JBR-08425; No of Pages 6

Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Dialogic co-creation and service innovation performance in high-tech companies☆

Jung-Kuei Hsieh a,⁎, Yi-Ching Hsieh b,1
a
Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University, New Taipei City 23741, Taiwan
b
Department of Information Management, National Central University, Taoyuan 32001, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Purpose: This study aims to investigate how customer co-creation affects the performance of service innovation
Received 1 September 2014 through the operant resources.
Received in revised form 1 March 2015 Design/methodology/approach: This study uses survey methodology to examine a research model with six hy-
Accepted 1 April 2015 potheses. Data from 149 high-tech firms are analyzed using structural equation modeling.
Available online xxxx
Findings: The dialogic co-creation affects customer relationship strength (relational resource), valuation of
knowledge (informational resource), and capability of customization (organizational resource), facilitating ser-
Keywords:
Operant resource
vice innovation.
Service innovation Research limitations/implications: Findings offer novel insights into how service innovation co-creation takes
Resource-advantage theory place within a dialogic context leading to organizational changes. The results clarify the influences of operant re-
Service-dominant logic sources on service innovation and indicate that companies should emphasize dialogic communication with cus-
Customer co-creation tomer in developing service innovation.
Practical implications: Managers have to understand that co-creation is an effective approach in business to
stretch business boundaries, and that customers are the crucial external party that co-creates. According to the
mutual influences of co-creation, businesses not only can exploit knowledge from customers but also strengthen
the relationship bond with them. For the investment programs on service innovation of businesses, managers
should allocate budget to relation-specific investments and knowledge acquisition with customers.
Originality/value: This research model, guided by the R-A theory and S-D logic, might serve as a template for
scholars exploring issues of service innovation. Findings of this study identify important implications that benefit
service innovation research in several ways.
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction knowledge acquisition. Furthermore, few empirical studies focus on

