Journal of Modelling in Management

Innovation within green service supply chains for a value creation

Rania A.M. Shamah,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Rania A.M. Shamah, (2012) "Innovation within green service supply chains for a value creation", Journal of
Modelling in Management, Vol. 7 Issue: 3, pp.357-374, https://doi.org/10.1108/17465661211283313
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/17465661211283313
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

Downloaded on: 30 March 2019, At: 07:45 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 109 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2086 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2013),"Chasing value offerings through green supply chain innovation", European Business
Review, Vol. 25 Iss 2 pp. 124-146 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341311302657">https://
doi.org/10.1108/09555341311302657</a>
(2012),"Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance", Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 3 pp. 290-305 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/13598541211227126">https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211227126</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:158502 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5664.htm

Innovation
Innovation within green service within green
supply chains for a value creation service
Rania A.M. Shamah
Business Administration Department, 357
High Institute of Cooperative and Managerial Studies, Cairo, Egypt

Abstract
Purpose – This research aims to provide guidance for management of green service supply chains to
improve the likelihood and extent of innovation and joint productivity performance for value creation,
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

with regard to coupling the potential role of the customer to increase supply chains performance. It is
the purpose of this study to address the impact of green innovation privileged on service supply
chains, then to address the prerequisite factors for enhancing the entire chain value creation.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey of extant research was undertaken for Egyptian
hotels. It involved one type of questionnaire, provided across all managerial levels: top, senior, and
executive managers. This questionnaire is divided into four main sections: the first section considers
value creation, since the second section is related to trust; the third section is related to sharing
knowledge; and the latest section is related to joint productivity.
Findings – The paper finds that it is possible to assist managers in thinking about adding value for
supply chains.
Research limitations/implications – The study period interval in data collection may have
influenced the variance in responses and therefore should be considered a limitation.
Practical implications – The ability to customize the simulator’s parameters to represent value
creation makes it a powerful tool for managers when deciding to rely on service supply chain.
Originality/value – This paper presents main elements required for enhancing value creation for all
supply chain parties.
Keywords Supply chain management, Innovation, Value creation, Hotels, Egypt
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Today, business’s real value lies outside the firm itself, in the minds of potential buyers
(Kapferer, 1992, p. 9) or the suppliers.
Therefore, successful organizations understand that any business purpose is to
create value for customers; employees; and investors – stakeholders and suppliers –
as the interests of these three groups are inextricably linked (O’Malley, 1998).
Utilization and value creation green service supply chains are expected to cut across
established professional, occupational and organizational boundaries and threaten to
disrupt existing practices making the need for collaborating and forming partnerships
highly important (Walsh, 2004; Jansen, 2009).
Hence, firms are competing nowadays on service basis, not on physical products basis
(Kandampully, 2002; Grönroos, 2000). As a result of the change from goods orientation
toward service orientation (Hypko et al., 2010; Vargo and Lusch, 2004a, b, 2008)
has extensively transformed the business of manufacturing firms (Hypko et al., 2010; Journal of Modelling in Management
Vol. 7 No. 3, 2012
Baines et al., 2009; Jacob and Ulaga, 2008). For decades, the importance of services to the pp. 357-374
global economy has grown steadily while the importance of goods has declined. q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1746-5664
Subsequently, companies are persistently seeking to provide superior services, regardless DOI 10.1108/17465661211283313
 JM2 of whether they are in a “pure” service business or in a manufacturing industry that must
7,3 increasingly rely on its service operations for continued profitability (Berry et al., 2006).
In addition, external relationship networks have become an essential prerequisite if
firms are profound to achieve the capabilities and knowledge required to serve the
holistic needs of customers for value creation.
Furthermore, competitive pressure has forced companies to consider innovation as
358 a vital strategy for differentiation (DeSai, 2010). Businesses seeking to stay ahead of the
competition should think more widely than product innovation, which is usually the most
common focus (Goffin and Mitchell, 2005). Companies could be more successful in
innovating than their industry counterparts (DeSai, 2010). Production methods and
processes, and markets and suppliers, are also imperative areas where innovation can
provide a competitive prime. Indeed, product innovation alone is relatively easy to copy
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

while combining this with one or more other factors offers an organization a competitive
advantage that is much more difficult to replicate (Goffin and Mitchell, 2005) while in
service sector it is difficult to innovate. Service sector will relay on the servicescape as
innovation can is transported through understanding the gap between the current quality
of the service as perceived by the customer and the customer’s expectations of the
service. Moreover, the service innovation is understood as a result of a change process
(the product) or a process itself with products that marked by high degree of
immateriality/intangibility, the need of synchronous contact between customers and
suppliers, the integration of an external factor in combination with the heterogeneity
because of high level personal input (Küpper, 2001).
Besides, value creation is a central concept in the management and organization
literature for both micro level (individual, group) and macro level (organization theory,
strategic management) research (Lepak et al., 2007).
Therefore; the competitive advantage of services has become increasingly evident, as
there is little to differentiate competing products from the customer’s perspective. As
services have become the uncompromisable core component of business and, from a
management perspective, they have evolved to assume a strategic function
(Kandampully, 2002).
Indeed, the value created by the firm equals the benefits the firm’s customers receive
minus the costs the firm’s suppliers incur and minus the costs of using the firm’s own
assets. To increase value created, the company increases benefits to its customers,
lowers costs of its suppliers, uses its resources more effectively, or combines suppliers
and customers in new or more efficient ways (Spulber, 2009).
This research explored the influence of innovation performance on value creation
then provides concrete suggestions to the businesses. Moreover, focuses on the role of
joint productivity as prerequisite for green supply chains value creation. Businesses can
increase the joint productivity of resources through green innovation. Moreover, the
corporations that pioneer in innovation will enjoy the “first mover advantages,” which
allow them to improve the corporate image, develop new markets and gain competitive
advantage (Hart, 1995; Peattie, 1992; Chen et al., 2006).

