The relationship between inovation in services and standardization emperial evidence of services provides invovement

The relationship between innovation in services and standardization: Empirical evidence of service providers’ involvement in standardization Paul Wakkea, Knut Blinda, b, c, Henk J de Vriesb a Chair of Innovation Economics, Berlin University of Technology (Postal address: VWS 2, Mueller-Breslau-Straße 15, 10623 Berlin, Germany) b c Endowed Chair of Standardization, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University (Postal address: Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands) Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems (FOKUS) (Postal address: KaiserinAugusta-Allee 31, 10589 Berlin, Germany) Email addresses: p.wakke@googlemail.com, knut.blind@tu-berlin.de, hvries@rsm.nl Corresponding author: Paul Wakke, p.wakke@googlemail.com, Tel: +493031476631, Fax: +493031476628 Electronic Electroniccopy copyavailable availableat: at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 Abstract Extant research suggests a positive and bidirectional relation between innovation and standardization Focusing on the service industries, this paper relates the theory of innovation in services to the participation of service providers in standardization committees For this purpose, we review the literature and identify three different patterns of service innovation Subsequently, we analyze the committee structure of the national standards bodies of the Netherlands (NEN) and Germany (DIN) by applying the industry classification NACE and the standards classification ICS The analysis reveals that standardization is of vital importance for the service industries Interestingly, the service industries in both countries use standardization primarily for technology-related service innovations rather than for service standardization in consequence of “innovation in services” Doing so, service providers largely focus on standardizing technologies from the manufacturing industries in order to expedite “supplier dominated innovation” Moreover, certain service industries develop technologies themselves and perform “innovation through services” These service industries are strongly overrepresented in the standardization committees As for these industries, standardization represents an appropriate mean to speed up market access and diffusion of their innovations Our findings suggest that policy makers can stimulate innovation in services by promoting the service industries’ participation in standardization Keywords: Innovation in services, standards, standardization, technology transfer and diffusion Electronic Electroniccopy copyavailable availableat: at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 Introduction Innovation implies the successful creation of something new, and standards by definition “freeze” a solution for a certain amount of time, so there is an inherent tension between standards and innovation Standardization may be accused of hindering innovation Nevertheless, research provides evidence that standardization may also stimulate innovation Hence, companies may innovate more successfully by participating in committees that prepare standards, and policy makers may promote standards as instruments to stimulate innovation So far, research on the relation between standardization and innovation focused on technical standards and technical innovation Indeed, most standards are technical standards and innovation performance measured using patents as an indicator finds a vast majority of technical innovation However, services have a major and growing share in most economies Therefore, this paper seeks to investigate the relation between innovation and standardization in service industries In response to the growing significance of the service industries, standardization has extended its so far rather technical scope towards services and set up several service standards at national, European, and international levels for different service industries, such as transport, translation services or maintenance Thereby, service standards may be used to improve the service process, the communication between provider and customer as well as the service result However, also technical standards are relevant for the service industries The provision of services is often effectuated by technologies or even leads to technologies as in the case of engineering services Accordingly, the service industries might be interested not only in standardizing services but in technical standardization as well We recognize that technological innovations also apply to service providers upon which they improve or even Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 build their services The well-known MP3 audio format, specified within the international standards ISO/IEC 11172-3 and ISO/IEC 13818-3, led to several service innovations (e.g., online stores for music or podcasting) The radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology represents a similar example within logistics and retail However, some service industries, such as certain engineering services, provide the service of designing technologies As for these companies, standardization might be used as an appropriate mean to speed up market access and diffusion of their technologies The paper on hand seeks to take these different types of innovation and standardization activities in the service industries into account by relating the companies’ industry classification (manufacturers vs service providers) to their involvement in standards committees (focusing on product and service standardization) Thereby, we focus on the involvement in de jure standardization at national standards bodies (NSBs) as opposed to de facto standardization In the latter case, the standard arises from a standardization struggle (and sometimes from a standard war) between different solutions of different firms or coalitions (Chiesa and Toletti, 2003) In contrast, de jure standardization is defined by the existence of independent organizations and partly by the promulgation of standards by legislative bodies as in the case of mandated standards (David and Greenstein, 1990) More detailed, we consider the committees of the Dutch (NEN1) and German (DIN2) NSBs and apply