how to leverage operant resources to facilitate service innovation,
Because of the gradually emerging limits of product-focused innova- especially in the high-tech manufacturing industry.
tion (Chesbrough, 2011), manufacturing industries are emphasizing Accordingly, the study aims to investigate the relationships among
service innovation (Navarro, Andreu, & Cervera, 2014). According to operant resources and service innovation. The study draws on service-
the service-dominant view, service innovation relies more on operant dominant (S-D) logic and resource-advantage (R-A) theory, which
resources than on operand resources (Chen, Tsou, & Huang, 2009). In highlight four types of operant resources to develop a research model
particular, customers are the human resources from outside organiza- (Hunt, 2004; Lusch & Vargo, 2006). To reflect the customers' role as
tions; companies can engage in co-creation with customers to generate the primary operant resource in S-D logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004), the
value (Lusch & Vargo, 2006; Navarro et al., 2014). Although scholars research model describes human resources (i.e., dialogic co-creation
investigate customer co-creation in service innovation (e.g., Melton & with customers) and those resources' relationships with three other
Hartline, 2010), the extant literature may demonstrate bias because of operant resources (i.e., relational, informational, and organizational
the one-way communication scholars use in addressing customers' resources), which in turn affect service innovation.
The study employs survey methodology to collect data from the
high-tech manufacturing industry and analyzes data through structural
equation modeling. The study identifies the antecedents of successful
☆ The authors thank Hung-Chang Chiu, National Tsing Hua University, and Jihn-Chang service innovation and advances the current understanding of customer
Jehng, National Central University, for their careful reading and suggestions. co-creation. The new construct, dialogical co-creation, emphasizes that
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 8674 1111; fax: +886 2 8671 5912.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.-K. Hsieh), [email protected]
dialogue is the essence of co-creation. Finally, the study gives insights
(Y.-C. Hsieh). into the relationships among operant resources and service innovation
1
Tel.: +886 3 422 7151. by delineating a framework that draws on S-D logic and R-A theory.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.009
0148-2963/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Hsieh, J.-K., & Hsieh, Y.-C., Dialogic co-creation and service innovation performance in high-tech companies, Journal of
Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.009
2 J.-K. Hsieh, Y.-C. Hsieh / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses that the participation of potential customers can improve the relation-
ship between potential customers and companies.
2.1. R-A theory and service innovation
H1. Dialogic co-creation with customers positively affects the company–
The R-A theory highlights the positive relationship between operant customer relationship.
resources and a company's competitive advantage (Hunt & Morgan, Customers' knowledge may assist companies in developing solu-
1996). In practice, businesses find that service innovation can provide tions for problems; therefore, customers can act as knowledge providers
market-leading offerings to obtain advantages (Storey & Kahn, 2010). and offer feedback on specific service issues. To enter into a dialogue,
Using the R-A theory, researchers group resources into two categories: one party must not only benefit from existing knowledge, but also
operand resources (i.e., physical, financial, and legal) and operant participate in creating new knowledge to address problems and opportu-
resources (i.e., human, relational, informational, and organizational) nities (Ballantyne, 2004). Therefore, dialogic co-creation with customers
(Hunt, 2004). According to R-A theory and S-D logic, operant resources during service innovation is an important source of organizational knowl-
are the fundamental source of a competitive advantage (Chen et al., edge (Blazevic & Lievens, 2008).
2009). The degree of service innovation in companies depends on the
application of their operant resources (Michel, Brown, & Gallan, 2008). H2. Dialogic co-creation with customers positively affects knowledge
Therefore, enhancing operant resources may facilitate service innovation. valuation.
However, few empirical studies focus on the relationships among operant
The ultimate goal of customer participation in companies' innova-
resources regarding service innovation.
tion activities is to satisfy customers' needs. Offering custom products
The study focuses on operant resources. Customers are a primary
and services is an effective approach to meeting customers' needs (Xie,
operant resource in the S-D logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Skillful and
Bagozzi, & Troye, 2008). Businesses can adopt an engagement strategy
knowledgeable customers are human resources acting upon other
emphasizing co-creation to support customizing capability (Wind &
operant resources (Lusch, Vargo, & O'Brien, 2007). Therefore, the
Rangaswamy, 2001; Zhang, Ye, Chen, & Wang, 2011). Customization is a
study explores the effects of human resources acting upon relational,
buyer-centric viewpoint that incorporates customers' opinions into de-
informational, and organizational resources in service innovation. The
velopment processes before manufacturing (Wind & Rangaswamy,
study treats customers as the external source of human resources, and
2001). Zhang and Chen (2008) show that involving customers in value
leverages customers through co-creation. Furthermore, the manipula-
co-creation assists companies in developing customization. Interaction
tions of three other operant resources also affect customers. The study
with customers facilitates the company's capability to customize services.
manipulates relational resources as relationships with customers,
informational resources as knowledge valuation of customers' input, H3. Dialogic co-creation with customers positively affects customizing
and organizational resources as the customizing capability. capability.

2.2. Customer co-creation and co-creation as dialogue

2.4. Company–customer relationship

Co-creation is the central concept in the S-D logic, which asserts that
A company that builds good relationships with customers reinforces
the customer is always a co-creator of value (Lusch & Vargo, 2006).
positive attitudes toward the company, resulting in higher repurchases
From development to production and commercialization, customers
and recommendations (Grisaffe & Nguyen, 2011; Palmatier, Dant,
participate in co-creation (Melton & Hartline, 2010). Previous studies
Grewal, & Evans, 2006). According to the diffusion of innovations theory
demonstrate that customer co-creation is beneficial to service innova-
(Rogers, 2003), these loyal customers may be potential innovators or
tion (e.g., Melton & Hartline, 2010). However, researchers pay little
early adopters of new service offerings. Therefore, maintaining a good
attention to dialogue, an important building block of co-creation that
relationship with customers is a critical operant resource for facilitating
highlights mutual influence and understanding, rather than one-way
service innovation's success. Relationship marketing literature provides
listening (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004).
evidence that co-creation with customers is useful for service innova-
The company and customer can co-create value at multiple interac-
tion. Building better relationships with customers leads to attitudinal
tion points. Company and customer's mutual influence allows a
and behavioral loyalty, which may improve new services (Mitręga &
dialogue and hence co-creation (Grönroos & Voima, 2013). Prahalad
Katrichis, 2010). Lin, Chen, and Chiu (2010) suggest that maintaining
and Ramaswamy (2004) emphasize that dialogue refers to learning
close partnerships with customers positively affects service innovation.
and communication between companies and customers – two equal
Companies with stronger customer relationships can learn from the
problem solvers – rather than to merely listening to customers. A
market more effectively than their competitors, creating superior
dialogue needs both parties' participation and communication to gener-
performance (Adjei, Griffith, & Noble, 2009).
ate common consensus about what the two parties can do with and for
each other (Grönroos, 2004). The mutual communication and engage- H4a. Company–customer relationship positively affects service
ment between parties in an interesting issue are the features of dialogic innovation's performance perception.
co-creation. Accordingly, the study identifies co-creation as a dialogic
process. H4b. Company–customer relationship positively affects service
innovation's comparative performance.