Literature review
This part will attempt to provide a review of the relevant literature for this research. It
will first focus on the importance to understand value creation then go into more detail
to understand the importance of the service particularly service innovation.
 It is important to define the concept of value creation first to be calmer to understand Innovation
what does value creation really mean. As declared before value creation relays on three within green
parties customers; employees; and investors (O’Malley, 1998). Therefore; matching
customer and provider practices prerequisites not only the recognition of what do value service
mean as much important the process of value creation (Alderson, 1957; Ramirez, 1999;
Normann, 2001; Sheth and Uslay, 2007; Grönroos, 2008; Lusch et al., 2008).
Values could be defined as “The relatively enduring beliefs about what kinds of 359
behaviors or end-states are preferable to others” (Buchko, 2007; Raykov and Marcoulides,
2006. While, Dumond (1996) and Zeithaml (1988) clarify value as “It equals customer
benefits minus customer sacrifices” (Raykov, 2005; Dumond, 1996). Therefore, values is
what a group of people share a set of beliefs about the goals that need to be achieved and
the means to be used to attain those goals, there is a basis for organization. In fact, without
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

some common beliefs or values, organizations could not exist; people need a common set of
beliefs to come together and create social organizations (Dumond, 1996).
Bowman and Ambrosini (2000) explored the value creation by introducing and
differentiating two types of value at the organizational level of analysis: use value and
exchange value. Therefore, value refers to the specific quality of a new job, task, product,
or service as perceived by users in relation to their needs, such as the speed or quality of
performance on a new task or the aesthetics or performance features of a new product or
service (Lepak et al., 2007). This would be the used definition for this study.
Regarding to those definitions; judgments are subjective and individual specific. The
second type of value were labelled as exchange value, which could be recognized as
either the monetary amount appreciated at a certain point in time, when the exchange
of the new task, good, service, or product takes place, or the amount paid by the user to
the seller for the use value of the focal task, job, product, or service (Bowman and
Ambrosini, 2000; Lepak et al., 2007).
According to Rokeach (1973), Gutman (1982), Peter and Olson (1987), Zeithaml
(1988), Day (1990), Hypko et al. (2010), Woodruff and Gardial (1996), Woodruff (1997),
De Chernatony et al. (2000) and Grönroos and Helle (2010), value is the end result of
value creating activities which, arise to imply some form of an assessment of benefits
against sacrifices.
“Service supply chain” refers to activities that allow the service to function
effectively on while ( Johne and Storey, 1998; Bitner et al., 2008).
Therefore, we should understand what does service mean? Service is a very
complex term as it fairly shares two common features: intangibility and interactivity,
While; those two furthers are associated with three characteristics which are:
coterminality; low portability; and information intensity.
Service is defined as “prototype for service, covering the needs of the customer and the
design of the service” (Edvardsson and Olsson, 1996, p. 149). Or its all activities directed at
creating changes, transformations (of form, place or time of availability, and the entities
involved may be material, goods, people, information, etc.) in some entities (Metcalfe and
Miles, 2000). While; Goldstein et al. (2002) anticipate service concept integrates the “how”
and “what” of service design while keeping both the customers’ needs and strategic intent
of the firm in mind. Bitner et al. (2008) services refers to offerings provided for and/or
co-created with customers such as professional services, retail, financial,
telecommunication, healthcare, construction, and many others. Voss and Zomerdijk
(2007) Services are often designed from the perspective of the consumer journey rather
 JM2 than as a single product or transaction. Service is seen as a journey that spans a
7,3 longer period of time and consists of multiple components and multiple touch points.
Therefore; service functions are transformations of the state of artifacts, human beings, or
data. They may be accomplished by service products, derived from goods, or created by
consumers – self-service (Miles, 2008). Those definitions are valid due to its ability to
transform the stereotypical definitions of services.
360 The growth of the services sector brings to the forefront the importance of
innovation. Services now account for more than 70 percent of employment and GDP in
most developed countries (Gallouj, 2002). Stress the service innovations are rapidly
implemented and copied (Voss et al., 1992). Then the ability to have a continual
innovation process is crucial to the service firm. Innovation in services being less
radical and more integrated than in other development processes (Sundbo, 1997).
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

Hence, service innovation has proved a vague area for many reasons – the
intangibility of services, the heterogeneity of services, and much innovation being of
processes rather than products and the lack of an identifiable R&D function. Although,
one of the difficulties in innovation is the difficulty to measure the impact of a particular
improvement of a customer experience on company performance (Voss and Zomerdijk,
2007). Therefore, it is important to study innovation’s role in services. Until now,
analysis in service innovation research is lacking in comparison to product innovation
research (Chesbrough, 2004; Victorino et al., 2005).
Hence, service innovation should be identified to assist idea of value creation.
Innovation is a complex concept. As various studies have initiate the perceived relative
advantages of innovation. Innovation is a process, through which new ideas, objects,
and practices are created, developed or reinvented (Rogers, 1993, 1995; Kimberly and
Evanisko, 1981). Is one of the best predictors of the rate of adoption of innovations
(Tornatzky and Klein, 1982; Rogers, 1983; Onkvisit and Shaw, 1989; Robinson, 1990).
A significant negative influence on the probability of adoption is found to be exerted
by the perceived complexity of the innovation (Tornatzky and Klein, 1982; Rogers,
1983), Therefore, expectation are growing around the globe that service organizations
should and will innovate to enhance performance.
Hence, service innovation, especially in capital-intensive services – as in hotels – is
often technological based (Barras, 1986; Gallouj, 1998; Hauknes, 1998; Nahuis, 2009).
According to Nahuis (2009) service innovation differs from technological innovation in
numerous items, First; services cannot be stocked (Gallouj and Weinstein, 1997; Miles
and Snow, 1986; Sundbo and Gallouj, 1998). Consequently, divergence from the meaning
attached to technology between innovator and users constitutes a direct threat. Second,
technology is sometimes collectively used in services, especially in standardised
services (Sundbo, 1998); and Finally, the interests of the consumers (Nahuis, 2007).
The lack of widespread and disciplined innovation in services arises from the nature
of services themselves. Thus, many of blueprints used for physical goods, hard
technologies, and software do not work well for human and interactive services, or at
least they demand significant adaptation to address service innovation challenges
(Edvardsson et al., 2000; Bitner et al., 2008).

