Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rimp20
Download by: [La Trobe University] Date: 09 July 2016, At: 00:54
InnovationManagement, Policy & Practice
ISSN: 1447-9338 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rimp20
Enhancing intellectual capital for e-serviceinnovation
Hung-Tai Tsou, Ja-Shen Chen & Shih-Wen (Jolie) Liao
To cite this article: Hung-Tai Tsou, Ja-Shen Chen & Shih-Wen (Jolie) Liao (2016) Enhancingintellectual capital for e-service innovation, Innovation, 18:1, 30-53
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1181527
Published online: 16 May 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 7
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Enhancing intellectual capital for e-service innovation
Hung-Tai Tsoua, Ja-Shen Chenb* and Shih-Wen (Jolie) Liaoc
aDepartment of Marketing and Logistics, Ming Dao University, 369, Wen-Hua Rd., Peetow,ChangHua 52345, Taiwan; bCollege of Management, Yuan Ze University, 135 Fareast Rd.,Chungli Dist., Tao-yuan 320, Taiwan; cInternational Business Division, Rainbow LightTechnology Co., 192, Sec. 3, Jinling Rd., Pingzhen Dist., Taoyuan 324, Taiwan
(Received 13 June 2015; accepted 18 April 2016)
The emergence of the knowledge-based economy has made intellectual capital a criti-cal factor in assisting companies to obtain a competitive advantage in this fierceenvironment. This study adopted the knowledge-based view and resource-based viewto explore and propose the influence of intellectual capital on e-service innovationand further examines the mediating effects of cross-functional integration andexternal collaborative competency on the relationship between intellectual capital ande-service innovation. An empirical study was performed based on a survey of infor-mation technology (IT) and marketing managers from financial and hotel industriesin Taiwan. There were 126 companies whose two departments both responded to thequestionnaires. The findings indicated that intellectual capital can promote the abilityof firms to develop e-service innovation. Furthermore, cross-functional integrationplayed a mediating role between intellectual capital and e-service innovation. Thisstudy suggested that managers should enhance intellectual capital in developinge-service innovation through cross-functional integration.
Keywords: intellectual capital; e-service innovation; cross-functional integration;external collaborative competency
1. Introduction
In the twenty-first century, knowledge is becoming a key factor in creating businesswealth and is regarded as a critical resource with which firms create value and obtain acompetitive advantage. According to the resource-based view (RBV), firms focus onobtaining, retaining and using potential strategic resources to attain a competitive advan-tage and outstanding business performance (Barney, 1991). In addition, firms use theirown unique resources to develop and sustain a competitive advantage, including bothtangible and intangible assets. Due to knowledge as an agent of wealth production(Bontis, 2004), intellectual capital1 is becoming one of the important commercial assets,a way of describing a company’s intangible assets that are vital for company success(Brooking, 1996). Enhancing intellectual capital can assist a company to use knowledgeto gain service innovation performance (Carmona-Lavado, Cuevas-Rodríguez, &Cabello-Medina, 2013) and increase customer values (Chien & Chao, 2011). Moreover,electronic linkages within and among organizations are proliferating, altering the waysin which firms acquire factor inputs, convert them into products and services, and dis-tribute the results to their customers (Straub & Watson, 2001). Electronic application
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 2016Vol. 18, No. 1, 30–53, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1181527
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
mainly assesses the extent of deployed new digital resources2 between new technologiesand various aspects of an organization and the situation in which innovative e-servicescan be created or produced (Barrett et al., 2015).
E-service innovation is a type of service innovation using technical capabilities toimprove service delivery and tailor services through electronic technologies (Tsou &Chen, 2012) and has significant impact on firm value (Chuang & Lin, 2015). Anincreasingly growing stream of innovation studies has emerged that attempted to iden-tify influence factors that are crucial to e-service innovation. Different from serviceinnovation, e-service innovation specifically emphasizes on creating innovative servicesbased on information and communication technology (ICT) applications. With regard toe-service innovation research, relevant issues including co-creation (Chuang & Lin,2015), interfirm codevelopment competency (Tsou & Chen, 2012), technology integra-tion mechanism (Tsou, 2012b), and dichotomic approaches (Di Guardo & Cabiddu,2015) have been examined and thoroughly developed. A few empirical studies (e.g.,Oliveira, Roth, & Gilland, 2002; Tsou, 2012a) have also examined the role of knowl-edge as a driving force to e-service performance.
Following the knowledge-based view (KBV), an organization’s intellectual capital isclosely related to its innovative capability (Chen, James Lin, & Chang, 2006). Theeffective exploitation of an organization’s intellectual capital is believed to facilitateinnovation in organizations (Damanpour, 1991). Organizations therefore, must leveragethe knowledge resources within the firm and from customers, and integrate the intangi-bles of production, thus recognizing that knowledge resources (i.e., intellectual capital)are key sources of e-service innovation (Carmona-Lavado et al., 2013). For example, inelectronic financial markets, the companies need to invest their intellectual capital toprovide more innovative “bundled” e-services to their clients, such as ad hoc real-timenews reports, real-time charting of stock price movements, the demand and supply ofstocks, stock analyst ratings, and research on the company’s financial health (Yap &Synn, 2011). However, there is still a very limited understanding of the relationshipbetween intellectual capital and e-service innovation in general: the relevant theoreticaland empirical works are quite limited. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap by dis-cussing the relationship between intellectual capital and e-service innovation. We pro-pose that intellectual capital plays an important role in accumulating and utilizing variedknowledge resources to design and implement new e-services and ultimately enhancinge-service innovation performance.
Further, previous studies have shown that maximizing service innovation requiresopenness to external ideas and an effective internal organization of resources (Love,Roper, & Bryson, 2011). Internal and external sourcing are complementary innovativeactivities (Lokshin, Belderbos, & Carree, 2008) and firms can adapt the internal-externaldriving forces to reconfigure resources and coordinate processes promptly and effec-tively to meet new information technology environment (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).According to this conception, we assert that an internal driving force that combines dif-ferent functional teams to develop an internal cross-functional integration, and an exter-nal driving force that collaborates with suppliers and business partners to form anexternal collaborative competency might play roles in developing e-service innovation.Hence, this study considers internal cross-functional integration and external collabora-tive competency as two mediators to investigate the influence of intellectual capital one-service innovation via internal cross-functional integration and external collaborativecompetency. Accordingly, this study aims to explore how intellectual capital influencescompanies in implementing e-service innovation. Therefore, intellectual capital, internal
Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 31
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
cross-functional integration, external collaborative competency, and e-service innovationare all captured in the research framework, as shown in Figure 1. This paper addressesthree specific questions: (1) Does intellectual capital impact e-service innovation, and, ifso, how? (2) Does intellectual capital impact cross-functional integration and externalcollaborative competency, and, if so, how? (3) Do cross-functional integration and exter-nal collaborative competency mediate the relationships between intellectual capital ande-service innovation?
Our findings make three main contributions. First, literature about the relationshipbetween intellectual capital and e-service innovation is scarce. Our research providesnew insights for managers on how to properly allocate intellectual capital to implementeffective e-service innovation. Second, to our knowledge, mediating effects of internaland external driving forces on the relationships between intellectual capital and e-serviceinnovation has not been well discussed in prior studies. The results of this study can bea starting point for relevant research and establish basic understandings of knowledgeresources in e-service innovation. This study also expands on the model proposed byChuang and Lin (2015), which only examined the effects of internal and external driv-ing forces on e-service innovation. Third, based on RBV and KBV, we test the linksbetween intellectual capital, organization (internal and external), and e-service innova-tion through an empirical survey with paired samples of information technology (IT)and marketing managers from 126 financial and hotel firms in Taiwan. Financial andhotel firms are able to sense changes, organize capital, knowledge, and relations as wellas meet changing customer needs in a timely manner and convert market changechallenges into e-service innovation opportunities.