the industry classification NACE3 and the standards classification ICS4 to distinguish service industries from other industries and service standards from other standards The paper’s contribution stems from bridging two existing disciplines, standardization and innovation, in the realm of services Therewith, it responds to the significance of the service Dutch: Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (Netherlands Standardization Institute) German: Deutsches Institut für Normung e V (German Institute for Standardization) French: Nomenclature statistique des Activités économiques dans la Communauté Européenne (Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community) International Classification for Standards Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 industries within today’s modern economies and tries to provide new insights concerning the “assimilation/demarcation/synthesis” discussion (Gallouj and Windrum, 2009) about whether service innovation is fundamentally different to innovation in manufacturing industries or not Furthermore, new insights into the promising and new field of service standardization are expected The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section theoretically considers the relation between innovation and standardization (2.1) and elaborates different patterns of service innovation from the extant literature (2.2) Section provides the empirical analysis and starts with introducing the methodology used to identify the different patterns of service innovation within standardization (3.1) Subsection 3.2 analyzes to what extent the different service industries participate in standardization Subsequently, the different patterns of service innovation are related to standardization in Subsection 3.3 and 3.4 Thereby, Subsection 3.3 focuses on the committee structure and Subsection 3.4 on the output of these committees (i.e., the standards) using the standards classification ICS Finally, Section discusses the empirical findings, while Section derives implications and provides the limitations of the paper’s findings Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 Theoretical considerations 2.1 The relation between innovation and standardization The extant research suggests a positive relation between standardization and innovation As for standards (the output of standardization), Blind (2003) provides hints for the complementarity rather than the contradiction between innovation and standards Swann (2010) offers a comprehensive summary of literature dealing with the question of whether standards enable or constrain innovation Basically, the codification and diffusion of the current state of technology assists the translation of research results into marketable products and services so that standards may foster innovation However, standards might also constrain at the same time (Allen and Sriram, 2000; Swann and Lambert, 2010), while sometimes constraints are useful to “reduce undesirable outcomes” (Swann, 2010, p 9) As for service standards in particular, De Koning and De Vries (2009) conclude that standards may positively impact innovation in services based on a case study in Facility Management However, hardly any studies are available for the effect of service standards on innovation As for the standard setting process, innovation can also be regarded as necessary precondition for bringing in own knowledge into standardization or more generally for the engagement in collaborations (Fritsch and Lukas, 2001) In principle, standard setters aim at adapting the standard content to their benefit in order “to minimize the technical distance between the standard itself and the present technical specifications of each firm’s current product and processes” (Antonelli, 1994, p 200) Moreover, Berger et al (2011) evidenced the use of standardization to have own intellectual property rights (e.g., patents) included in the standard In any case, innovation activities foster standardization for reasons of diffusion and commercialization of these innovations Accordingly, Blind (2002 & 2006a) proved a positive effect of innovation activities on standardization for the manufacturing industries using patent Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 applications at industry level in 2002 and research and development (R&D) expenses at firm level in 2006 as indicator for innovation Regarding the participation of service providers, Blind et al (2012) as well as Blind and Mangelsdorf (2010) evidenced a positive relationship between innovation activities and standardization Thereby, Blind et al (2012) extended this linear relation towards an inversed U-shape so that highly innovative service providers are rather reluctant to standardize probably due to intellectual property concerns An alternative explanation for this behavior would be a strong market position so that these highly innovative companies not need the support of standards to market their products successfully (Blind and Thumm, 2004) A third line of argumentation is the effect of participation within standardization on the innovativeness of the participants Within standards committees, companies’ delegates meet colleagues from competitors, customers, suppliers, testing organizations, governments, nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders in a rather informal setting Hence, standardization can be regarded as collaboration between the different participants (Tether, 2002), which promotes knowledge exchange or even knowledge generation According to the relational view (Dyer and Singh, 1998), this generates interfirm resources leading to more innovation (Love and Roper, 1999) and resulting in “interorganizational competitive advantages” Therefore, standardization might foster the innovativeness of its participants However, only very few and rather anecdotal evidence of this argumentation can be found within literature (Blind 2006a; Wakke and Blind, 2012), while several scholars highlighted the general role of networks, communities, and linkages as alternatives to internal innovation activities (von Hippel, 1988; Chesbrough, 2003) In conclusion, there is a bidirectional relation between innovation and standardization in theory Thus, we assume that the service providers’ involvement within