Purpose and theoretical approach

Based on a review of the value creation and service innovation literatures this research
aims to provide guidance for management of green service supply chains to improve
 the likelihood and extent of innovation; joint productivity performance for value Innovation
creation, with regard to coupling the potential role of the customer to increase supply within green
chains performance. It is the purpose of this study to address the impact of green
innovation privileged on service supply chains, then to address the prerequisite factors service
for enhancing the entire chain value creation.
Therefore, this research would cover the following questions:
RQ1. How are innovation and value creation related?
361
RQ2. What are the prerequisite factors affecting the process of value creation in
green service supply chains?
RQ3. How do experiential green service supply chains innovate?
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

RQ4. Is there benefits green service supply chains can gain from a joint-model of
value creation?
Based on the nature and the purpose of this study, the qualitative method applies to the
project work based on the essay format. The other is the quantitative method based on
numerical scoring and grading. Finally, the results clubbed together in the mixed approach,
a natural choice. In addition, the study is model- interview guide spread over a period of one
year submitted to hotels – seven stars; five stars; and four stars – working in Egypt.
It involved one type of questionnaire, provided across all managerial levels – “top; senior;
and executive managers” – this questionnaire is divided to four main session: the first
session is considered about value creation, since the second session is related to trust
atmosphere; while the third session is related to environmental performance; the fourth
session is considered about sharing knowledge; thus the fifth session is focusing on
innovation and finally the latest session is focusing on joint productivity. Thus, the
questionnaire included questions that overlapped into both qualitative and quantitative
approaches. This gave the interviews options to respond qualitative, quantitative, a
combination of both or just one of them. Therefore, study hypotheses are:
H1. There is a significant relation between value creation for green service supply
chain and trust; innovation; sharing knowledge; and joint productivity.
H2. There is a significant correlation between value creation; trust; innovation;
sharing knowledge; and joint productivity.

Green service supply chain value creation model

Based on the previous literature review, this paper argues that the variables that most
affect and are, in turn, influencing the value creation for green service supply chain are
those related to the service provider strategy. This green service supply chain value
creation model depends on the generalized forms of managing the relations between
service provider and its suppliers, on the other hand; the firm’s relation with the final
client service receiver.
These variables are fundamental to identify whether the way a GSSC manages its
attitudes towered achieving value creation as shown in Figure 1.
Service systems are value-creation networks composed of people, technology, and
organizations. Interventions taken to transform state and coproduce value constitute
services (Maglio et al., 2006). This networks relay on three main parties service
 JM2
Green Service
7,3 Innovation
Innovate Green
Products

Joint Productivity Low Price/Cost

Supplier Firm GSSC Client
362 Performance Performance Individual
Trust Trust
Organization

Sharing Customer
Knowledge Needs
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

Supplier Value Creation

By Providing Required Customer Value Creation By Receiving
Recourses Unique and Available Products in Low Price

Service Provider Value Creation By Continuous

Figure 1.
Green service supply
chain value creation
Improving Internal Process, and Supplier Collaboration
The impact would be enhancing Value Creation for:
Business Firm; Supplier; and Customer

provider, suppliers, and service receiver through focusing on how to match the
received value for each party and merging the aids.
Hence, services supply chains are seen as needing to develop creative ways to address
fiscal restraints while fulfilling customer demands for efficient service delivery.
Therefore, service providers would see the value creation process as an integrated
process welling to match between deferent parts perspectives – main organization,
suppliers, and customer.

Matching customer value creation with service providers’

Hence, service provider value creation core activates are:
.
increasing the benefits and use of products through improved quality, function,
or imaging; and
.
lowering costs through production, efficiency and other means, in essence, need
to consider a change in attitude and thinking (Sumarna, 2010a, b; Myelin, Kasali,
2010, 2002).

In addition, the relation perspective involves a customer experience built over an

extended period of time, starting before and ending after the actual sales experience or
transaction (Voss and Zomerdijk, 2007). Customers usually when purchasing process
relay on knowledge of the total life-cycle costs and benefits. Therefore, service provider
should consider creating the most value, then think about the value of a product or
service as being a customer would pay for buying it if he had perfect information, and
finally; focus capturing part of that value as profit (O’Malley, 1998).
During a customer journey, numerous touchpoints occur between the customer and
the organization or the supply chain. These touchpoints need to be carefully designed
 and managed. The research shows that innovation takes place at each of these Innovation
touchpoints as well as of the overall journey itself (Voss and Zomerdijk, 2007). within green
Solving the perspective problem (Nickerson and Zenger, 2004) shares the assumption of
the knowledge-based view that the key managerial objective is to create valuable new service
knowledge (Barney, 1986; Wernerfelt, 1984; Teece et al., 1997; Conner and Prahalad, 1996;
Kogut and Zander, 1992). By creating new knowledge firms uncover new means to convert
inputs into valued outputs (Arrow and Hahn, 1971; Nelson and Winter, 1982). Consequently, 363
the manager’s organizational task is to craft an organization that efficiently generates
and protects knowledge (Conner and Prahalad, 1996; Kogut and Zander, 1992; Madhok,
1996). The manager, however, cannot specify a priori the knowledge she wishes to obtain,
because more often than not, this knowledge does not yet exist (Nickerson et al., 2007).
In practice, compelling need for service innovation focus of many businesses on
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

creating value through customer experiences suggest a need for innovative methods,
techniques, and R&D practices for services (Bitner et al., 2008). This process is
recognized as co-creation as it transforms the consumer into an active partner for the
creation of future value, this would shapes the boundaries of the firm by “outsourcing”
innovation and value creation to the customer (Roser and Samson, 2009). Indeed, the
importance of innovation – the process during which leapchanges are effected – is
generally recognized. Attention focuses primarily on how innovation projects can be
carried out most successfully (Cozijnsen et al., 2000).