2.3. Dialogic co-creation with customers

2.5. Knowledge valuation
Dialogic co-creation with customers enhances customers' under-
standing of new services and may implicitly contribute to customers' Valuable knowledge with rareness, inimitability, and non-
sense of the company's mission. Dialoguing and socially interacting substitutability is a crucial source of innovation and competitive advan-
with customers can help customers bond and identify with companies tage (Grant, 1996; Yang, 2010). Learning about customers' preferences
(Karpen, Bove, & Lukas, 2012). Because customers' perceptions of and capturing customer knowledge can facilitate innovation outcomes
relationships are holistic and cumulative, exchanging information (Blazevic & Lievens, 2008). Innovation relies on knowledge and, in partic-
and interactions in the collaboration process is an important part of ular, tacit knowledge (Gloet & Terziovski, 2004). Knowledge is helpful for
customers' perceptions (Grönroos, 2004). Alam (2006) further claims generating innovative thoughts, innovation, and creativity (Borghini,

Please cite this article as: Hsieh, J.-K., & Hsieh, Y.-C., Dialogic co-creation and service innovation performance in high-tech companies, Journal of
Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.009
J.-K. Hsieh, Y.-C. Hsieh / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 3

2005). Storey and Kahn (2010) find that task knowledge of service inno- these measures as sub-constructs. The study adapts three items from
vation positively affects outcome innovativeness and proficiency. Chan, Yim, and Lam's (2010) work to measure customer initiative;
Customers' knowledge may be an important source for facilitating three items from Auh, Bell, McLeod, and Shih's (2007) work to measure
innovation. provider initiative; and three items from Gruner and Homburg (2000) to
measure continuity. Second, the study uses three items from Donaldson
H5a. Knowledge valuation from co-creation positively affects service and O'Tool (2000) and Hausman's (2001) work to measure the compa-
innovation's performance perception. ny–customer relationship. Third, five items from Pérez-Nordtvedt,
H5b. Knowledge valuation from co-creation positively affects service Kedia, Datta, and Rasheed (2008) measure knowledge valuation using
innovation's comparative performance. resource characteristics. Finally, the study measures customizing capabil-
ity, using three items from Zhang and Chen's (2008) work.
Service innovation measures focus on managers' perceptions of
2.6. Customizing capability service innovation outcomes using four items from van Riel, Lemmink,
and Ouwersloot (2004) and Chen et al. (2009). Furthermore, the study
Customizing capability is a competence of value co-creation with uses three items from Yen, Wang, Wei, Hsu, and Chiu (2012) and
customers (Zhang & Chen, 2008). That capability helps companies Menor and Roth (2007) to measure the service innovation's compara-
to provide exactly what customers want. Through the co-creation, a tive performance.
company can probe customers' needs, transforming customers' input The control variables comprise three business characteristics: com-
into custom offerings. Providing custom solutions to customers, com- pany size, company age, and company capital. Generally, larger compa-
panies can satisfy customers and provide a memorable experience nies have more resources to create innovative practices. Company size is
(Agarwal & Selen, 2009). Better alignment between customer needs a common explanatory variable of innovation (Amara, Landry, & Traoré,
and the custom service can increase the likelihood of success for new 2008). Furthermore, company age can affect a company's growth rate,
services (Lusch et al., 2007). Therefore, customizing capability is a critical which can be relevant to new services' creation (Chen, Tsou, & Ching,
operant resource for companies to achieve superior performance. 2011). Finally, the study controls for company capital, which reflects a
company's financial resources (Tellis, Prabhu, & Chandy, 2009).
H6a. Customizing capability positively affects service innovation's
performance perception.
4. Method
H6b. Customizing capability positively affects service innovation's
comparative performance. 4.1. Data collection and sampling