2. Literature review
2.1. Intellectual capital
Intellectual capital refers to the difference in value between tangible assets (physical andfinancial) and the aggregation of intangible assets owned by an organization (Bueno,Salmador, & Rodríguez, 2004). Carmona-Lavado, Cuevas-Rodríguez, and Cabello-Medina (2010) identified intellectual capital as the collective knowledge and knowing
Externalcollaborativecompetency
H2
H3
H4
H5
H1e-Serviceinnovation
Process innovationTechnical capacity Risk reduction
Intellectual capitalHuman capitalOrganizational capitalSocial capital
Cross-functional integration
Figure 1. Research model.
32 H.-T. Tsou et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
capability at the organizational level. Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) used three mea-sures, human capital, organizational capital, and social capital, to represent intellectualcapital. Reed, Lubatkin, and Srinivasan (2006) likewise classified intellectual capital ashuman capital, organizational capital, and social capital. Kang and Snell (2009) alsoclassified intellectual capital as human capital, social capital, and organizational capi-tal. In a knowledge society setting, Ramezan (2011) used the three dimensions of intel-lectual capital – human, organizational, and social – to examine their relationships withorganic structure. In Su’s (2014) study, the scope of intellectual capital again includedhuman capital, organizational capital, and social capital. Accordingly, we have usedhuman capital, organizational capital, and social capital as the three dimensions ofintellectual capital.
Human capital has been defined as the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs)embodied in people (Coff, 2002), and it refers to the capabilities, knowledge, skills, andexperiences of employees in an organization that can facilitate new ideas and the inno-vativeness of a firm (Lu & Hung, 2011). Organizational capital, including databases,organizational charts, process manuals, practices, and routines, is the infrastructure of afirm that can store knowledge and allow employees access to knowledge and necessaryresources (Lu & Hung, 2011). In addition, Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) stated that“organizational capital is the institutionalized knowledge and codified experienceresiding within and utilized through databases, patents, manuals, structures, systems,and processes.” Social capital has been defined as “the resources accessible through thenetwork of relationships possessed by an individual or a social unit” (Hillman &Dalziel, 2003). It can utilize the interactions among employee within a firm and thefirm’s relationship with its collaborators, such as government, customers, alliancepartners, suppliers, and technical collaborators (Hsu & Fang, 2009).
2.2. e-service innovation
Relatively few studies have empirically examined organizations’ e-service innovation.E-service innovation can be defined as a type of service innovation that is created by aservice provider using technical capabilities involving interaction with partners toimprove and tailor the services to meet customer demands through electronic technolo-gies (Chuang & Lin, 2015; Tsou & Chen, 2012). Following Tsou and Chen’s (2012)work, we used three sub-constructs to develop the model of e-service innovation,namely process innovation, technical capability and risk reduction. Process innovationrefers to a company’s improvement of organizational processes and service delivery.Technical capability is defined as the capability of an organization to acquire new tech-nologies and technical resources for e-innovation practices. Risk reduction refers toreducing the possibility of an innovation failing, resulting in undesired effects, or notfunctioning as originally conceived to measure risk mitigation.
Intellectual capital is regarded as the knowledge resources that organizations use toattain sustainable success and is clearly related to a firm’s innovation capability(Carmona-Lavado et al., 2010). Additionally, intellectual capital is a critical factor in theprocess of innovation development and an intangible asset at the organizational levelthat can stimulate a firm’s innovation capability (Chen et al., 2006). For human capital,when a company possesses employees and managers with professional knowledge, plen-tiful experience and outstanding capability, it will facilitate NPD performance. In addi-tion, human capital is the primary resource for innovation (Alegre, Lapiedra, & Chiva,2006). Organizational capital has a positive influence on innovation, as it allows a firm
Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 33
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
to store knowledge and greatly stimulate the flows of relevant information among bothemployees and units (Sørensen & Lundh-Snis, 2001). Specifically, organizations align-ing investments in human and organizational capitals can transfer the non-financial per-formances (e.g., e-service innovation) into financial performances (Kaplan & Norton,2004). Social capital plays a critical factor in the process of innovation developmentand practice (Carmona-Lavado et al., 2010). Several researchers have proposed thatsocial capital will influence the innovativeness of a firm by supporting creativity andencouraging new knowledge and ideas (Aragón-Correa, García-Morales, &Cordón-Pozo, 2007; Lu & Shyan, 2004; Song & Thieme, 2006) and positively affectuser satisfaction through e-service delivery (Sun, Fang, Lim, & Straub, 2012).Therefore, we infer that a company can create successful e-service innovation throughintellectual capital and propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Intellectual capital has a positive effect on e-service innovation
2.3. Cross-functional integration
Cross-functional integration is defined as “the magnitude of interaction and communica-tion, the level of information sharing, the degree of coordination, and the extent of jointinvolvement across functions in specific NPD tasks” (Hirunyawipada, Beyerlein, &Blankson, 2010; Song & Montoya-Weiss, 2001). To exchange ideas of experts from var-ious functional areas has been a key in new service development (NSD). Thus, theinvestment in human capital to acquire more individual professional knowledge can bea starting point of cross-functional integration (Chien & Chao, 2011). Likewise, organi-zational capital is a type of organizational memory (e.g., the information system anddatabase of an enterprise). When companies utilize an information system well to inte-grate individual intelligence and scattered information, it will make information andknowledge exchange within the organization more efficient (Hurwitz, Lines,Montgomery, & Schmidt, 2002). Also, social capital represents an organization’sabilities in terms of interaction among employees (Lu & Hung, 2011). A good socialnetwork in an organization can improve the efficiency of knowledge exchange amongvarious departments and can increase resource integration (Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone,1998) to facilitate coordination and collaboration within a company (Putnam, 1993).Therefore, this study presents the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Intellectual capital has a positive effect on cross-functional integration
2.4. External collaborative competency
External collaborative competency can be defined as the core capability to bring cus-tomers and business partners into the process and use as mechanisms to foster changes(Lusch, Vargo, & O’Brien, 2007) and simultaneously involve key stakeholders in thenew service/product development process (Mishra & Shah, 2009). According to RBV, acompany must establish a collaborative relationship with its partners to constitute abridging strategy. As organizations are rarely self-sufficient, they must establish collabo-rative relationships with other organizations to acquire critical resources. Additionally,because one business does not hold all resources and capabilities, it must create valueby combining and exchanging resources with its collaborators (Penrose, 1959).