Integrating suppliers with service provider value creation

Companies who are successful in identifying customer needs and wants, and can
subsequently develop and bring to market products and services to address those
needs and wants, tend to fare better than companies that cannot (Pooltan and Barclay,
1998; Li and Calantone, 1998; Calantone et al., 2002; Song et al., 1999; Song and
Montoya-Weiss, 1998; Rogers et al., 2005; Judson et al., 2006).
Therefore, establishing service partners is important for improving the competitive
advantage and better positioning in marketplace. Thus, would help them create a new
earnings logic for their service activities and generate new and more effective ways of
finding growth and revenue-generation opportunities (Grönroos and Helle, 2010).
Additionally, this approach will enable the firm to change its business mission into a
service-driven and thus also customer-centric direction (Grönroos, 2007).
That means all supplier activities and processes relevant to its customer’s business
are coordinated with the customer’s corresponding activities and processes into one
integrated stream of actions, with the aim to support the customer’s processes, and
eventually the business outcome (Grönroos and Helle, 2010).
Cooperative innovation of practices is required, so that matched practices can
generate value for both parties. Therefore, when establishing supply chains parties
they should rely on core conditions to achieve that value creation as follows.
First, trust is a key to organizational performance because it enables voluntary
cooperation. This form of cooperation becomes increasingly important when command
and control styles of management are no longer effective. More and more people work
in widely dispersed groups, with increases in the number of people that work at home.
In these situations, task performance cannot easily be observed. Besides, the nature
of work itself is changing in ways that make command and control approaches to
motivation increasingly difficult. Work has become more centred around intellectual
 JM2 labour and a lot of work is done in interdependent teams. Management cannot control
7,3 everything; it is more and more dependent on willing engagement of employees to work
well. Cooperation and trust are important conditions in such a work environment
(Shamah, 2009; Bijlsma and Koopman, 2003).
Trustful relations between organizational members can promote voluntary
cooperation and extra-role behaviors. Increasing instances of organizational change
364 have also contributed to the rise of trust on the research agenda. Conditions of change
heighten the relevance of trust to organizational performance and to the well-being of
organizational members (Shamah, 2009; Bijlsma and Koopman, 2003; Mishra, 1996;
Gilkey, 1991).
Second, sharing knowledge, to facilitate effective and efficient knowledge sharing
among supply chain partners. Thus, prerequisite is to build joint knowledge
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

management model (Shamah, 2008) is the process of creating value from ideas and
making this value available for the entire organization (Nonaka, 1991; Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995) and partners.
Codification and personalization are initial elements when developing knowledge
management model for the supply chain. Hence, codification refers to the way
knowledge is codified, stored and then reused independently of its source and its
context? The main aim of codification is to put organizational knowledge into a form that
makes it accessible to those who need it and the difficulty in doing so involves how not to
lose the knowledge distinctive properties and turn it into less vibrant information or data
(Sense, 2007; Hansen et al., 1999). Thus, Personalization focus on the dialogue between
individuals and not on knowledge objects in a database? It depends on individual as the
means of transferring experiences to others, and thus enables tactics knowledge to be
exposed and shared among others. It also requires space and time to enable the “getting
together” of people to perform such personal exchanges and to develop interpersonal
networks, which needs “to have a system that allows people to find other people” (Sense,
2007; Hansen et al., 1999).
Third, joint productivity; Hence, productivity is measurements serve as scorecards of
the effective use of recourses. Business leaders are considered with productivity as it
relates to competitiveness (Stevenson, 1999). One key managerial issue is the difficulty
of accurately measuring productivity; especially in jobs include thinking or creative
efforts, however, numerous factors affecting productivity. Among them are methods,
capital, system quality, culture/trends, trust, technology, knowledge base, and
management. The key to successfully competing is to determine customer needs, then
direct effort toward meeting customer expectation. Employees, department or/and
organization can improve productivity through enhancing performance which lead to
add value to stakeholders.
While in supply chain suppliers productivity would affect directly on the ability of
service provider when meeting customer needs. Therefore, according to Grönroos and
Helle (2010) they suggested the use of joint productivity which refers measuring an
integration of productivity measured for both the firm and its customer is required. This
concept is developed and the relationships between value created for the customer and
for the firm on one hand and productivity.
Finally, service innovation; to the adoption of technologies and capital equipment
(Gallouj and Savona, 2009). Hence, services is based on human, interpersonal delivery
systems, suggesting a need to focus on process and experience innovation. Services are fluid,
 dynamic, and frequently co-produced in real time by customers, employees, and technology, Innovation
often with few static physical properties (Edvardsson et al., 2000; Bitner et al., 2008).
Therefore, for any service company the participation of customer’s in new service
within green
innovations is frequently natural extension of the existing interactions during the service
production and delivery of the service (Gummesson, 1993; Jackson et al., 1995; Terrill
and Middlebrooks, 1996). Thus; there is three ways service industries vary, with high
significance for their innovative activities, as follows: fundamental processes (physical 365
artifacts; people; and symbols); knowledge intensity; and market relations (Miles, 2008).

Testing hypotheses
The sample consists of 100 hotels, 30 percent of them is seven-stars, 39 percent of
five-stars, and the remaining 31 percent of four-stars hotels. The persons included in the
sample are from different departments; 22 percent of them from the top department,
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

42 percent from the middle department, and the remaining 36 percent are from the
operational department.
Testing H1: there is a significant relation between value creation for green service
supply chain and trust; innovation; sharing knowledge; and joint productivity.
Multiple linear regression estimates the coefficients of the linear equation, involving
one or more independent variables, that best predict the value of the dependent
variable (all variables are continuous). Regression analysis model is used for testing
the significant of H1.
1 – Testing the goodness of the whole model:
Yi ¼ b 0 þ b 1 X 1 þ b 2 X2 þ · · · þ b K XK þ Ui
where:
.
Yi is the dependent variable.
.
Xi0 S are the independent variables.
.
bi0 S are the parameters to be estimated.
.
Ui is the random error.