The study uses a questionnaire survey to gather data from the high-
3. Research model and variables tech manufacturing industry, which is representative of Taiwan's busi-
nesses. The sample comes from the Top 5000 Taiwan Large Enterprise
3.1. Research model Rankings of the China Credit Information Service Company. The study
uses a random sampling method to control for sales revenue and selects
Fig. 1 presents the study's research model. The model suggests that 900 companies as sample. Sales managers or service innovation project
dialogic co-creation affects three other operant resources, which in managers receive the questionnaire along with a return envelope.
turn affect service innovation. Respondents amount to 157, representing a response rate of 17.4%.
After excluding eight invalid responses, 149 valid responses remain.
3.2. Constructs and variables
4.2. Statistical method
Table 1 depicts the measurement of construct items. All measures
use a 7-point Likert scale. To test the research model, the study uses structural equation
Four factors present four operant resources in the study. First, the modeling (SEM) and applies partial least squares (PLS) using SmartPLS
dialogic co-creation is a second-order construct that comprises custom- 2.0 to assess the psychometric properties (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005).
er initiative, provider initiative, and continuity; thus, the analysis treats The first step focuses on construct reliability and validity, whereas the
second step tests structural relationships among latent constructs.
Relational
5. Analysis and results
Company-
customer
Relationship 5.1. Descriptive analysis
H4a, H4b
H1 Control
Human
Variables
The study comprises 149 valid respondents. Nearly half of the com-
Resource Informational
panies (68) are between 11 and 20 years old, half of the sample compa-
nies (77) have capital greater than NTD 1.1 billion, and half of the
Dialogic H2 Knowledge H5a, H5b Service companies (78) have more than 500 employees.
Co-creation Valuation Innovation
5.2. Reliability and validity

H6a, H6b
Table 2 reports the reliability Cronbach's alpha values for the eight
H3 Organizational constructs range from 0.84 to 0.91—well above the acceptance value,
0.70 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Composite reliabil-
Customizing ity values are all above 0.70, supporting instrument reliability. Further-
Capability
more, the CFA factor loadings (Table 1), are all larger than 0.77, and the
AVE values (Table 2) are all larger than 0.73, supporting convergent
validity. Finally, the results (Table 2) show that discriminant validity is
Fig. 1. Research model. satisfactory because the construct's AVE square root is greater than

Please cite this article as: Hsieh, J.-K., & Hsieh, Y.-C., Dialogic co-creation and service innovation performance in high-tech companies, Journal of
Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.009
4 J.-K. Hsieh, Y.-C. Hsieh / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Measures and factor loadings.

Construct Measures Factor

loading

Customer initiative Customers are actively engaged in providing information for service innovation. 0.89
Customers actively give suggestions via various approaches. 0.87
Customers give lots of feedback for the new ideas. 0.91
Provider initiative We explain the ideas in a meaningful way to customers. 0.89
We offer customers as much information as they need. 0.89
We actively provide information to reply customers' suggestions. 0.87
Continuity The perceived intensity of customer interaction is high from pre-commercialization to post-commercialization. 0.93
We keep an ongoing communication with customers from pre-commercialization to post-commercialization. 0.93
The duration of customer interaction is long from pre-commercialization to post-commercialization. 0.91
Company–customer relationship The participating customers are like friends of our company. 0.87
Our company has close relationship with participating customer rather than the arm's length. 0.87
The relationship between participating customers and our company is improved. 0.91
Knowledge valuation The knowledge that we obtained from dialogic co-creation is useful. 0.90
The knowledge that we obtained from dialogic co-creation is highly applicable for new services. 0.89
The knowledge that we obtained from dialogic co-creation is highly valued. 0.91
A competitor could hardly learn the knowledge that we obtained from dialogic co-creation. 0.80
It is difficult to acquire the knowledge that we obtain from dialogic co-creation through other approaches. 0.77
Customizing capability We can precisely target customer groups to provide service. 0.88
We can provide exactly what customers want. 0.85
We can base on customers' need to identify more market opportunities. 0.88
Performance perception The outcomes make us think that they are good ideas to invest in. 0.85
The outcomes contribute to financial success. 0.85
The service innovation experiences create innovation opportunities. 0.89
The service innovation experiences increase customer loyalty. 0.85
Comparative performance Relative to competitors, my company: 0.89
The percentage of service innovation that met customer needs.
Success rate of service innovation efforts. 0.94
Overall performance of the service innovation. 0.93