34 H.-T. Tsou et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
However, there are still few studies addressing the relationship between intellectualcapital and collaboration competency. Chien and Chao (2011) have indicated that intel-lectual capital has positive effects on co-production. In terms of human capital, a profes-sional is an employee with expertise in their field of work, and expertise can increasethe degree of involvement in collaborative processes (Moorthy, Ratchford, & Talukdar,1997). In terms of organizational capital, when a company has high operational effi-ciency and can solve internal problems, it can increase its collaborative ability withexternal partners (Lynn, 1999). In terms of social capital, a firm can utilize its relation-ships with its business collaborators (Hsu & Fang, 2009). The better the extent of afirm’s social capital, the better it is able to collaborate with its partners (Lu & Hung,2011). Therefore, this study presents the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Intellectual capital has a positive effect on external collaborative competency
2.5. Mediating effects of cross-functional integration and external collaborativecompetency on e-service innovation
Cross-functional integration is viewed as a key success factor in NPD (Engelen, Brettel,& Wiest, 2012). Because each functional area owns specific information and resources,cross-functional integration plays an important role in assisting a company to integratedifferent resources and information when developing a new product (Griffin & Hauser,1996). Furthermore, several empirical studies have investigated the positive effect ofcross-functional integration on NPD success (e.g., Nijssen & Frambach, 2000; Song &Parry, 1992; Troy, Hirunyawipada, & Paswan, 2008). From a NSD perspective, theimportance of cross-functional teams is their ability to maximize the process efficiencyof a new service (Melton & Hartline, 2013). Therefore, the cross-functional team is con-sidered a key internal organizational resource that can stimulate the design, develop-ment, and introduction of new services (Ordanini & Parasuraman, 2011). Accordingly,by a combination of the arguments presented when discussing H2 above, this study canmake predictions regarding the mediating effect of cross-functional integration betweenintellectual capital and e-service innovation. This discussion suggests the followinghypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Cross-functional integration mediates the effect of intellectual capital on e-service innovation
External collaborative competency has been seen as an imperative factor that significantaffects the innovation practices of a firm (Barrett et al., 2015). Previous research hasindicated that innovation practices are facilitated through inter-organizational collabora-tion behaviors (Sarin & Mahajan, 2001). From the RBV, collaboration between firmsand their business partners is necessary to innovation, which means that businesses mustexchange information, resource and combined capabilities with other organizations toprovide innovation practices (Tsou, 2012a). Several existing studies have addressed therelationship between collaboration and innovation practices and revealed that collabora-tion can substantially advance the innovation practices of a firm (e.g., Ordanini &Parasuraman, 2011; Tsou, 2012b). Moreover, de Vries (2006) mentioned that serviceinnovation arises not from any single source but instead from a collaborative network,which includes partners, supplier collaboration and the competency of the combinationof companies and delivery technology. Accordingly, by combining the arguments
Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 35
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
presented when discussing H3, this study can make predictions regarding the mediatingeffect of external collaborative competency between intellectual capital and e-serviceinnovation. This discussion suggests the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: External collaborative competency mediates the effect of intellectual capitalon e-service innovation
3. Method
3.1. Sample and data collection
Our study context was the service industry in Taiwan. The service sector has graduallybecome the main force of economic development. The world’s economy is dominatedby service, and in some advanced countries, more than 70% of GDP is generated byservice. According to Oke (2007), the service sector is comprised of the transport, gov-ernment, education, health care, social and personal services, retail and wholesale, hoteland restaurant, telecommunication and financial sectors. The financial sector is a knowl-edge-intensive industry and intellectual capital plays a very important role in financialindustry (Chien & Chao, 2011). The nature of financial markets in Taiwan is highlycompetitive and turbulent, and it is necessary for firms to provide and develop better e-services to sustain their competitive advantage by collaborating with partners. In addi-tion, both the individual knowledge of the employees working in a financial institutionand the organizational knowledge of the financial institution (e.g., the customer data-base, information system, business culture) are considered important elements in thiscompetitive environment. Thus, research attests to the importance of e-service innova-tion in the financial industry and highlights the need to focus research on this area.
This study considers the hotel industry as another target industry. The hotel industryis a fast growing industry involving with online/offline service interactions (de Ruyter,Wetzels, & Kleijnen, 2001; Shahin, Khazaei Pool, & Poormostafa, 2014). Hotels inTaiwan face rapid changes in the business environment, including globalization of thehospitality and tourism market, greater service demands from customers, and theever-increasing role of new technologies in supporting service delivery such as Internetof Things (IoT) applications in hotel (Guo, Liu, & Chai, 2014) . These changes exertgreat pressures on hotels. To meet these challenges, e-service innovation is the key tocreating and maintaining a competitive advantage. Hotel managers in Taiwan work per-sistently to develop new e-services to outperform their competitors. For example, oneimportant new e-service associated with the hotel industry is mobile hotel reservationsystems (MHRS). MHRS refer to hotel booking mobile apps. These apps offered by ahotel for its customers to check hotel locations, room rates, promotions, or membershipinformation (e.g., membership points) and offered by a third-party organization that pro-vides information on different hotels for the convenience of travelers (Wang, Li, Li, &Zhang, 2016). In addition, previous researchers have suggested that hotel managersshould pay more attention to intellectual capital because end-customers care more aboutintangible service (Rudež & Mihalič, 2007). Even though hotel industry is not primarilyconsidered knowledge intensive, both individual knowledge and organizational knowl-edge expressed in routines, systems, customer databases etc., are considered importantelements of effectively running a hotel in a competitive environment (Engström, West-nes, & Westnes, 2003). Hence, this study explores how e-service innovation is generatedin the hotel industry.
36 H.-T. Tsou et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
The sample of the financial industry was selected from “the largest corporations inTaiwan－Top 5,000 (2013)” published by China Credit Information Service, Ltd. Thesample of the hotel industry was selected from the Tourism Bureau, Ministry of Trans-portation and Communication, Republic of China (Taiwan) and focused on star standardhotel firms. All samples were filtered by performing a Google-check of whether thecompanies’ websites are still active, and some firms were eliminated due to the specialproperties of these businesses. The final samples include 759 companies, consisting of367 financial companies and 392 hotel companies.
To enhance accuracy, we collected data from two major functional areas of a firm,namely, the IT and marketing departments, and the respondents are the managers ofthese two departments. We believe that both marketing and IT managers must have acertain level of awareness about their organization’s service practices and innovationperformance. In addition to marketing managers, the choice of IT managers as respon-dents seems reasonable because one of the main focuses of this study is about e-serviceinnovation. To be eligible, a firm’s most recently completed e-service innovation projectmust have introduced at least one e-service that was on the market from 2011 to 2013.
Following the suggestions of Churchill (1979), the questionnaire was designed,modified, and adopted with reference to the literature. The data were secured by meansof a four-page self-administered questionnaire as part of a wider examination of intellec-tual capital, cross-functional integration, external collaborative competency, and e-ser-vice innovation. All constructs were measured using a minimum of four closed-endeditems. Responses were rated on 7-point Likert scales where 1 = strongly disagree and7 = strongly agree. To gain insights into the IT and marketing managers’ experiences,opinions, aspirations, and attitudes toward intellectual capital, cross-functional integra-tion, external collaborative competency, and e-service innovation, interviews with fourscholars and six specialists (i.e., one general manager in the hotel industry, three branchmanagers in the financial industry, and one assistant manager each in the financial andhotel industries, respectively) were scheduled for 60–90 min. The interviewees’ averagetenure was between 5 years and 10 years. Afterwards, the interviewees were asked toreview and complete the draft version of the questionnaire to identify ambiguities andsuggest improvements. An examination of the feedback led to further refinement andeventually a final version (see Appendix).
A total of 1,518 questionnaires in Mandarin Chinese were mailed to the IT and mar-keting departments of selected financial and hotel firms in Taiwan. Each departmentreceived one questionnaire and a self-addressed stamped return envelope. To encourageresponse, we donated to The Eden Social Welfare Foundation for every returned ques-tionnaire. In addition, a cover page described our research objectives and promised toprovide participants with a copy of the research findings in exchange for their response.We also ensured participants that their responses would remain confidential. The respon-dents were asked to reply to all questions based on their experience and actual collabo-ration campaigns. Initially, we received the questionnaires from both departments of 18firms. To increase the response rate, we continued to follow up by telephone, email, faxand online questionnaire to contact the firms that did not respond or from which weonly received one questionnaire. After calling for replies for approximately threemonths, the follow-up contacts resulted in a total of 252 questionnaires collected from126 companies whose two departments both completed the questionnaires. The effectiveresponse rate was thus 16.61%.
To examine non-response bias, we compared the early and late responders(Armstrong & Overton, 1977). We classified the first received as early response (n = 18)
Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 37
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
and the follow-up contacts as late response (n = 108). The results of an independentsamples t-test revealed no statistically significant difference between the two groups interms of human capital (p = 0.657), organizational capital (p = 0.240), social capital(p = 0.084), cross-functional integration (p = 0.839), external collaborative competency(p = 0.895), process innovation (p = 0.336), technical capability (p = 0.214), or riskreduction (p = 0.104). Further, to prove that these questionnaires are representative ofactual situations, we used paired samples t-tests to examine whether there were signifi-cant differences between the two departments. The results demonstrated that there wereno statically significant differences in any construct between the IT and marketingdepartments. In other words, e-service innovation opinions from the two departments inthe same company were consistent.
