theautomakers’ and the operators’ respective networks did not overlap to a largeextent. In line with Mason and Spring (2011), the different and conflicting businessmodels seem to involve many locally adapted situations, i.e. business models arelocally situated:
P2. Intermediating and overlapping are interdependent network processes and thestructure and degree of overlapping is dependent on business modelling.
100
IMP9,1
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
It is commonly argued that for an IoT-enabled service innovation to develop, anoverlapping process involving networks with previously little interaction is necessary.This is sometimes labelled technical or market convergence. As the service innovationproceeds, overlapping will influence both cooperation and competition, sometimesleading to co-opetition, between actors during the overlapping process, e.g. during anumber of pilot projects (as demonstrated in Andersson et al., 2012). Intermediatingis also related to overlapping. An example is to what extent services are bundled.Due to heterogeneity in business networks and temporal aspects of relationships,intermediation is dependent on earlier adaptation and stabilization in the network.These processes are affected by business modelling.
Intermediating structures and strategies are locally adaptedThe business model associated with Ericsson’s cooperation in Sweden with automakerVolvo is different compared to Ericsson’s links to American automakers in USA, viaEricsson’s relationships with the operator AT&T. In other words, the structure ofintermediating likely strongly affects how the business modelling for one and thesame actor has to be locally adapted. It can also be anticipated that the serviceinnovation – here manifested in a new bundle of services offered to the car user – alsowould look different to the local Swedish and the local American car users, dependingon differences in the intermediating role that the local car manufacturer and/or themobile operator would take. The network position of local actors would affect importantdimensions of the local business modelling:
P3. The service innovation process in terms of intermediating, overlapping andobjectification of actors is restricted due to conflicting business modelling.
Business modelling’s ability to perform changes in overlapping, intermediating andobjectification of actors is restricted by limited ability to handle change in interrelatednetwork interdependencies. Business modelling will always to some extent be locallysituated. A business model can, before it becomes part of realized practice, be describedas a potential, locally adapted network structure that is embedded in a wider network.Overlapping, intermediation and objectification of actors are processes needed torealize IoT-based business modelling’s local network attributes. Thus, these processesare needed to advance a service innovation process towards practical implementationand spread of the innovation among users. The emerging new business models fordifferent actors might be in conflict both with each other and with the business modelsfor established services in which an actor is involved.
Intermediating structures are a crucial consideration in business modellingIn the case, one central, and common action by actors, representing different functionsof the new system, was to present different innovative business modelling ideas. Thatis, different actors presented different representations of what necessary changes inbusiness models, including new structures of intermediating that would be needed forthe service innovation “The Connected Vehicle” to be manifested. Different actors agreethat business modelling must take place in a context where the overlapping networksoperate with quite different business models. An important part of business modellingfor a company in the service innovation process is therefore to represent effects ofdifferent intermediating structures:
P4. Intermediation is in parts driven by the performative role of business modelling,including tensions between interdependent actors’ business modelling.
101
Serviceinnovationsenabled by
the IoT
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
Changes in how actors are connected to each other, including entry and exit of actors,drives changes in intermediating and hence processes of overlapping. In these changes,business modelling has a performative role, i.e. aiming to influence the actions andperceptions of other actors in the system. This includes intermediating through theobjectification of actor. Hence, business modelling aims to develop new representations ofthe need for new network structures and positions of actors in order to create the new,necessary resource combinations. Intermediating is partly driven by different actors’practices to represent established and new business models in these change processes,including tensions between these business modelling processes.
Intermediating processes and structures will be partly different for different usageswhen turning a system idea into a service innovation with multiple usagesIt is apparent from the case that the Connected Vehicle is described as a systemic“value proposition” with many potential usages and new services. Many new services,ranging from, e.g. entertainment system services in the car to various road safetyservices to various remote car supervision and maintenance services, are proposed.Apart from the actual car driver and user, each of these three exemplified new servicesrepresent a different, interconnected “user network” to which the car driver is linked(“the entertainment network”, “the public road safety and supervision network”, “thecare maintenance network”, etc.). There is thus a variety of user contexts that areconnected to different production contexts. Service innovations thus require that eachuser network is connected, through intermediating, to these development andproduction network contexts in different ways (Håkansson and Waluszewski, 2007):
P5. Intermediation needs to be adapted to variation in usage network contextsduring a service innovation process.