the correlation of the construct with other model constructs (Fornell & perception: size (β = 0.09; t = 1.50; n.s.), age (β = −0.05; t = 1.00;
Larcker, 1981). n.s.), and capital (β = 0.03; t = 0.63; n.s.). The results also show age
(β = − 0.10; t = 1.51; n.s.) and capital (β = 0.02; t = 0.04; n.s.).
5.3. Hypothesis testing However, a significant positive relationship appears with company size
(β = 0.27; t = 3.02; p b .01), suggesting that size affects comparative
With 500 runs, the bootstrapping technique shows that dialogic co- performance.
creation positively relates to three operant resources (Fig. 2), including
company–customer relationship (β = 0.74; t = 17.48; p b .01), knowl-
edge valuation (β = 0.71; t = 17.22; p b .01), and customizing capability 6. Discussion
(β = 0.59; t = 9.47; p b .01). These results support H1, H2, and H3.
The analysis results demonstrate the effect of three operant resources To explore service innovation's success, the study investigates operant
on service innovation. Company–customer relationship positively relates resources' effects on service innovation and clarifies the relationships
to performance perception (β = 0.19; t = 2.37; p b .05) and comparative among these operant resources. First, the study confirms dialogic co-
performance (β = 0.18; t = 2.10; p b .05), thereby supporting H4a and creation's positive effect on company–customer relationship (H1).
H4b. Knowledge valuation positively affects performance perception Dialogic co-creation can improve the relationship between companies
(β = 0.29; t = 2.87; p b .01) and comparative performance (β = 0.32; and customers. Although S-D logic highlights the importance of collabora-
t = 2.78; p b .01), thereby supporting H5a and H5b. In addition, custom- tion and relationship rather than pure transaction, customers become the
izing capability positively affects performance perception (β = 0.40; t = social relationship partners rather than sales targets (Vargo & Lusch,
3.77; p b .01) and comparative performance (β = 0.26; t = 2.37; p b .05), 2004). The study reflects customers' new role in S-D logic and empirically
thereby supporting H6a and H6b. verifies Alam's (2006) argument that customer participation in the
The three control variables – company size, age, and capital – all innovation process can improve the relationship between the customer
show non-statistically significant effects on managers' performance and the company. The findings also empirically confirm that dialogue

Table 2
Cronbach's α, composite reliability, average variance extracted, and correlations. Company- 0.19*
customer
Construct α CR AVE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Relationship
0.18* Performance
0.74***
CI (1) 0.87 0.92 0.79 0.89 Perception
PI (2) 0.86 0.91 0.78 0.56 0.88
0.29** R2=0.56
C (3) 0.91 0.94 0.85 0.44 0.73 0.92 Dialogic Knowledge
CR (4) 0.86 0.92 0.78 0.42 0.66 0.75 0.88 Co-creation Valuation
0.71***
KV (5) 0.91 0.93 0.73 0.49 0.63 0.63 0.70 0.85 0.32**
CC (6) 0.84 0.90 0.76 0.38 0.55 0.54 0.56 0.64 0.87
PP (7) 0.88 0.92 0.74 0.50 0.59 0.58 0.61 0.66 0.67 0.86 0.40***
0.59*** Comparative
CP (8) 0.91 0.94 0.85 0.52 0.49 0.55 0.52 0.55 0.50 0.64 0.92 Performance
Customizing
n = 149. Values on the diagonal represent the square root of the average variance extracted. Capability 0.26*
CI = customer initiative; PI = provider initiative; C = continuity; CR = company–customer R2=0.42
relationship; KV = knowledge valuation; CC = customizing capability; PP = performance
perception; CP = comparative performance. Fig. 2. Results of the structural model.

