Article | ServDes.2014 Service Future; Proceedings of the fourth Service Design and Service Innovation Conference; Lancaster University; United Kingdom; 9-11 April 2014 | The Future of the Service Design Category: Authentic Adaption as a Way Out?
Göm menyn

Title:
The Future of the Service Design Category: Authentic Adaption as a Way Out?
Author:
Eva Kirchberger: Imperial College London, UK Mark Kennedy: Imperial College London, UK
Download:
Full text (pdf)
Year:
2014
Conference:
ServDes.2014 Service Future; Proceedings of the fourth Service Design and Service Innovation Conference; Lancaster University; United Kingdom; 9-11 April 2014
Issue:
099
Article no.:
038
Pages:
388-393
No. of pages:
6
Publication type:
Abstract and Fulltext
Published:
2014-06-25
ISBN:
978-91-7519-280-2
Series:
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings
ISSN (print):
1650-3686
ISSN (online):
1650-3740
Publisher:
Linköping University Electronic Press; Linköpings universitet


Export in BibTex, RIS or text

Service design as a new market category has emerged quite rapidly since the first pioneers; live|work in 2001 and Engine 2002 started offering service design commercially and claimed the label. Since then; a service design field has developed; which features institutions such as the Service Design Network; Master courses at universities; and academic conferences. Recently; the success of service design attracts management consultancies; which include service design as part of their core offering. This represents a challenge for the pioneers; as modifications of the practice might lead to ambiguous meanings and hence the category as a whole can suffer from devaluation by audiences. As a consequence; the entire category is likely to turn into a fad. In order to prevent this from happening; pioneers have several strategic options at their disposal. In the following; we propose a research design; which suggests the theory of ‚ÄėAuthentic Adaptation‚Äô; pioneers might react in drawing from their heritage; while also adapting to the new context.

Keywords: service design; market category; fads & fashion; pioneer; meaning

ServDes.2014 Service Future; Proceedings of the fourth Service Design and Service Innovation Conference; Lancaster University; United Kingdom; 9-11 April 2014

Author:
Eva Kirchberger, Mark Kennedy
Title:
The Future of the Service Design Category: Authentic Adaption as a Way Out?
References:

Abrahamson; E. & L. Rosenkopf. (1993). Institutional and Competitive Bandwagons: Using Mathematical Modeling as a Tool to Explore Innovation Diffusion. Academy of Management Review; 18; 487-517.


Abrahamson; E. & G. Fairchild. (1999). Management fashion: Lifecycles; triggers; and collective learning processes. Administrative Science Quarterly; 44; 708-740.


Berger; P. L.; & T. Luckmann. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. (10). Penguin UK


Clemens; E. S. & J M. Cook. (1999). Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining Durability and Change. Annual Review of Sociology; 25:26.


Creswell; J. W.; V. L. P. Clark; M. L. Gutmann & W. E. Hanson. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.)Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks; CA: Sage.


DiMaggio; P. & W. W. Powell. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review; 48; 147-160.


Emirbayer; M. (1997). Manifesto for a Relational Sociology; American Journal of Sociology; 103; 281-317.


Glynn; M. A. & R. A. Abzug. (1998). Isormorphism and competitive differentiation in the organizational name game. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.). Greenwich Advances in Strategic Management: Disciplinary Roots of Strategic Management Research (pp. 105-128). CT: JAI Press.


Hannan; Michael T. & John Freeman. (1977). The Population Ecology of Organizations. American Journal of Sociology; 82; 929-96.


Hirsch; Paul M. (1986). From ambushes to golden parachutes: corporate takeovers as an instance of cultural framing and institutional integration. American Journal of Sociology; 91; 800-37.


Hogg; M.A. & Deborah Terry. (2000). Social Identity and self-categorisation processes in organisational contexts. Academy of Management Review; 25(1); 121-140.


Kennedy; M. T. (2008). Getting counted: Markets; media; and reality. American Sociological Review; 73; 270-295.


Kennedy; M.T.; J. Lo; & M. Lounsbury. (2010). Category currency: The changing value of conformity as a function of ongoing meaning construction. In M. Lounsbury (Ed.); Research in the Sociology of Organisations; Bingley; UK: Emerald Books.


Ketchen; D. J.; C. C. Snow; and V. L. Hoover. (2004). Research on competitive dynamics: Recent accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management; 30(6); 779-804.


King; B. G.; E. S. Clemens; and M. Fry. (2011). Identity realization and organizational forms: Differentiation and consolidation of identities among Arizona’s charter schools. Organization Science; 22; 554-572.


Kirchbeger; E.-M (2013). Authentic Adaptation as a Way out? PowerPoint Presentation at Early Stage PhD Review. Imperial College Business School; London; UK.


Meyer; J. W. and B. Rowan. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Sociological Review; 83; 340-363.


Lounsbury; M. and M. A. Glynn. (2001). Cultural Entrepreneurship: Stories; legitimacy and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal; 22; 545-564.


Mische; A. (2011). Relational Sociology; Culture; and Agency. In J. Scott and P. Carrington (EDS.); Handbook of Network Analysis (pp.80-97); New York: Sage.


Mohr; J. W. (1998). Measuring Meaning Structures. Annual Review of Sociology; 24; 345-370.


Navis; C. & M. A. Glynn. (2010). How New Market Categories Emerge: Temporal Dynamics of Legitimacy; Identity; and Entrepreneurship in Satellite Radio; 1990‚Äď2005. Administrative Science Quarterly; 55; 439-471.


Pontikes; E. G. (2012). Two Sides of the Same Coin: How Ambiguous Classification Affects Multiple Audiences’ Evaluations. Administrative Science Quarterly; 57; 81-118.


Porac; J. F.; H. Thomas; F. Wilson; D. Paton; and A. Kanfer. (1995). Rivalry and the industry model of Scottish knitwear producers. Administrative Science Quarterly; 40; 203-227.


Rogers; E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York; The Free Press.


Segelstroem; F. (2013). Stakeholder Engagement for Service Design. Unpublished Thesis.


Stigliani; I. and B. Tether. (2012). Building a new field: How an emerging category becomes meaningful and legitimate. Unpublished.


Suchman; M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review; (20); 571-610.


Tilly; C. (1998). Durable inequality. Berkeley; CA: University of California Press.


Tolbert; P. S. and L. G. Zucker. (1983). Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform; 1880-1935.
Administrative Science Quarterly; 28; 22-39.


Weick; K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.


White; H. C. (1981). Where Do Markets Come From? American Journal of Sociology; 87; 517-547.


Zuckerman; E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology; 104; 1398-438.

ServDes.2014 Service Future; Proceedings of the fourth Service Design and Service Innovation Conference; Lancaster University; United Kingdom; 9-11 April 2014

Author:
Eva Kirchberger, Mark Kennedy
Title:
The Future of the Service Design Category: Authentic Adaption as a Way Out?
Note: the following are taken directly from CrossRef
Citations:
No citations available at the moment


Responsible for this page: Peter Berkesand
Last updated: 2017-02-21