Through testing:
.
H0. The model is a bad model (b1 ¼ b2 ¼ · · · ¼ bk ¼ 0).
.
H1. The model is a good model (at least one of the bi0 S not equal to zero).
We can make this test through the analysis of the variance (ANOVA) table by
comparing the value of sig by the significance level (a):
.
If sig . a we cannot reject H0 that the model is a bad model.
.
If sig # a we reject H0 and cannot reject H1 that the model is a good model.
2 – Testing the significance of each parameter in the model by testing:
.
H0. bi ¼ 0 (the parameter is not significant).
.
H1. bi – 0 (the parameter is significant).

We can make this test by comparing the significance level (a/2):

.
If sig . a/2 we cannot reject H0 that the model is a bad model.
.
If sig # a/2 we reject H0 and cannot reject H1 that the model is a good model.
 JM2 3 – Finally we can comment on the goodness of the model through the value R 2adj
7,3 which explains the percentage change in the dependent variable which can be
explained by the independent variables. As the value of R 2adj increases as the model is
considered to be a good model (Tables I and II).
From the previous results it is clear that the model is a good model and all its
parameters are significant and the suggested independent variables explain
366 76.4 percent of the changes in the dependent variable (organization value creation).
The estimated suggested model is:
VC ¼ 1:884 þ 0:192 T þ 0:3 SK þ 0:273 INN þ 0:183 JP
where:
.
VC is the value creation.
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

.
T is the trust.
.
SK is the sharing knowledge.
.
INN is the innovation.
.
JP is the joint productivity.

Therefore, H1 is accepted.
Testing H2: there is a significance correlation between value creation; trust;
innovation; sharing knowledge; and joint productivity.
Tables III-VII represent the sample correlation coefficient (r) and the test of the
significance of the population correlation coefficient (r) through testing:
H0 : r ¼ 0 H1 : r – 0
By using the Sig (two-tails) according to the following criteria:

Model R2 Adjusted R 2 SE of the estimate

Table I.
Regression results 1 0.776 0.764 0.3203

Model Sum of squares Df Mean square F Sig.

1 Regression 33.327 5 6.6654 64.965 0.000 * *b
Residual 9.645 94 0.1026
Total 42.973 99
Model Unstandardized coefficients
B SE t Sig.
(Constant) 1.884 0.560 3.365 0.001 * *
Trust 0.192 0.075 2.546 0.013 *
Sharing knowledge 0.300 0.117 2.564 0.016 *
Innovation 0.273 0.102 2.676 0.011 *
Joint productivity 0.183 0.075 2.44 0.015 *
Table II. Notes: Correlation is significant at: *0.05, and * *0.01 levels (two-tailed); adependent variable: value
ANOVAa creation; bpredictors: (constant), joint productivity, sharing knowledge, innovation, trust
 .
If Sig (two-tails) . a we cannot reject H0 that no significance difference of Innovation
(r) from zero or there is no linear correlation in the population. within green
.
If Sig (two-tails) # a we reject H0 and cannot reject H1 that there is a significance service
difference of (r) from zero or there is a linear correlation in the population.

Where Sig (two-tails) is the smallest area at which we can reject the H0. And the
significance level (a) is type I error or the area at which the researcher can make an 367
error by rejecting H0 when it is true.
From Table III we conclude that there is a direct and significant linear relation
between the organization value creation and the other factors.
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

R Sig (two-tails) Decision

Innovation 0.701 0.045 Significant * *

Trust 0.687 0.038 Significant * *
Sharing knowledge 0.832 0.021 Significant * * Table III.
Joint productivity 0.532 0.072 Significant * The correlation between
organization value
Note: Correlation is significant at: *0.10, and * *0.05 levels (two-tailed) creation

R Sig (two-tails) Decision

Innovation 0.123 0.261 Not significant

Trust 0.423 0.076 Significant *
Sharing knowledge 0.621 0.033 Significant * * Table IV.
Joint productivity 0.336 0.114 Not significant The correlation between
organization value
Note: Correlation is significant at: *0.10, and * *0.05 levels (two-tailed) creation (definition)

R Sig (two-tails) Decision

Innovation 0.621 0.041 Significant * *

Trust 0.776 0.029 Significant * *
Sharing knowledge 0.672 0.048 Significant * * Table V.
Joint productivity 0.521 0.069 Significant * The correlation between
organization value
Note: Correlation is significant at: *0.10, and * *0.05 levels (two-tailed) creation (shared value)

R Sig (two-tails) Decision

Innovation 0.634 0.040 Significant *

Trust 0.721 0.036 Significant *
Sharing knowledge 0.799 0.029 Significant * Table VI.
Joint productivity 0.599 0.047 Significant * The correlation between
organization value
Note: Correlation is significant at: *0.10 level (two-tailed) creation (communication)
 JM2 From Table IV we conclude that there is a direct and significant linear relation between
the definition in the organization value creation and the other factors unless the
7,3 innovation and the joint productivity.
From Table V we conclude that there is a direct and significant linear relation
between the shared value in the organization value creation and the other factors.
From Table VI we conclude that there is a direct and significant linear relation
368 between the communication in the organization value creation and the other factors.
From Table VII we conclude that there is a direct and significant linear relation
between the reducing operational cost and achieving customer satisfaction in the
organization value creation and the other factors.
From Tables III to VII it is obvious that there is a significant increasing proportional
relation between value creation; trust; innovation; joint productivity; and sharing
knowledge for green service supply chains; Therefore, H2 is accepted.
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

Results and recommendations

Based on this study, it is considered that the key factor for successful value creation for
green service supply chain are innovation; sharing knowledge; trust and joint
productivity. To examine the hypothesis a field study technique was employed. The
following are the main results of this study:
.
Hotels in Egypt gain an opportunity for enhancing value creation for all supply
chain members. Which, reflect a supported organization culture.
.
There are, and still will be employees who do not have a solid grasp on their duties
when innovating. Therefore, seminars; value aids should be used to provide
leaders experience focusing on their benefits to stakeholders “employees,
customers; suppliers; and shareholders”.
.
Hotels leaders; and top managers must focus on service innovation as an only
way for enhancing supply chain value for avoiding employee resistance.