Please cite this article as: Hsieh, J.-K., & Hsieh, Y.-C., Dialogic co-creation and service innovation performance in high-tech companies, Journal of
Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.009
J.-K. Hsieh, Y.-C. Hsieh / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 5

and interaction with customers can facilitate customers bonding and demonstrating that co-creation is a dialogic process resulting in mutual
identifying with the company (Karpen et al., 2012). influences (Grönroos & Voima, 2013).
Second, the findings show that dialogic co-creation positively affects Third, the study encourages practitioners in high-tech companies to
knowledge valuation (H2); therefore, dialogic co-creation is an effective consider the value of customer participation in co-creation for service
means for customers to provide companies with valuable information innovation and shows practitioners how to carry customer co-creation
and knowledge. Adopting the dialogic co-creation to obtain professional effectively. The findings suggest that co-creation with customers not
suggestions from customers can effectively leverage customers' knowl- only obtains feedback from customers, but also delivers messages
edge because customers' expertise is crucial for service innovation in to customers. The two-way communication should be a consecutive
the high-tech industry (Chen et al., 2011). activity (i.e., from pre-commercialization to post-commercialization).
Third, the study demonstrates that dialogic co-creation with cus- Companies that plan to develop service innovation can adopt a dialogic
tomers can enhance customizing capability (H3). By using the dialogic co-creation approach to interact with customers, and integrate the
co-creation approach, companies can understand customers better and, approach into the customer relationship management policies. More
thus, develop a greater customizing capability. The findings empirically specifically, practitioners can employ the study's scales to monitor the
verify that customer co-creation can bring opportunities for customizing co-creation relationships to develop co-creation strategies. Practitioners
capability (Xie et al., 2008). Although customers participate in co- can check the status of the relationship, specifically customer engage-
creation activities, customers expect satisfaction from distinctive ment, information delivery for customers, and company's continuous
products, services, or information (Etgar, 2008). The study confirms interaction with customers. Through such a comprehensive inspection
that companies can enhance the capability through co-creation process of co-creation relationships with customers, practitioners can identify
to identify customers' needs and, thus, provide custom offerings. weaknesses in co-creation relationships and, thus, develop business
Fourth, the study verifies company–customer relationship's positive strategies enhancing service innovation.
effect on service innovation (H4a and H4b). Through good relationships, Finally, the findings suggest that companies can improve service
customers' acceptance of new services improves service innovation innovation outcomes by enhancing customizing capability and main-
outcomes. The findings extend the knowledge of relationship market- taining strong relationships with customers. To this end, companies
ing for service innovation issues and reflect that loyal customers with can cooperate with customers, carefully responding to customers' feed-
strong relationships are more likely to purchase and adopt new services back while trying to understand and satisfy customers' needs. For high-
(Palmatier et al., 2006; Rogers, 2003). In short, company and customer's tech business-to-business markets, companies (e.g., the Taiwan Semi-
mutual influences can improve the relationship, which benefits service conductor Manufacturing Company [TSMC]) gradually switch business
innovation. management paradigms from traditional manufacturing to relationship
Fifth, the results indicate that knowledge valuation of customers' building. The findings provide a helpful method for high-tech compa-
input can advance service innovation (H5a and H5b). Because customers' nies to improve the company–customer relationship.
tacit knowledge is a crucial resource for innovation (Lin and Huang,
2013), the study provides a factor from the resource-based view to mea- 8. Limitations and future research
sure the valuation of customers' input (Pérez-Nordtvedt et al., 2008). The
findings confirm that co-creation activities can enhance informational The study has limitations; much work remains in the service innova-