There are two explanations for this. First, many new e-service development projectsare outsourced to or co-executed with outside consulting firms so that, compared to thepast, IT and marketing managers are now able to pay more attention to strategic-levelissues and focus more on how IT and marketing functions can better be aligned withbusiness strategies and operations. Hence, when viewing e-service innovation practices,managers from both IT and marketing departments are likely to form the same opinions.Second, in this study, more than half firms owned capital from USD 3.3 million to 0.17billion (62.7%). The bigger a company, the more mature its departments. Firms empha-size agreement of cross-units on any business strategy. For these reasons, consistency inthe attitudes of IT and marketing departments toward e-service innovation strategies canbe expected.
Because the data were self-reported, we used Harmon’s one-factor test to check forthe presence of common method bias. The items used to measure the dependent andindependent variables were entered into a single exploratory factor analysis. However,in our analysis of the IT and marketing departments, no single factor emerged, and thefirst factor accounted for 29.7% of the total variance, while the eight extracted factorsaccounted for 68.5% of the variance. These figures suggest that our results were not dueto a common method bias. The demographics of the firm surveyed are shown in Table 1.Most of these sample firms have been established in Taiwan for over 20 years (49.2%).More than half owned capital from USD 3.3 million to 0.17 billion (62.7%). Almosthalf the firms have 101 to 500 employees (48.4%). There were 28.6% IT managerrespondents who have worked for 5 to 10 years, and 31.7% marketing managerrespondents have worked for 10 to 15 years. In terms of industry category, 52.4% ofrespondents were from financial firms and 47.6% from hotel firms.
3.2. Measures
Independent variable. This study modeled intellectual capital as a second-order con-struct formed by three first-order factors: human capital, organizational capital, andsocial capital. Human capital (HC) was adopted and modified from Subramaniam andYoundt (2005) and Chien and Chao (2011) and measured the level of the employees’overall skill, creativity, expertise, and knowledge of the organization. Organizationalcapital (OC) was modified from Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) to measure the extentto which a company uses software, databases and organization culture to accumulateknowledge. Social capital (SC) was modified from Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) tomeasure the firm’s ability to share knowledge and collaborate among networks ofemployees, the government, customers, alliance partners, suppliers, and technicalcollaborators.
38 H.-T. Tsou et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
Mediating variables. Cross-functional integration (CFI) was measured by using sixitems drawn from Brettel, Heinemann, Engelen, and Neubauer (2011), Turkulainen andKetokivi (2012), and Kahn (1996). These items measured the extent of collaboration,resource exchange, interaction and information sharing across different departmentswithin a firm. External collaborative competency (ECC) was adopted and modified fromOrdanini and Parasuraman (2011) to measure the firm’s capability to collaborate withexternal business partners to co-create knowledge through an interactive process.Dependent variable. The item e-service innovation (ESI) was adopted from Tsou andChen (2012) and modeled as a second-order construct formed by three first-orderfactors: process innovation, technical capability, and risk reduction. Process innovation(PI) measured the extent to which a company improved organizational processes and
Table 1. Demographics of the sample firms
Variable Category N Rate (%)
Years of Firm Established in Taiwan 5 years and fewer 10 7.9Over 6 years to 10 years 22 17.5Over 10 years to 15 years 17 13.5Over 15 years to 20 years 15 11.9Over 20 years 62 49.2Aggregate 126 100
Firm Capital (1US dollar≒30 NTdollars)
USD 0.16 million and below 4 3.2USD 0.16 million to 0.33million
4 3.2
USD 0.33 million to 1.66million
10 7.9
USD 1.66 million to 3.3million
11 8.7
USD 3.3 million to 0.17 billion 79 62.7Over than 0.17 billion 18 14.3Aggregate 126 100
Number of employees 50 and fewer 15 11.951 to 100 18 14.3101 to 500 61 48.4501 to 1,000 12 9.51,001 to 2,000 8 6.3Over 2,000 12 9.5Aggregate 126 100
Variable Category N Rate (%)
IT MKT IT MKT
Tenures of Informants 5 years and fewer 25 22 19.8 17.5Over 6 years to 10 years 33 36 26.2 28.6Over 10 years to 15 years 25 40 19.8 31.7Over 15 years to 20 years 24 23 19.0 18.3Over 20 years 19 5 15.1 4.0Aggregate 126 126 100 100
Industry Financial 66 52.4Hotel 60 47.6Aggregate 126 100
Notes: 1) “N” represents the total frequency of the all respondents (firm level); “Rate” in % means thefrequency divided by the total valid response number; 2) IT for IT managers; MKT for marketing managers.
Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 39
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
new e-service delivery. Technical capability (TC) measured the capability of an organi-zation to acquire new technologies and technical resources for e-innovation practices.Risk reduction (RR) was the reduction of the possibility of an innovation failing, result-ing in undesired effects, or not functioning as originally conceived.
Control variables. Firm capital, firm size, firm age, and industry type were used ascontrol variables. Prior research has suggested that financial resources and firm size playimportant roles in driving innovative practices (Sorescu, Chandy, & Prabhu, 2003;Tellis, Prabhu, & Chandy, 2009; Yeoh & Roth, 1999). In particular, larger IT firms tendto have more resources, including financial, personnel, and social capital resources and,thus, are better able to undertake a greater number of innovation projects (Lee, Olson,& Trimi, 2012). Further, following Chandler and Hanks (1998), firm age was alsoincluded as a control variable, due to its potential influence on a firm’s growth rate andinnovation. Overall, firm capital was measured by the logarithm of the firm’s total capi-tal, firm size was measured by the number of employees, firm age was measured by thenumber of years since the firm was established, and industry type was classified asfinancial industries and hotel industries.
4. Data analysis and results
4.1. Measurement properties
We tested the measurement invariance of IT and marketing groups using AMOS 7.0.Our results showed no significant differences between the IT and marketing departmentsfor factor loadings, Δχ2(32) = 48.57, p = 0.162; intercepts invariance, Δχ2(49) = 63.52,p = 0.457; and testing simultaneously for factor loading and intercept invariance,Δχ2(78) = 98.46, p = 0.985. Because the factor loadings and intercepts showed invari-ance across the two groups, we were able to pool the data from the IT and marketingsamples. Thus, for each question, we combined and averaged the paired data into onesample data value for each firm.
The reliability was assessed including Cronbach’s Alpha (α) and composite reliability(CR). The values of Cronbach’s Alpha (α) for all variables in this study were higher thanthe recommended level of 0.7, ranging from 0.880 to 0.947, which indicated a high inter-nal consistency of measuring reliability (Majchrzak, Beath, Lim, & Chin, 2005). More-over, the values of composite reliability (CR) all exceeded 0.7 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981;Nambisan & Baron, 2010), ranging from 0.930 to 0.974, which indicated that the mea-sures were reliable. The properties of the measurement model are summarized in Table 2.
The convergent validity of all constructs was examined through average varianceextracted (AVE). Table 3 shows the mean, standard deviation, AVE, and correlation coeffi-cient of each construct. The AVE values of all variables are higher than the minimumthreshold of 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Majchrzak et al., 2005). The AVE values rangefrom 0.69 to 0.95, demonstrating convergent validity. Furthermore, the values of thesquare root of AVE for each variable in the diagonal were higher than the value in the cor-responding off-diagonal, which indicated that the discriminant validity was satisfactory.