Intermediating will be crucial for service innovations to become adopted in different,overlapping, usage network contexts. The role and outcome of intermediating will bedifferent depending on usage context. In one context intermediating may be stronglyconnected to technology, i.e. to objectification of actors. In another usage contextintermediation may be primarily related to business modelling. Some usage networkcontexts might be so different (e.g. “entertainment” services vs “road safety” servicesintermediating processes need to be quite different.
Some ideas for future researchWe suggest that further research into IoT-based service innovation processes shouldgo deeper into different aspects of the role of intermediating. In this paper we have, firstand foremost suggested that service innovation processes as manifested throughchanges in intermediating, will be strongly connected to processes of overlapping,business modelling and the objectification of actors. Below we propose three researchsubjects building on the propositions discussed in the previous section.
First, how the new IoT-based technologies resulting in objectification of actors willturn technical platforms into powerful intermediating actors needs much more detailedempirical work. “Technical platforms” consist of different technologies, i.e. combinationsof resources, more or less integrated into such platforms, which allows for big variation inthe ways in which the platform can connect different networks, i.e. drive overlapping.Standardization, creation of openness/closeness to connect to the technical platform,automation in the ways that resources are employed and activities are performed arecreated in interaction between actors. Negotiations on these types of technical issues
102
IMP9,1
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
becomes important determinants for continued interactions and negotiations concerningbusiness modelling.
Second, intermediating during service innovations related to overlapping betweenusage network contexts is an important topic. In a previous study of a similar,technology based, systemic service innovation (Andersson et al., 2012), it was shownthat some actors, often in cooperation, tend to take the lead in linking various usagenetworks. However, as the innovation is manifested in more intense use, other, morespecialized actors tend to take over the intermediating role for each separate use.
Third, very little is known about the performativity for service innovation ofbusiness modelling and the intense “story-telling” about business models. Research isneeded about how different actors tend to tell more or less different and conflictingbusiness modelling stories about preferred future, dominating business models andobstacles to overcome in order for the innovation process to proceed.
Notes1. Business Insider headline: Here’s Why “The Internet Of Things” “Will Be Huge, And Drive
Tremendous Value For People And Businesses” describing a new report: Here Comes TheInternet Of Things.
2. Internet of Things in 2020 – A Roadmap for the Future, EPoSS, September 2008(www.smart-systems-integration.org/public/documents/publications/Internet-of-Things_in_2020_EC-EPoSS_Workshop_Report_2008_v3.pdf).
3. Cisco (2011): “The internet of things. how the next evolution of the internet is changingeverything”, white paper (www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/docs/innov/IoT_IBSG_0411FINAL.pdf).
4. “Connected Car services come to market with Volvo Car Group and Ericsson”, press release,17 December 2012 (Ericsson).
5. http://archive.ericsson.net/service/internet/picov/get?DocNo¼ 28701-FGD101192&Lang¼EN&HighestFree¼Y
6. http://connectedcar.autoscout24.com
7. http://websrvc.net/2013/telefonica/Telefonica%20Digital_Connected_Car2013_Full_Report_English.pdf
8. www.att.com/edo/chooseATT/chooseATT.jsp?primary¼010000#/theDriveStudio9. www.advancedmobilityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/telefonica_digital_connected_
car_report_english.pdf
10. www.wirelessweek.com/articles/2013/10/opinion-connected-vehicle-profit-and-value-hinge-m2m-and-cloud
11. www.wirelessweek.com/articles/2013/10/opinion-connected-vehicle-profit-and-value-hinge-m2m-and-cloud
12. www.ericsson.com/thecompany/press/mediakits/connected-vehicle
13. www.engadget.com/2014/02/20/volvos-roam-delivery/
14. Reported in the business press (Forbes): www.forbes.com/pictures/mkk45ihlk/10-obstacles-for-connected-cars/
15. file:///Users/dpa/Desktop/Connected%20car%20mtrl/Report%20-%20Connected%20Car%202013%20reveals%20car%20industry%20must%20remodel%20itself.webarchive
103
Serviceinnovationsenabled by
the IoT
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
16. www.forbes.com/pictures/mkk45ihlk/10-obstacles-for-connected-cars/
17. The Connected Car Business Model, Telematics Update White paper (2013).
18. GSMA: “Connected Cars: Business model innovation” (May 2012).
19. www.forbes.com/pictures/mkk45ihlk/10-obstacles-for-connected-cars/
References
“Special Issue on Business Models” (2010), Long Range Planning, Vol. 43, pp. 143-462.