resources, which are valuable knowledge, thereby improving service tion field. First, the samples in the study are Taiwan's high-tech compa-
innovation. nies; thus, generalization of the results to other samples cannot occur
Finally, the findings show that customizing capability could facilitate without some caution. Second, the data are cross-sectional and not
the returns of service innovation (H6a and H6b). Companies with better longitudinal. Future studies should track the relationship between
customizing capability can effectively integrate customers' needs into service innovation activities and service innovation over time. Finally,
the service offerings. Therefore, innovation outcomes that companies because the stakeholders in the co-creation of S-D logic may include
offer are more favorable to customers. The results empirically confirm several parties (Lusch et al., 2007), future studies can further investigate
Lusch et al.'s (2007) arguments that companies with the capability to co-creation relationships with other stakeholders such as upstream
satisfy customers' needs through better custom service are more likely suppliers.
to achieve market success.
References
7. Conclusions and contributions
Adjei, M.T., Griffith, D.A., & Noble, S.M. (2009). When do relationships pay off for small re-
The findings contribute to service innovation research and practi- tailers? Exploring targets and contexts to understand the value of relationship
marketing. Journal of Retailing, 85(4), 493–501.
tioners in several ways. First, the study uses R-A theory and S-D logic Agarwal, R., & Selen, W. (2009). Dynamic capability building in service value networks for
to manipulate four operant resources into measuring factors and to achieving service innovation. Decision Sciences, 40(3), 431–475.
develop a theoretical model for empirical testing. The study finds that Alam, I. (2006). Process of customer interaction in new service development. In B.
Edvardsson, A. Gustafsson, P. Kristensson, P. Magnusson, & J. Matthing (Eds.), Involving
dialogic co-creation with customers can fulfill the role of external customers in new service development (pp. 15–32). London: Imperial College Press.
human resources, thereby affecting three other operant resources, lead- Amara, N., Landry, R., & Traoré, N. (2008). Managing the protection of innovations in
ing, in turn, to better service innovation outcomes. The findings extend knowledge-intensive business services. Research Policy, 37(9), 1530–1547.
Auh, S., Bell, S.J., McLeod, C.S., & Shih, E. (2007). Co-production and customer loyalty in fi-
the knowledge of operant resources by investigating their roles in service nancial services. Journal of Retailing, 83(3), 359–370.
innovation, reflecting R-A theory's emphasis on operant resources (Hunt Ballantyne, D. (2004). Dialogue and its role in the development of relationship specific
& Morgan, 1996). Because a need exists for empirical work linking R-A knowledge. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 19(2), 114–123.
Blazevic, V., & Lievens, A. (2008). Managing innovation through customer coproduced
theory and S-D logic to service innovation, the study fills the gap using knowledge in electronic services: An exploratory study. Journal of the Academy of
empirical data from high-tech companies. Marketing Science, 36(1), 138–151.
Second, the study clarifies co-creation details using a dialogic process, Borghini, S. (2005). Organizational creativity: Breaking equilibrium and order to innovate.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 19–33.
showing how customers' input can affect other operant resources of orga-
Chan, K.W., Yim, C.K., & Lam, S.S.K. (2010). Is customer participation in value creation a
nizations. The new insight of dialogic co-creation implies that involving double-edged sword? Evidence from professional financial services across cultures.
customers in a company's innovation activities can result in mutual Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 48–64.
benefits superior to one-off events. More specifically, the analysis Chen, J. -S., Tsou, H. -T., & Ching, R.K.H. (2011). Co-production and its effects on service
innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(8), 1331–1346.
conceptualizes and validates a multidimensional construct – a dialogic Chen, J. -S., Tsou, H.T., & Huang, A.Y. -H. (2009). Service delivery innovation: Antecedents
co-creation – that highlights customers and providers' initiative; thus and impact on firm performance. Journal of Service Research, 12(1), 36–55.