Table 4 shows the multicollinearity test results for all dimensions. All Variance Infla-tionary Factor (VIF) coefficients are less than 5. According to Berenson and Levine(1996) “if a set of explanatory variables are uncorrelated, then VIF will be equal 1. Ifthe set were highly correlated, then VIF might even exceed 10”. Considering thisBerenson and Levine’s argument, which is a widely accepted argument in statistics andmanagement literature, it can be suggested that there is no interference between the
40 H.-T. Tsou et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
Table 2. Results of measurement properties.
ConstructConstructIdentifier Items
FactorLoading
Cronbach’sAlpha
CompositeReliability
Human Capital HC HC1 0.795 0.937 0.950HC2 0.887HC3 0.875HC4 0.907HC5 0.877HC6 0.893
Organizational Capital OC OC1 0.887 0.930 0.945OC2 0.924OC3 0.917OC4 0.908
Social Capital SC SC2 0.908 0.930 0.950SC3 0.894SC4 0.907SC5 0.929
Cross-functionalIntegration
CFI CFI1 0.837 0.907 0.930CFI2 0.883CFI3 0.812CFI4 0.896CFI5 0.839
External CollaborativeCompetency
ECC ECC1 0.818 0.911 0.931ECC2 0.798ECC3 0.801ECC4 0.857ECC5 0.854ECC6 0.864
ProcessInnovation PI PI1 0.914 0.916 0.941PI2 0.946PI3 0.890PI4 0.826
Technical capability TC TC1 0.944 0.880 0.943TC2 0.945
Risk Reduction RR RR1 0.974 0.947 0.974RR2 0.976
Table 3. Mean, correlation and average variance extracted (AVE).
Variable Mean SD AVE ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) ( d ) ( e ) ( f ) ( g ) ( h )
HC ( a ) 5.77 0.58 0.76 0.87OC ( b ) 5.61 0.77 0.82 .64** 0.90SC ( c ) 5.80 0.66 0.82 .67** .69** 0.90CFI ( d ) 5.71 0.56 0.72 .53** .55** .70** 0.85ECC ( e ) 5.59 0.58 0.69 .53** .55** .62** .64** 0.83PI ( f ) 5.69 0.64 0.80 .51** .59** .52** .52** .45** 0.89TC ( g ) 5.47 0.70 0.89 .50** .57** .53** .56** .47** .79** 0.94RR ( h ) 5.36 0.76 0.95 .44** .48** .47** .51** .47** .63** .74** 0.97
Notes: a)**p < 0.01; b) Values in shaded diagonal are the square root of the AVE; c) HC = human capital,OC = organizational capital, SC = social capital, CFI = cross-functional integration, ECC = externalcollaborative competency, PI = process innovation, TC = technical capability, RR = risk reduction.
Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 41
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
intellectual capital, cross-functional integration, external collaborative competency, ande-service innovation dimensions. Therefore, we can confirm that the all dimensions areseparable from each other.
4.2. Results for the direct effects
We used Partial Least Square (Smart PLS 2.0) to analyze the data. PLS was chosen forthis study for three reasons. First, this study has a relatively small to medium samplesize (n = 126) (Chin, Marcolin, & Newsted, 1996). Second, PLS is appropriate forstudies taking a formative construct components-based approach (Chin, Marcolin, &Newsted, 2003). Third, PLS is appropriate for a research model in an early stage ofdevelopment (Teo, Wei, & Benbasat, 2003). Because few empirical studies haveexplored the relationship of intellectual capital and e-service innovation, PLS was anappropriate analytical tool for analyzing the research model.
The results for the direct effects of the structural model were demonstrated throughPLS examination and are shown in Figure 2. A bootstrapping approach was applied toobtain the statistical significance of path coefficients in the structural model by using200 bootstrapping technique interactions (Chin et al., 2003). The direct effect of intel-lectual capital on e-service innovation was positive (β = 0.404, t = 3.328, p < 0.001).Thus, H1 was supported. There was a significantly positive relationship between intel-lectual capital and cross-functional integration (β = 0.676, t = 8.824, p < 0.001). Mean-while, the positive relationship between intellectual capital and external collaborativecompetency was significant (β = 0.645, t = 8.644, p < 0.001). Hence, H2 and H3 weresupported. With regard to R2, intellectual capital, cross-functional integration, and eter-nal collaborative competency explained 48 percent of the variance in e-service innova-tion, and intellectual capital explained 46 percent of the variance in cross-functionalintegration. Meanwhile, intellectual capital explained 42 percent of the variance in exter-nal collaborative competency. These values were significant at p < 0.001 and provideconsiderable evidence for the high predictive power of the research model. Table 5 liststhe hypotheses and results.
4.3. Results for the mediating effects
To assess the extent of mediation in the model, the study followed Andrews, Netemeyer,Burton, Moberg, and Christiansen (2004), who indicated that four specific criteria must bemet: (1) intellectual capital should significantly influence cross-functional integration and
Table 4. Variance inflationary factor (VIF) coefficients.
Variable HC OC SC CFI ECC PI TC RR
HC -OC 2.3 -SC 2.8 2.3 -CFI 2.5 2.5 2.0 -ECC 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.3 -PI 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 -TC 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 2.2 -RR 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 1.0 -
Notes: HC = human capital, OC = organizational capital, SC = social capital, CFI = cross-functional integra-tion, ECC = external collaborative competency, PI = process innovation, TC = technical capability, RR = riskreduction.
42 H.-T. Tsou et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
external collaborative competency; (2) cross-functional integration and externalcollaborative competency should significantly influence e-service innovation; (3)intellectual capital should significantly influence e-service innovation; and (4) after cross-functional integration and external collaborative competency are controlled, the impact ofintellectual capital on e-service innovation should either no longer be significant (for fullmediation) or should be reduced (for partial mediation).
This study tested the four conditions using PLS analysis. As Table 6 shows, Model1 met the first condition. That is, intellectual capital affected both cross-functional inte-gration and external collaborative competency. However, Model 2 did not meet the sec-ond condition: external collaborative competency did not affect e-service innovation.The model only fit the data reasonably well for cross-functional integration; thus, H5was unsupported. Model 3 met the third criterion: intellectual capital affected e-serviceinnovation. The Model 4 results showed that including the mediator of cross-functionalintegration did decrease the impact of intellectual capital on e-service innovation fromModel 3 to Model 4. In particular, the impact of intellectual capital on e-service innova-tion remained significant (β = 0.441, p < 0.001), indicating partial mediation. Corre-spondingly, cross-functional integration partially mediated the relationship betweenintellectual capital and e-service innovation; thus, H4 was supported.
5. Discussion and conclusions
The primary objective of this study is to examine how a firm’s e-innovation practicesare influenced by the extent of intangible resources that a firm possesses. This paperargues that incorporating intellectual capital into the analysis leads to a more compre-hensive view of the strategic behavior of firms. The paper identifies the potential inte-gration mechanism for IT and marketing managers: cross-functional integration. Usingdata collected in the financial and hotel firms that have implemented e-service innova-tion, the study provides evidence to suggest that the mediation effect of cross-functional
0.896*** 0.924***
TC RRPI
0.870*** 0.882*** 0.936*** 0.893***
0.645***
0.676***0.404***
0.243*
0.071
0.035 0.041 0.079
R2 = 0.46
R2 = 0.42
R2 = 0.48
FCFSFY
SCOCHC
Intellectual capital
Cross-functional integration
External collaborativecompetency
e-Serviceinnovation
IT
0.077
Figure 2. PLS Results for direct effects.Notes: HC = human capital; OC = organizational capital; SC = social capital; PI = process inno-vation; TC = technical capability; RR = risk reduction; FY = firm year; FS = firm size; FC = firmcapital; IT = industry type. *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001.
Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 43
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
Table
5.Stand
ardizedpath
coefficients.