Andersson, P. (2002), “Connected internationalization processes – internationalizing channelintermediaries”, International Business Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 365-383.
Andersson, P., Markendahl, J. and Mattsson, L.G. (2009), ”The mobile phone as a market shapingdevice”, paper presented at the 25th IMP Conference, Marseille.
Andersson, P., Markendahl, J. and Mattsson, L.G. (2011a), “Technical development and theformation of new business ventures – the case of new mobile payment and ticketingservices”, The IMP Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 23-41.
Andersson, P., Markendahl, J. and Mattsson, L.G. (2011b), “Global policy networks involved inservice innovation. Turning the mobile phone into a wallet by applying NFC technology”,The IMP Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 193-211.
Andersson, P., Markendahl, J. and Mattsson, L.G. (2012), “Co-opetition during evolution oftechnology based service innovation – the case of development of NFC enabled services innice”, paper presented at the 28th IMP Conference, Rome.
Araujo, L. and Spring, M. (2006), “Services, products and the institutional structure ofproduction”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35, pp. 797-805.
Araujo, L., Finch, J. and Kjellberg, H. (Eds) (2010), Reconnecting Marketing to Markets, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.
Atzori, L., Iera, A. and Morabito, G. (2010), “The internet of things – a survey”, Computer Networks,Vol. 54 No. 15, pp. 2787-2805.
Bernardi, C., Boffi, M. and Snehota, I. (2012), “Living the innovation space without pre-existingrelationships”, The IMP Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 69-84.
Callon, M. (2008), “Economic markets and the rise of interactive agencements: from prosthetic tohabilitated agencies”, in Pinch, T. and Swedberg, R. (Eds), Living in a Material World.Economic Sociology Meets Science and Technology Studies, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,pp. 29-57.
Carlborg, P., Kindström, D. and Kowalkowski, C. (2014), “The evolution of service innovationresearch: a critical review and synthesis”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 34 No. 5,pp. 373-398.
Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R. (2002), “The role of the business in capturing value frominnovation: evidence from xerox corporation’s technology spin-off companies”, Industrialand Corporate Change, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 529-555.
Chui, M., Löffler, M. and Roberts, R. (2010), “The internet of things”, McKinsey Quarterly,Vol. 2, March.
Coombes, P.H. and Nicholson, J.D. (2013), “Business models and their relationship withmarketing: a systematic literature review”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42No. 5, pp. 656-606.
Doganova, L. and Eyquem-Renault, M. (2009), “What do business models do? Innovation devicesin technology entrepreneurship”, Research Policy, Vol. 38 No. 10, pp. 1559-1570.
104
IMP9,1
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
Ehret, M., Kashyap, V. and Wirtz, J. (2013), “Business models: impact on business marketsand opportunities for marketing research”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42No. 5, pp. 649-655.
EPoSS (2008), “Internet-of-Things in 2020”, Workshop Report, EPoSS.
Ford, D. and Mouzas, S. (2013), “Service and value in the interactive business landscape”,Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 9-17.
Håkansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1995), Developing Relationships in Business Networks, Routledge,London.
Håkansson, H. and Waluszewski, A. (2007), “Interaction: the only means to create use”, inHåkansson, H. and Waluszewsi, A. (Eds) Knowledge and Innovation in Business andIndustry. The Importance of Using Others, Routledge, London, pp. 147-167.
Henneberg, S.C., Gruber, T. and Naudé, P. (2013), “Service networks: Concept and researchagenda”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42, pp. 3-8.