Please cite this article as: Hsieh, J.-K., & Hsieh, Y.-C., Dialogic co-creation and service innovation performance in high-tech companies, Journal of
Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.009
6 J.-K. Hsieh, Y.-C. Hsieh / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Chesbrough, H. (2011). Open services innovation: Rethinking your business to grow and Menor, L.J., & Roth, A.V. (2007). New service development competence in retail
compete in a new era. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. banking: Construct development and measurement validation. Journal of
Donaldson, B., & O'Tool, T. (2000). Classifying relationship structures: Relationship Operations Management, 25(4), 825–846.
strength in industrial markets. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 15(7), Michel, S., Brown, S.W., & Gallan, A.S. (2008). An expanded and strategic view of discon-
491–506. tinuous innovations: Deploying a service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of
Etgar, M. (2008). A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. Journal of Marketing Science, 36(1), 54–66.
the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 97–108. Mitręga, M., & Katrichis, J.M. (2010). Benefiting from dedication and constraint in buyer–
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservables seller relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(4), 616–624.
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. Navarro, S., Andreu, L., & Cervera, A. (2014). Value co-creation among hotels and disabled
Gloet, M., & Terziovski, M. (2004). Exploring the relationship between knowledge customers: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 813–818.
management practices and innovation performance. Journal of Manufacturing Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K.R. (2006). Factors influencing the
Technology Management, 15(5), 402–409. effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4),
Grant, R.M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management 136–153.
Journal, 17(Winter), 109–122. Pérez-Nordtvedt, L., Kedia, B.L., Datta, D.K., & Rasheed, A.A. (2008). Effectiveness and
Grisaffe, D.B., & Nguyen, H.P. (2011). Antecedents of emotional attachment to brands. efficiency of cross-border knowledge transfer: An empirical examination. Journal of
Journal of Business Research, 64(10), 1052–1059. Management Studies, 45(4), 714–744.
Grönroos, C. (2004). The relationship marketing process: Communication, interaction, Prahalad, C.K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in
dialogue, value. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 19(2), 99–113. value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.
Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: Making sense of value creation and Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0.M3. (Retrieved Jan 31, 2015,
co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 133–150. from) http://www.smartpls.de
Gruner, K.E., & Homburg, C. (2000). Does customer interaction enhance new product Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
success? Journal of Business Research, 49(1), 1–14. Storey, C., & Kahn, K.B. (2010). The role of knowledge management strategies and
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate data task knowledge in stimulating service innovation. Journal of Service Research,
analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. 13(4), 397–410.
Hausman, A. (2001). Variations in relationship strength and its impact on performance Tellis, G.J., Prabhu, J.C., & Chandy, R.K. (2009). Radical innovation across nations: The pre-
and satisfaction in business relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, eminence of corporate culture. Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 3–23.
16(7), 600–616. van Riel, A.C.R., Lemmink, J., & Ouwersloot, H. (2004). High‐technology service innovation
Hunt, S.D. (2004). On the service-centered dominant logic of marketing. Journal of success: A decision‐making perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Marketing, 68(1), 21–22. 21(5), 348–359.
Hunt, S.D., & Morgan, R.M. (1996). The resource-advantage theory of competition: Vargo, S.L., & Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal
Dynamics, path dependencies, and evolutionary dimensions. Journal of Marketing, of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
60(4), 107–114. Wind, J., & Rangaswamy, A. (2001). Customerization: The next revolution in mass
Karpen, I.O., Bove, L.L., & Lukas, B.A. (2012). Linking service-dominant logic and strategic customization. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(1), 13–32.
business practice a conceptual model of a service-dominant orientation. Journal of Xie, C., Bagozzi, R.P., & Troye, S.V. (2008). Trying to prosume: Toward a theory of
Service Research, 15(1), 21–38. consumers as co-creators of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Lin, R. -J., Chen, R. -H., & Chiu, K.K. -S. (2010). Customer relationship management and in- 36(1), 109–122.
novation capability: An empirical study. Industrial Management & Data Systems, Yang, J. (2010). The knowledge management strategy and its effect on firm performance:
110(1), 111–133. A contingency analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 125(2),
Lin, M. -J.J., & Huang, C. -H. (2013). The impact of customer participation on NPD 215–223.
performance: The mediating role of inter-organisation relationship. Journal of Yen, H.R., Wang, W., Wei, C. -P., Hsu, S.H. -Y., & Chiu, H. -C. (2012). Service innovation
Business & Industrial Marketing, 28(1), 3–15. readiness: Dimensions and performance outcome. Decision Support Systems, 53(4),
Lusch, R.F., & Vargo, S.L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and 813–824.
refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281–288. Zhang, X., & Chen, R. (2008). Examining the mechanism of the value co-creation with
Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L., & O'Brien, M. (2007). Competing through service: Insights from customers. International Journal of Production Economics, 116(2), 242–250.
service-dominant logic. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), 5–18. Zhang, X., Ye, C., Chen, R., & Wang, Z. (2011). Multi-focused strategy in value co-creation
Melton, H.L., & Hartline, M.D. (2010). Customer and frontline employee influence on new with customers: Examining cumulative development pattern with new capabilities.
service development performance. Journal of Service Research, 13(4), 411–425. International Journal of Production Economics, 132(1), 122–130.

Please cite this article as: Hsieh, J.-K., & Hsieh, Y.-C., Dialogic co-creation and service innovation performance in high-tech companies, Journal of
Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.009