Path/Hyp
othesis
PathCoefficient
T-value
Results
Hyp
othesizedRelationships
IntellectualCapital
→e-Service
Inno
vatio
nH1
0.40
43.32
8***
Sup
ported
IntellectualCapital
→Cross-fun
ctionalintegration
H2
0.67
68.82
4***
Sup
ported
IntellectualCapital
→ExternalCollabo
rativ
eCom
petency
H3
0.64
58.64
4***
Sup
ported
Con
trol
Variables
Firm
age
→e-Service
Inno
vatio
n0.03
50.42
2-
Firm
size
→e-Service
Inno
vatio
n0.04
10.42
0-
Firm
capital
→e-Service
Inno
vatio
n0.07
90.79
3-
Indu
stry
type
→e-Service
Inno
vatio
n0.07
70.78
8-
*p<0.05;***p<0.00
1;on
lythehy
potheses
tested
basedon
individu
alpath
magnitudes(H
1-H3)
arelistedhere.
44 H.-T. Tsou et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
integration on e-service innovation is real. The results support the main premises of theproposed research model:
(1) intellectual capital exerts a positive influence on cross-functional integration,external collaborative competency, and e-service innovation; and (2) cross-functionalintegration partially mediates the influence of intellectual capital on e-service innovation.
5.1. Research contributions
This study makes five contributions. First, the findings of this study contribute to thedevelopment of a conceptual model to explain the interrelationships among intellectualcapital, cross-functional integration, external collaboration competency, and e-serviceinnovation. Little research has examined these interrelationships, which are significantin light of the increasing importance of e-service innovation for a firm’s competitiveadvantage. This study, based on the RBV and KBV, presented a conceptual model andhypothesized the mediating role of cross-functional integration in the relationship ofintellectual capital and e-service innovation. We have filled this gap by studying how toachieve successful e-service innovation through intellectual capital. Second, intellectualcapital in the service industries was rarely discussed in previous studies. We have inves-tigated the relationships between intellectual capital and e-service innovation in serviceindustries, namely, the financial and hotel industries.
Third, at the service innovation level, we contribute to the identification of addi-tional critical success factors for e-service innovation. At the intellectual capital level,we contribute to the ongoing research regarding an intellectual capital-based view of thefirm by highlighting the impacts of intellectual capital on critical business activities. Fur-thermore, this study stresses the relevance of intellectual capital management to enhanceservice innovation, particularly regarding intangible elements, which were found to bemore significant in the collaboration process. As argued before, intellectual capital isunder-researched in regard to service industries, and, to the best of our knowledge, veryfew studies have addressed the importance of intellectual capital to e-service innovationin the service firms. This research contributes to filling that gap, identifying the mostrelevant intellectual capital in regard to e-service innovation and thus highlighting thepotential benefits of intellectual capital management for this type of firm.
Table 6. PLS results for mediation effects
Path/Hypothesis
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4(IV forMV)
(MV forDV)
(IV forDV)
(control forMV)
Intellectual capital → e-Serviceinnovation
- - 0.655*** 0.441***
Intellectual capital → CFI 0.679*** - - -Intellectual capital → ECC 0.646*** - - -CFI → e-Service innovation H4 - 0.243* - 0.249*ECC → e-Service innovation H5 - 0.071 - 0.074R2
CFI 0.46 - - -ECC 0.42 - - -e-Service innovation - 0.38 0.43 0.47
Notes: a) *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001; b) IV for independent variable, MV for mediating variable, DV for depen-dent variable; c) Model 3 (IV for DV) does not include the mediator of CFI and ECC; Model 4 (control forMV) includes the mediators of CFI and ECC.
Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 45
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
Fourth, the intellectual capital-based approach developed throughout this researchconfronts each of these common characteristics, often sustained in a strong cultural iner-tia, by stressing the importance of human, organizational, and social capital and hope-fully encouraging top managers to fight this ‘inevitable karma’ and pay more attentionto the deployment of their company’s intellectual capital. Service firms most likely lackthe individual ability to have an impact on their industry. However, their strategic visionis under their managers’ control, as is the choice to incorporate an intellectual capital-based view into their NSD processes. This study contends that measuring, managingand having an integrated vision of the role of intellectual capital can represent thedifference between failing and excelling in service firms’ e-service innovation efforts.Fifth, this study shows that the role of intellectual capital in stimulating cross-functionalintegration and external collaborative competency in the e-service development processwas not discussed in prior research.
5.2. Managerial implications
This study provides insights for understanding significant managerial implications. First,the results suggest that managers should enhance intellectual capital in developing e-ser-vice innovation, which means that importance should be attached to human capital,organizational capital, and social capital in process of developing new e-services. Man-agers should know what type of intellectual capital factors they may be lacking and thenstrengthen those specific areas to improve their intellectual capital. In other words, man-agers should pay attention to all of these three types of capital to ensure a successfulintellectual capital outcome rather than selecting only one of them.
Second, managers could reinforce intellectual capital in e-service innovation throughcross-functional integration. When financial and hotel firms consider developing new e-services, they should develop a strong foundation of intellectual capital first. Then, firmsshould achieve cross-functional integration through the use of intellectual capital andlink the types of capital to develop e-service innovation. Furthermore, a noteworthyimplication of this finding was that cross-functional integration is more important thanexternal collaborative competency. This finding suggested that collaboration amongdifferent departments is more important than external collaboration when firms developnew e-services; hence, the different departments within a firm should collaborate witheach other to achieve work efficiency first, and then pursue external partnercollaboration.
Third, no one best strategy exists or is suitable for managing e-service innovation inevery organization. However, any meaningful e-service innovation strategy should haveunequivocal support from the top management. Its objectives must be communicatedand must be accepted by the rank and file within the organization. An e-service innova-tion strategy should sit naturally within the overall strategy of the organization. In addi-tion, it is important that it is monitored and reviewed regularly. Some of the criticalsuccess factors for successful e-service innovations include having a vision and a tech-nological innovation strategy, a service innovation-supporting culture (including salesforces issues, NSD performance management, reward, risk management) and a serviceinnovation champion (including process innovation and product innovation). Other fac-tors are the ability to manage organizational knowledge (tacit and explicit) and buildknowledge-enhancing approaches, systems and technology, integrating the person andthe team around the product and service.
46 H.-T. Tsou et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
5.3. Limitation and future research
This study exhibited some limitations that provide potential avenues for further research.First, due to time constraints and data availability, longitudinal research was not viablefor this study. Hence, we adopted a cross-industry research design and examined firmsat a single point in time. Future research may consider using longitudinal research toascertain our findings. Second, the target industries chosen in this study are financialand hotel industries in Taiwan. Even though the degree of importance for the intellectualproperty in hotel industry is relatively lower than other knowledge-intensive sectors, theincreasing innovative business models, such as reverse auction proposed by the Pricelineand big data mining, pose a great deal of opportunities for many traditional industriessuch as the hotel industry to upgrade and transform into the knowledge-intensive sec-tors. Future research may focus on the study for companies in knowledge intensivebusiness services (KIBS).
Third, different results might be obtained by applying the same research model toother industries. Thus, we suggest that future researchers can extend this research modelto different industries, and it would be useful to compare the same industries in differentcountries. We focused only on Taiwanese enterprises without regard to international orforeign companies. By including international companies, future research can focusattention on intellectual capital, cross-functional integration, and e-service innovationamong organizational members with diverse cultures or nationalities. Fourth, mostresearch on intellectual capital has focused on manufacturing (i.e., tangible products),while fewer studies have discussed intellectual capital in service industries (i.e., intangi-ble products). We suggest that further research can focus on comparing different serviceindustries to learn more about intellectual capital in services. Fifth, past research hasmentioned several intellectual capital factors, but this study chose only three factors. Wesuggest that further research can devote more attention to how intellectual capital isformed and consider a more comprehensive set of factors within intellectual capital.
Funding
This work was supported by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [grant number NSC101-2410-H-155 -051 -MY3].