Conclusion
The purpose of “green service supply chain value creation model” is to gain a better
understanding of how could apply innovation and to share knowledge between partners
for enhancing quality and lead to an improvement which will be continuously by adding
value to the stakeholders as well as to the community. The “green service supply chain
value creation model” has been proposed to analyze the factors affecting value creation.
Wherein, today’s competencies become tomorrow’s core rigidities with
unprecedented speed. An organization should have the capacity to exploit its
resources and learning capabilities better than its competitors, if it decides to assume a
given competitive strategy.

R Sig (two-tails) Decision

Table VII.
The correlation between Innovation 0.895 0.009 Significant * * *
organization value Trust 0.921 0.004 Significant * * *
creation (reducing Sharing knowledge 0.823 0.014 Significant * *
operational cost and Joint productivity 0.669 0.062 Significant *
achieving customer
satisfaction) Note: Correlation is significant at: *0.10, * *0.05, and * * *0.01 levels (two-tailed)
 To conclude green service supply chain value creation is a process that helps Innovation
organizations find, select, organize, disseminate, and control its resources to gain within green
business advantage through environmental phenomena.
However, the strength of this study methodology lies in its comprehensive coverage of service
various aspects of green service supply chain and its implementation at hotels as service
provider. It provides for both, as in-positivist researchers adopt a quantitative
methodology and carry out surveys and questionnaires. Furthermore, interpretive 369
researchers adopt a qualitative methodology and carry out interviews and ethnographies.
On the other hand this is limitations; the study period interval in data collection may
have influenced the variance in responses and therefore should be considered a
limitation.
In addition, due to many incomplete responses that were received and the
qualitative response parts are sometimes estimated based on collected impressions,
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

there is a minor influence on the accuracy of the estimates for “key areas of weakness”
in green implementation. While these limitations outline potential areas of weakness in
the methodology, yet, it still has been possible to undertake a comprehensive approach
successfully.
Value creation for green service supply chain survey identified a significant degree
of impact on the awareness of the average employee regarding value creation. The
need for formulating an overall strategy for knowledge base to support innovation
comes forward very strongly.
The following factors are important for the future requirements to ensure
innovation in green in supply chains initiatives to succeed:
.
high priority top management support;
.
establishing unique organizations value to support applying joint productivity in
SCM; and
.
developing and coordinating well communications plans.

References
Alderson, W. (1957), Marketing Behavior and Executive Action: A Functionalist Approach to
Marketing Theory, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Arrow, K.J. and Hahn, F.H. (1971), General Competitive Analysis, Holden-Day, San Francisco, CA.
Baines, T.S., Lightfoot, H., Peppard, J., Johnson, M., Tiwari, A., Shehab, E. and Swink, M. (2009),
“Towards an operations strategy for product-centric servitization”, International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 29, pp. 494-519.
Barney, J.R. (1986), “Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck and business strategy”,
Management Science, Vol. 32, pp. 1231-41.
Barras, R. (1986), “Towards a theory of innovation in service”, Research Policy, Vol. 15, pp. 161-73.
Berry, L.L., Shankar, V., Parish, J.T., Cadwallader, S. and Dotzel, T. (2006), “Creating new markets
through service innovation”, MIT Salon Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 55-64.
Bijlsma, K. and Koopman, P. (2003), “Introduction: trust within organizations”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 543-55.
Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. and Morgan, F.N. (2008), “Service blueprinting: a practical technique
for service innovation”, California Management Review, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 66-97.
Bowman, C. and Ambrosini, V. (2000), “Value creation versus value capture: towards a coherent
definition of value in strategy”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
 JM2 Buchko, A.A. (2007), “The effect of leadership on values-based management”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 36-50.
7,3
Calantone, R.J., Cavusgil, S.T. and Zhao, Y. (2002), “Learning orientation, firm innovation capability,
and firm performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 515-24.
Chen, Y.-S., Lai, S.-B. and Wen, C.T. (2006), “The influence of green innovation performance on
corporate advantage in Taiwan”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 331-9.
370 Chesbrough, H. (2004), “Managing open innovation: chess and poker”, Research-Technology
Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 23-6.
Conner, K.R. and Prahalad, C.K. (1996), “A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versus
opportunism”, Organization Science, Vol. 7, pp. 477-501.
Cozijnsen, A.J., Vrakking, W.J. and van IJzerloo, M. (2000), “Success and failure of 50 innovation
projects in Dutch companies”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 3 No. 3,
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

pp. 150-9.
De Chernatony, L., Harris, F. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (2000), “Added value: its nature, roles and
sustainability”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 1/2, pp. 39-56.
DeSai, J. (2010), “Mastering, innovation roadmap to sustainable value creation; using
strategy-driven, innovation”, The DeSai Group, available at: www.desai.com
Dumond, E.J. (1996), “Applying value-based management to procurement”, International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 5-24.
Edvardsson, B. and Olsson, J. (1996), “Key concepts for new service development”, The Service
Industries Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 140-65.
Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. and Sanden, B. (2000), New Service Development and
Innovation in the New Economy, Studentlitteratur AB, Lund.
Gallouj, F. (1998), “Innovating in reverse: service and the reverse product cycle”, Europe Journal
of Innovation Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 123-38.
Gallouj, F. (2002), Innovation in the Service Economy: The New Wealth of Nations, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham.
Gallouj, F. and Savona, M. (2009), “Innovation in services: a review of the debate and a research
agenda”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 149-72.
Gallouj, F. and Weinstein, O. (1997), “Innovation in service”, Research Policy, Vol. 2, pp. 537-56.
Gilkey, R. (1991), The Psychodynamics of Upheaval: Intervening in Merger and Acquisitions
Transactions, Jossey-Bass Gummesson, San Francisco, CA.
Goffin, K. and Mitchell, R. (2005), Innovation Management: Strategy and Implementation Using
the Pentathlon Framework Knowledge Interchange, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Goldstein, S.M., Johnston, R., Duffy, J. and Rao, J. (2002), “The service concept: the missing link in
service design research?”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 121-34.
Grönroos, C. (2000), Service Management and Marketing: A Customer Relationship Management
Approach, 2nd ed., Wiley, London.
Grönroos, C. (2007), Service Management and Marketing, 3rd ed., Wiley, Chichester.
Grönroos, C. (2008), “Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who co-creates?”, European
Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 298-314.
Grönroos, C. and Helle, P. (2010), “Adopting a service logic in manufacturing conceptual foundation
and metrics for mutual value creation”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 564-90.
Gutman, J. (1982), “A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, pp. 60-72.
 Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), “What’s your strategy for managing Innovation
knowledge?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 106-15.
within green
Hart, R.A. (1995), “Mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) habitat suitability criteria for the Otter Tail
River”, M.S. Thesis, North Dakota State University, Minneapolis, MN, p. 60þ. service
Hypko, P., Tilebein, M. and Gleich, R. (2010), “Benefits and uncertainties of performance-based
contracting in manufacturing industries an agency theory perspective”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 460-89. 371
Jackson, S.E., May, K.E. and Whitney, K. (1995), “Under the dynamics of diversity in
decision-making teams”, in Guzzo, R.A. and Salas, E. (Eds), Team Effectiveness and
Decision Making in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 204-61.
Jacob, F. and Ulaga, W. (2008), “The transition from product to service in business markets: an
agenda for academic inquiry”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 247-53.
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