Hertz, S. (1998), “Domino effects in international networks”, Journal of Business to BusinessMarketing, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 3-31.
Hoholm, T. (2011), The Contrary Forces of Innovation: An Ethnography of Innovation in the FoodIndustry, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Hoholm, T. and Håkansson, H.(2012), “Interaction to bridge network gaps. The problem ofspecialization and innovation in fish technology”, IMP Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3,pp. 254-266.
Höller, J., Tsiatsis, V., Mulligan, C., Avesand, S., Kamouskos, S. and Boyle, D. (2014), FromMachine-to-Machine to the Internet of Things. Introduction to a New Age of Intelligence,Elsevier, Oxford.
Kindström, D. (2010), “Towards a service-based business model – key aspects for futurecompetitive advantage”, European Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 479-490.
Kjellberg, H. (2001), Organising Distribution: Hakonbolaget and the Efforts to Rationalize FoodDistribution, 1940-1960, Economic Research Institute, Stockholm School of Economics,Stockholm.
Latour, B. (2005), Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.
MacInnis, D.J. (2011), “A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 136-154.
Maglio, P.P. and Spohrer, J. (2008), “Fundamentals of a service science”, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 18-20.
Maglio, P.P. and Spohrer, J. (2013), “A service science perspective on business model innovation”,Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 665-670.
Mason, K. and Spring, M. (2011), “The sites and practices of business models”, IndustrialMarketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1032-1041.
Mattsson, L.G. (1998), “Dynamics of overlapping networks and strategic action by the internationalfirm”, in Chandler, A.D., Hagström, P. and Sölvell, Ö. (Eds), The Dynamic Firm, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, pp. 242-259.
Olsen, P.I. (2013), “IMP theory in light of process-and system theories”, The IMP Journal, Vol. 7No. 3, pp. 159-170.
Olsson, R., Gadde, L.-E. and Hulthén, K. (2013), “The changing role of middlemen-strategicresponses to distribution dynamics”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 7,pp. 1131-1140.
105
Serviceinnovationsenabled by
the IoT
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)
Osterwalder, A., Pinneur, Y. and Tucci, C. (2005), “Clarifying business models: origins, present,and future of the concept”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems,Vol. 16, pp. 1-25.
Palo, T. and Tähtinen, J. (2013), “Networked business model development for emergingtechnology-based services”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 773-782.
Penrose, E. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Snehota, I. and Gadde, L.-E. (2001), “Rethinking the role of middlemen”, paper presented at the
17th IMP-Conference, Oslo.Telematics Update (2013), “The connected car business model-telematics update”,
available at: www.docstoc.com/docs/154797105/The-Connected-Car-Business-Model–Telematics-Update (accessed May 2014).
Vargo, S. and Lusch, R. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Vermesan, O. and Fries, P. (Eds) (2014), Internet of Things: Applications from Research andInnovation to Market Deployment, River Publishers Series in Communication.
Waluszewski, A. (2011), “Rethinking innovation policy”, IMP Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 140-156.Zott, C. and Amit, R. (2010), “Business model design: an activity system perspective”, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 43 Nos 2-3, pp. 216-226.
Further readingHåkansson, H., Ford, D., Gadde, L.E., Snehota, I. and Waluszewski, A. (2009), Business in Networks,
Wiley, London.
About the authorsPer Andersson is a Professor at the Center for Information and Communication (CIC), Departmentfor Marketing and Strategy at the Stockholm School of Economics. Since 1993, he hasparticipated in research projects on the mobile communications, resulting in a number ofpublished articles in journals, conference proceedings and books. Recent projects examine howfirms and other organizations co-produce and create value from new wireless technologies andapplications.
Lars-Gunnar Mattsson is a Professor Emeritus at the Department of Marketing and Strategy atthe Stockholm School of Economics. His long-term research interests focus on market dynamics in anetwork perspective. His current research concerns interaction between competition and cooperation,sustainability of markets and ICT-based service innovations. Professor Lars-Gunnar Mattsson is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: [email protected]
106
IMP9,1
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
TO
CK
HO
LM
SC
HO
OL
OF
EC
ON
OM
ICS
At 0
3:41
27
Apr
il 20
15 (
PT)