Notes1. The term intellectual capital can be used interchangeably with intangibles, knowledge or
knowledge resources (Fletcher, Guthrie, Steane, Roos, & Pike, 2003).2. Based on Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, and Grover (2003), digital resources were defined as a
set of IT-enabled resources in the form of digitized enterprise work processes and knowledgesystems.
ReferencesAlegre, J., Lapiedra, R., & Chiva, R. (2006). A measurement scale for product innovation perfor-
mance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9, 333–346.Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., Burton, S., Moberg, D. P., & Christiansen, A. (2004). Under-
standing adolescent intentions to smoke: an examination of relationships among social influ-ence, prior trial behavior, and antitobacco campaign advertising. Journal of Marketing, 68,110–123.
Aragón-Correa, J. A., García-Morales, V. J., & Cordón-Pozo, E. (2007). Leadership and organiza-tional learning’s role on innovation and performance: lessons from Spain. Industrial MarketingManagement, 36, 349–359.
Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 47
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journalof Marketing Research, 14, 396–402.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,17, 99.
Barrett, M., Davidson, E., Prabhu, J., & Vargo, S. L. (2015). Service innovation in the digital age:key contributions and future directions. Mis Quarterly, 39(1), 135–154.
Berenson, M. L., & Levine, D. M. (1996). Basic business statistics: concepts and applications.New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Bontis, N. (2004). National intellectual capital index: a United Nations initiative for the Arabregion. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5, 13–39.
Brettel, M., Heinemann, F., Engelen, A., & Neubauer, S. (2011). Cross-functional integration ofR&D, marketing, and manufacturing in radical and incremental product innovations and itseffects on project effectiveness and efficiency. Journal of Product Innovation Management,28, 251–269.
Brooking, A. (1996). Intellectual capital: core asset for the third millennium enterprise. London:International Thomson Business Press.
Bueno, E., Salmador, M. P., & Rodríguez, Ó. (2004). The role of social capital in today’s econ-omy: empirical evidence and proposal of a new model of intellectual capital. Journal of Intel-lectual Capital, 5, 556–574.
Carmona-Lavado, A., Cuevas-Rodríguez, G., & Cabello-Medina, C. (2010). Social and organiza-tional capital: building the context for innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 39,681–690.
Carmona-Lavado, A., Cuevas-Rodríguez, G., & Cabello-Medina, C. (2013). Service innovative-ness and innovation success in technology-based knowledge-intensive business services: anintellectual capital approach. Industry and Innovation, 20, 133–156.
Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1998). An examination of the substitutability of founders’human and financial capital in emerging business ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 13,353–369.
Chen, Y. S., James Lin, M. J., & Chang, C. H. (2006). The influence of intellectual capital onnew product development performance – the manufacturing companies of Taiwan as an exam-ple. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 17, 1323–1339.
Chien, S. H., & Chao, M. C. (2011). Intellectual capital and new product sale performance of thefinancial services industry in Taiwan. Service Industries Journal, 31, 2641–2659.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (1996). A partial least squares latent variablemodeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulationstudy and voice mail emotion/adoption study. In J. I. DeGross, A. Srinivasan, & S. L.Jarvenpaa (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on InformationSystems (pp. 21–41). Cleveland, OH: Association for Information Systems.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B., & Newsted, P. A. (2003). Partial least squares latent variable modelingapproach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study andan electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14, 189–217.
Chuang, S. H., & Lin, H. N. (2015). Co-creating e-service innovations: theory, practice, andimpact on firm performance. International Journal of Information Management, 35, 277–291.
Churchill, G. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing con-structs. Jour-nal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.
Coff, R. W. (2002). Human Capital, shared expertise, and the likelihood of impasse in corporateacquisitions. Journal of Management, 28, 107–128.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organisational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants andmoderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590.
de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., & Kleijnen, M. (2001). Customer adoption of e-service: an experi-mental study. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12, 184–207.
Engelen, A., Brettel, M., & Wiest, G. (2012). Cross-functional integration and new product perfor-mance — the impact of national and corporate culture. Journal of International Management,18, 52–65.
Engström, T. E. J., Westnes, P., & Westnes, S. F. (2003). Evaluating intellectual capital in thehotel industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4, 287–303.
Fletcher, A., Guthrie, L., Steane, P., Roos, G., & Pike, S. (2003). Mapping stakeholder perceptionsfor a third sector organization. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4, 505–527.
48 H.-T. Tsou et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Gibson, G. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role oforganizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.
Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1996). Integrating R&D and marketing: a review and analysis of theliterature. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 191–215.
Di Guardo, M. C., & Cabiddu, F. (2015). E-service innovation: combining directed and practice-based approaches. Service Industries Journal, 35, 81–95.
Guo, Y., Liu, H., & Chai, Y. (2014). The embedding convergence of smart cities and tourisminternet of things in China: An advance perspective. Advances in Hospitality and TourismResearch, 2, 54–69.
Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: integrating agencyand resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28, 383–396.
Hirunyawipada, T., Beyerlein, M., & Blankson, C. (2010). Cross-functional integration as aknowledge transformation mechanism: Implications for new product development. IndustrialMarketing Management, 39, 650–660.
Hsu, Y. H., & Fang, W. (2009). Intellectual capital and new product development performance:the mediating role of organizational learning capability. Technological Forecasting and SocialChange, 76, 664–677.
Hurwitz, J., Lines, S., Montgomery, B., & Schmidt, J. (2002). The linkage between managementpractices, intangibles performance and stock returns. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3, 51–61.
Kahn, K. B. (1996). Interdepartmental integration: a definition with implications for productdevelopment performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 137–151.
Kang, S. C., & Snell, S. A. (2009). Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: aframework for human resource management. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 65–92.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2004). Strategy maps: converting intangible assets into tangible out-comes. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Lee, S. M., Olson, D. L., & Trimi, S. (2012). Co‐innovation: convergenomics, collaboration, andco‐creation for organizational values. Management Decision, 50, 817–831.
Lokshin, B., Belderbos, R., & Carree, M. (2008). The productivity effects of internal and externalR&D: evidence from a dynamic panel data model. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statis-tics, 70, 399–413.
Love, J. H., Roper, S., & Bryson, J. R. (2011). Openness, knowledge, innovation and growth inUK business services. Research Policy, 40, 1438–1452.
Lu, W. M., & Hung, S. W. (2011). Exploring the operating efficiency of technology developmentprograms by an intellectual capital perspective—a case study of Taiwan. Technovation, 31,374–383.
Lu, L. Y., & Shyan, Y. (2004). The R&D and marketing cooperation across new product develop-ment stages: an empirical study of Taiwan’s IT industry. Industrial Marketing Management,33, 593–605.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O’Brien, M. (2007). Competing through service: insights from ser-vice-dominant logic. Journal of Retailing, 83, 5–18.
Lynn, B. E. (1999). Culture and intellectual capital management: a key factor in successful ICMimplementation. International Journal of Technology Management, 18, 590–603.
Majchrzak, A., Beath, C. M., Lim, R. A., & Chin, W. W. (2005). Managing clinet dialogues dur-ing information systems design to facilitate client learning. MIS Quarterly, 29, 653–672.
Melton, H. L., & Hartline, M. D. (2013). Employee collaboration, learning orientation, and newservice development performance. Journal of Service Research, 16, 67–81.
Mishra, A. A., & Shah, R. (2009). In union lies strength: collaborative competence in new pro-duct development and its performance effects. Journal of Operations Management, 27, 324–338.
Moorthy, S., Ratchford, B. T., & Talukdar, D. (1997). Consumer information search revisited: the-ory and empirical analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 263–277.
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2010). Different roles, different strokes: organizing virtual cus-tomer environments to promote two types of customer contributions. Organization Science,21, 554–572.