Jansen, M. (2009), “Collaboration portfolios and outcomes of nanotechnology research projects:

a study of economic value creation and utilization of nanotechnologies in the Netherlands”,
Master thesis, University of Twente, s0006815.
Johne, A. and Storey, C. (1998), “New service development: a review of the literature and
annotated bibliography”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 3/4, pp. 184-251.
Judson, K., Schoenbachler, D.D., Gordon, G.L., Ridnour, R.E. and Weilbaker, D.C. (2006),
“The new product development process: let the voice of the salesperson be heard”, Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 194-202.
Kandampully, J. (2002), “Innovation as the core competency of a service organisation: the role of
technology, knowledge and networks”, European Journal of Innovation Management,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 18-26.
Kapferer, J. (1992), Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating and Evaluating
Brand Equity, Kogan Page, London.
Kimberly, J.R. and Evanisko, M.J. (1981), “Organizational innovation: the influence of individual,
organizational and contextual factors on hospitals adoption of technological and
administrative innovations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 689-713.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), “Knowledge of the firm and the evoluation theory of the multinational
corporation”, Journal of International Business Studies, Fourth Quarter, pp. 625-45.
Küpper, C. (2001), Service Innovation – A Review of the State of the Art, University of Munich,
Institute for Innovation Research and Technology Management, Munich, pp. 1-28.
Lepak, D.P., Smith, K.G. and Taylor, M.S. (2007), “Introduction to special topic forum value
creation and value capture: a multilevel perspective”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 180-94.
Li, T. and Calantone, R.J. (1998), “The impact of market knowledge competence on new product
advantage: conceptualization and empirical evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 4,
pp. 13-29.
Madhok, A. (1996), “The organization of economic activity: transaction costs, firm capabilities
and the nature of governance”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 577-90.
Maglio, P.P., Srinivasan, S., Kreulen, J.T. and Spohrer, J. (2006), “Service systems, service
scientists, SSME, and innovation”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 81-6.
Metcalfe, J.S. and Miles, I. (2000), “Introduction, overview and reprise”, in Metcalfe, J.S. and
Miles, I. (Eds), Innovation Systems in the Service Economy. Measurements and Case Study
Analysis, Kluwer, Boston, MA, pp. 1-12.
Miles, I. (2008), “Patterns of innovation in service industries”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 47 No. 1.
 JM2 Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1986), “Organizations: new concepts for new forms”, California
Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 62-79.
7,3 Mishra, A.K. (1996), “Organizational response to crisis: the centrality of trust”, in Kramer, R.M.
and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 261-87.
Nahuis, R. (2007), The Politics of Innovation in Public Transport. Issues, Settings and
372 Displacements, KNAG/ Copernicus Institute, Utrecht.
Nahuis, R. (2009), “The rise and fall of self-service in Amsterdam trams: user-technology
relations in a case of service innovation”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 233-47.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Belknap
Press/Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

Nickerson, J.A. and Zenger, T.R. (2004), “A knowledge-based theory of the firm – the
problem-solving perspective”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 617-32.
Nickerson, J.A., Brian, S. and Zenger, T. (2007), “The ‘problem’ of creating and capturing value”,
Strategic Organization, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 211-25.
Nonaka, I. (1991), “The knowledge creating company”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 No. 6,
pp. 96-104.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Normann, R. (2001), Reframing Business: When the Map Changes the Landscape, Wiley, Chichester.
O’Malley, P. (1998), “Value creation and business success”, The Systems Thinker, Vol. 9 No. 2.
Onkvisit, S. and Shaw, J. (1989), Product Life Cycles and Product Management, Praeger,
Westport, CT.
Peattie, K. (1992), Green Marketing, Longman Group UK Ltd, London.
Peter, J.P. and Olson, J.C. (1987), Consumer Behavior: Marketing Strategy Perspectives, Irwin,
Homewood, IL.
Pooltan, J. and Barclay, I. (1998), “New product development from past research to future
applications”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 27, pp. 197-212.
Ramirez, R. (1999), “Value co-production: intellectual origins and implications for practice and
research”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 49-65.
Raykov, T. (2005), “Bias-corrected estimation of noncentrality parameters of covariance
structure models”, Structural Equation Modelling, Vol. 12, pp. 120-9.
Raykov, T. and Marcoulides, G.A. (2006), A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling,
2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Robinson, D. (1990), “Meeting customer needs”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 93-5.
Rogers, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rogers, E.M. (1993), Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rogers, E.M., Singhal, A. and Dearing, J.W. (Eds) (2005), Communication of Innovations:
A Journey with Ev Rogers, Sage, New Delhi.
Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Roser, T. and Samson, A. (2009), Co-creation: New Pathways to Value an Overview, LSE
Enterprise, London, pp. 1-20.
 Sense, A.J. (2007), “Stimulating situated learning with projects: personalizing the flow of Innovation
knowledge”, Knowledge Management Research Practices, Vol. 5, pp. 13-21.
within green
Shamah, R. (2009), “Going green in supply chain management as a prospective improvement”,
paper presented at 19th International Conference FAIM2009 “Flexible Automation service
& Intelligent Manufacturing”, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, 6-8 July.
Shamah, R.A.M. (2008), “A framework for enhancing productivity efficiency through applying
knowledge management”, The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture & Change 373
Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 47-66.
Sheth, J.N. and Uslay, C. (2007), “Implications of the revised definition of marketing: from
exchange to value creation”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 302-7.
Song, M.X. and Montoya-Weiss, M.M. (1998), “Critical development activities for really new versus
incremental products”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 124-35.
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