Nijssen, E. J., & Frambach, R. T. (2000). Determinants of the adoption of new product develop-ment tools by industrial firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 121–131.
Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 49
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
Oke, A. (2007). Innovation types and innovation management practices in service companies.International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27, 564–587.
Oliveira, P., Roth, A. V., & Gilland, W. (2002). Achieving competitive capabilities in e-services.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69, 721–739.
Ordanini, A., & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Service innovation viewed through a service-dominantlogic lens: a conceptual framework and empirical analysis. Journal of Service Research, 14,3–23.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York, NY: John Wiley.Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton. NJ:
Princeton University.Ramezan, M. (2011). Intellectual capital and organizational organic structure in knowledge soci-
ety: how are these concepts related? International Journal of Information Management, 31,88–95.
Reed, K. K., Lubatkin, M., & Srinivasan, N. (2006). Proposing and testing an intellectual capital-based view of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 867–893.
Rudež, H. N., & Mihalič, T. (2007). Intellectual capital in the hotel industry: a case study fromSlovenia. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 188–199.
Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2003). Shaping agility through digital options:Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly,27, 237–263.
Sarin, S., & Mahajan, V. (2001). The effect of reward structures on the performance of cross-func-tional product development teams. Journal of Marketing, 65, 35–53.
Shahin, A., Khazaei Pool, J., & Poormostafa, M. (2014). Evaluating and ranking hotels offeringe-service by integrated approach of Webqual and fuzzy AHP. International Journal of Busi-ness Information Systems, 15, 84–104.
Song, M., & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (2001). The effect of perceived technological uncertainty onJapanese new product development. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 61–80.
Song, X. M., & Parry, M. E. (1992). The R&D-marketing interface in Japanese high-technologyfirms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9, 91–112.
Song, M., & Thieme, R. J. (2006). A cross-national investigation of the R&D–marketing interfacein the product innovation process. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 308–322.
Sørensen, C., & Lundh-Snis, U. (2001). Innovation through knowledge codification. Journal ofInformation Technology, 16, 83–97.
Sorescu, A. B., Chandy, R. K., & Prabhu, J. C. (2003). Sources and financial consequences ofradical innovation: insights from pharmaceuticals. Journal of Marketing, 67, 82–102.
Straub, D. W., & Watson, R. T. (2001). Transformational issues in researching is and net-enabledorganizations. Information Systems Research, 12, 337–345.
Su, H. Y. (2014). Business ethics and the development of intellectual capital. Journal of BusinessEthics, 119, 87–98.
Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types ofinnovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 450–463.
Sun, Y., Fang, Y., Lim, K. H., & Straub, D. (2012). User satisfaction with information technologyservice delivery: a social capital perspective. Information Systems Research, 23, 1195–1211.
Tellis, G. J., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. (2009). Radical innovation across nations: the preem-inence of corporate culture. Journal of Marketing, 73, 3–23.
Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting intention to adopt interorganizationallinkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly, 27, 19–49.
Troy, L. C., Hirunyawipada, T., & Paswan, A. K. (2008). Cross-functional integration and newproduct success: an empirical investigation of the findings. Journal of Marketing, 72, 132–146.
Tsou, H. T. (2012a). Collaboration competency and partner match for e-service product innovationthrough knowledge integration mechanisms. Journal of Service Management, 23, 640–663.
Tsou, H. T. (2012b). The effect of interfirm codevelopment competency on the innovation of thee-service process and product: the perspective of internal/external technology integrationmechanisms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24, 631–646.
Tsou, H. T., & Chen, J. S. (2012). The influence of interfirm codevelopment competency on e-ser-vice innovation. Information & Management, 49, 177–189.
50 H.-T. Tsou et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
Turkulainen, V., & Ketokivi, M. (2012). Cross-functional integration and performance: what arethe real benefits? International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32, 447–467.
de Vries, E. J. (2006). Innovation in services in networks of organizations and in the distributionof services. Research Policy, 35, 1037–1051.
Wang, Y. S., Li, H. T., Li, C. R., & Zhang, D. Z. (2016). Factors affecting hotels’ adoption ofmobile reservation systems: A technology-organization-environment framework. Tourism Man-agement, 53, 163–172.
Yap, A. Y., & Synn, W. (2011). Technology bundling: innovation for online brokerage services.In A. Y. Yap (Ed.), Information systems for global financial markets: emerging developmentsand effects (pp. 73–95). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Yeoh, P. L., & Roth, K. (1999). An empirical analysis of sustained advantage in the U.S. pharma-ceutical industry: impact of firm resources and capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,20, 637–653.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interor-ganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9, 141–159.
Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 51
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
Appendix
Human capital
HC1 Our employees are creative and bright.HC2 Our employees are highly skilled.HC3 Our employees possess relevant knowledge and technology.HC4 Our employees are widely considered the best in our industry.HC5 Our employees are experts in their particular jobs and functions.HC6 Staffs have high reactive ability towards changes in the industrial environment.
Organizational capital
OC1 Our organization uses databases as a way to store knowledge.OC2 Much of our organization’s knowledge is contained in manuals, databases, etc.OC3 Our organization’s culture (stories, rituals) contains valuable ideas, ways of doing business,
etc.OC4 Our organization embeds much of its knowledge and information in structures, systems, and
processes.
Social capital
SC1 Our employees are skilled at collaborating with each other to solve problems.SC2 Our employees share information and learn from one another.SC3 Our employees interact and exchange ideas with people from different areas of the
company.SC4 Our employees partner with suppliers, alliance partners, etc., to develop solutions.SC5 Our employees apply knowledge from one area of the company to problems and
opportunities that arise in another.
Cross-functional integration
CFI1 Information is very frequently exchanged among different departments.CFI2 Our employees share collective goals to a large extent among the different departments.CFI3 The functions in our company work well together.CFI4 There is good interaction among the different departments.CFI5 There is clear communication among the different departments.CFI6 Decision-making is efficient across the different departments.
External collaborative competency
ECC1 The perceived intensity of partner interaction is high.ECC2 The frequency of meetings with partners is high.ECC3 The number of partners with whom we interact is high.ECC4 We have used cross-functional interfaces (e.g., liaison personnel, taskforces, and teams) to
communicate with partners.ECC5 Our employees can participate in partners’ decision-making processes.ECC6 We have laterally transferred employees to or from partners.ECC7 We have combined with partners’ complementary, but scarce, resources or capabilities.
52 H.-T. Tsou et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
e-Service innovation
eSI1 We have used electronic technologies to facilitate new service development processes.eSI2 We have used electronic technologies to improve already existing new service development
processes.eSI3 We have used electronic technologies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service
delivery based on organizational demand.eSI4 We have used electronic technologies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service
delivery based on customer demand.eSI5 Our company acquired technologies and skills for service innovation through electronic
technologies.eSI6 Our company acquired technical resources for service innovation through electronic
technologies.eSI7 We have used Internet technologies to reduce the possibility of any new services failing.eSI8 We have used Internet technologies to reduce the possibility that new services will not
function as originally conceived.
Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
La
Tro
be U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
54 0
9 Ju
ly 2
016
本文献由“学霸图书馆-文献云下载”收集自网络，仅供学习交流使用。
学霸图书馆（www.xuebalib.com）是一个“整合众多图书馆数据库资源，
提供一站式文献检索和下载服务”的24 小时在线不限IP
图书馆。
图书馆致力于便利、促进学习与科研，提供最强文献下载服务。
图书馆导航：
图书馆首页 文献云下载 图书馆入口 外文数据库大全 疑难文献辅助工具
![Intellectual Property Strategic Program 2007 · [3] Enhancing the producing capability for the intellectual property strategy (2) Building a Comprehensive Support System for Accelerating](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/5fcabff5913e1b56b661b8c5/intellectual-property-strategic-program-2007-3-enhancing-the-producing-capability.jpg)