Song, X.M., Di Benedetto, C.A. and Zhao, Y.L. (1999), “Pioneering advantages in manufacturing
and service industries: empirical evidence from nine countries”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 20 No. 9, pp. 811-36.
Spulber, D.F. (2009), Economics and Management of Competitive Strategy, World Scientific
Publishing, Hackensack, NJ.
Stevenson, W.J. (1999), Production Operation Management, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Sumarna, E. (2010a), “Beginning of the small progress”, Myelin, Reinald Kasali (2002) PT
Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Creating Value and Business Opportunity, available at: http://
eriassumarna.wordpress.com
Sumarna, E. (2010b), “Beginning of the small progress”, Myelin, Reinald Kasali (2010) Seputar
Indonesia daily, Creating Value and Business Opportunity, available at: http://
eriassumarna.wordpress.com
Sundbo, J. (1997), “Management of innovation in services”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 432-55.
Sundbo, J. (1998), The Organization of Innovation in Service, Roskide University Press, Roskide.
Sundbo, J. and Gallouj, F. (1998), “Innovation as a loosely coupled system in services”, SI4S
Topical Paper No. 4, STEP Group, Oslo.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.
Terrill, C.A. and Middlebrooks, A.G. (1996), Service Development, PDMA Handbook of New
Product Development, Wiley, New York, NY.
Tornatzky, L.G. and Klein, K.J. (1982), “Innovation characteristics and innovation
adoption-implementation: a meta-analysis of findings”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. EM-29 No. 1, pp. 28-43.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004a), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004b), “The four service marketing myths: remnants of a
goods-based, manufacturing model”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6, pp. 324-35.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: further evolution”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science.
Victorino, L., Verma, R., Plaschka, G. and Dev, C. (2005), “Service innovation and customer
choices in the hospitality industry”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 555-76.
Voss, C. and Zomerdijk, L. (2007), “Innovation in experiential services – an empirical view”,
in DTI (Ed.), Innovation in Services, DTI, London, pp. 97-134.
 JM2 Voss, K.A., Norred, W.P. and Bacon, C.W. (1992), “Sub chronic toxicological investigation of
Fusarium moniliforme-contaminated corn, culture material and ammoniated culture
7,3 material”, Mycophagia, Vol. 117, pp. 97-104.
Walsh, F. (2004), “The concept of family resilience: crisis and challenge”, Family Process, Vol. 35
No. 3, pp. 261-81.
Woodruff, R.B. (1997), “Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage”, Journal of
374 the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 139-53.
Woodruff, R.B. and Gardial, S.F. (1996), Know Your Customer, New Approaches to Customer
Value and Satisfaction, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Zeithaml, A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

Further reading
Abbott, A. (1988), The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Mauboussin, M.J. and Bartholdson, K. (2002), “Measuring the MOAT assessing the magnitude
and sustainability of value creation”, Strategy Investment Strategy, Americas/United
States, Vol. 16, December, pp. 1-52.
Richard, A. (2002, 2003), “Perceptions of innovations: exploring and developing innovation
classification”, PhD thesis, School of Management, Cranfild University.
Slappendel, C. (1996), “Perspectives on innovation in organizations”, Organization Studies, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 107-29.
Tax, S.S. and Stuart, I. (1997), “Designing and implementing new services: the challenges of
integrating service systems”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 105-34.
Thomke, S. (2003), “R&D comes to services: Bank of America’s pathbreaking experiments”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 70-9.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2006), “Service-dominant logic: what it is, what it is not, what it
might be”, in Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (Eds), The Service Dominant Logic of Marketing:
Dialog, Debate, and Directions, M.E. Sharpe, New York, NY, pp. 43-56.

About the author

Rania A.M. Shamah is Associate Professor of Business Administration at the High Institute of
Cooperative and Managerial Studies, Egypt. She is a consultant/lecturer of business
administration at several training centers in the Middle East especially in the Gulf Area and a
member of the Crisis Research Unit. She is Referee Editor of the International Journal of
Knowledge Management & Culture Change, Associate Editor of Disaster Report of Egypt printed
by Crisis Research Unit Press and part of the Organizing Committee of Annual Crisis
Conferences, held by Crisis Research Unit. As a consultant/lecturer of business administration
she has provided courses. Rania A.M. Shamah can be contacted at: rania_shamah@yahoo.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. WahyonoWahyono, Wahyono Wahyono. Business model innovation: a review and research Agenda.
Journal of Indian Business Research, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. YuLili, Lili Yu, ZhangJuzhi, Juzhi Zhang. 2018. A two-period pricing model with hunger marketing
strategy. Journal of Modelling in Management 13:1, 81-100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. AgrawalSaurabh, Saurabh Agrawal, SinghRajesh K., Rajesh K. Singh, MurtazaQasim, Qasim Murtaza.
2016. Disposition decisions in reverse logistics by using AHP-fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Journal of
Modelling in Management 11:4, 932-948. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Sabrina Cocca, Walter Ganz. 2015. Requirements for developing green services. The Service Industries
Journal 35:4, 179-196. [Crossref]
5. Sachin K. Patil, Ravi Kant. 2014. Knowledge management adoption in supply chain. Journal of Modelling
in Management 9:2, 160-178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY At 07:45 30 March 2019 (PT)

6. Rania A.M. Shamah. 2013. A model for applying lean thinking to value creation. International Journal
of Lean Six Sigma 4:2, 204-224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Rania A.M. Shamah. 2013. Measuring and building lean thinking for value creation in supply chains.
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 4:1, 17-35. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]