standardization is related to some sort of innovation in services The following section aims at reviewing the Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 literature on innovation in services in order to elaborate different patterns of service innovation Drawing upon the theory of innovation in services, we then apply the standardization behavior of the service industries to this theory 2.2 Different patterns of service innovation Innovation activities in the service industries is a rather young and largely unexplored research field to date The following paragraphs summarize different schools of thought within extant literature Barras (1986) proposed the “reverse product cycle” to shed some light on the transmission process by which a new technology is taken up by the service industries Based on an empirical study of the adoption of information technology in different service industries, he suggests that, firstly, existing services become more efficient due to the adoption of a new technology, then the quality improves, and finally, wholly transformed or even new services arise Droege and Hildebrand (2009) provide a review of the literature in the field of innovation in services and call this thinking of Barras and other scholars (Gallouj and Weinstein, 1997; Miozzo and Soete, 2001) the “technologist perspective” Basically, this perspective is comparable to the assimilation viewpoint that calls for assimilating service innovation to existing theories derived from manufacturing industries (Gallouj and Windrum, 2009) Indeed, there are several examples for the interaction between product and service innovation With new materials it was possible to innovate several service industries such as shipping or surgery New appliances enabled ATMs5, automated washing systems or car parks (Meiren, 2009) Information technology and appropriate infrastructures have made telemedicine an increasingly viable health care service delivery alternative (Sheng et al., 1999) A new field of research developed around the so-called self-service technologies (SST) including the Automated teller machines Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 analysis of technology-based service encounters (Meuter et al., 2000) Additionally, providers of learning services offer web-based lectures; remote services or cloud computing are other examples that blur the inherent characteristics of services (e.g., the perishability or the inseparability of production and consumption) more and more (Moeller, 2010) Miozzo and Soete (2001) developed a taxonomy with regard to the source of technologies for the service industries aiming at substantiating the service-specific research of Pavitt (1984) The supplier-dominated sectors, which is their first group, largely use technologies from manufacturing industries Within the second group, the scale-intensive physical networks and information networks sectors, innovation still originates in manufacturing firms, however, “the nature of these innovations will be strongly determined by service use” (Miozzo and Soete, 2001, p 162) The science-based and specialized supplier sectors, which make up the third group, mainly develop their technologies themselves by means of more or less traditional R&D activities Thus, service providers can broadly be subdivided into either “technology-using” (supplier-dominated sectors and scale-intensive physical networks and information networks sectors) or “technology-producing or -developing” (science-based and specialized suppliers) (Droege and Hildebrand, 2009; Miozzo and Soete, 2001) Vence and Trigo (2009) developed a typology of innovation patterns based on the existing literature and came up with three different types: low innovation intensive sectors (wholesales and commission trade as well as transport and communication), technology-intensive and moderately innovation-intensive sectors (financial intermediation), and knowledge and innovation-intensive sectors (business services) With regard to the main source of innovation, the first two types heavily rely on the acquisition of machinery and equipment (technology-users) while the third type solely relies on “intramural R&D” (Vence and Trigo, 2009, p 1652) and thus can be regarded as technology-developing Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 However, in recent years several scholars criticized this technological view as being to insular and not taking all forms of service innovation into account (Hipp and Grupp, 2005; Gallouj, 2002, Gadrey et al., 1995) Thus, alongside the “technologist perspective”, scholars meanwhile argue that service innovations are not necessarily linked to technology (Toivonen and Tuominen, 2009; Hipp et al., 2000) or R&D (Miles, 2007) Barcet (2010) considers this non-technological type of service innovation “service-based innovation” and states that “relationships with clients and their consumption processes are becoming central” to this concept of innovation (Barcet, 2010, p 54) Djellal et al (2003) emphasize the importance of the social sciences and humanities alongside organizational aspects All this thinking can be combined within the demarcation viewpoint suggesting the existence of service-specific innovation patterns as opposed to the assimilation view (Gallouj and Windrum, 2009) Den Hertog (2000) considered service providers as co-producers of innovation and highlighted their increasing importance in the innovation process Thereby, he identified five basic service innovation patterns that combine the “technologist perspective” and the “service-based innovation perspective” The first pattern is called “supplier dominated innovation”, which corresponds to the first group of Miozzo and Soete (2001) and thus can be regarded as technology-using The second pattern is named “innovation in services” and responds to the “service-based innovation” concept of Barcet (2010) The third pattern (clientled innovation) focuses on the client interface, which is included in the “service-based innovation” concept of Barcet (2010) The fourth pattern is called “innovation through services” and responds to the technology-developing aspect of Droege and Hildebrand (2009) Finally, the fifth pattern (paradigmatic innovation) of Den Hertog (2000) particularly deals with complex innovations affecting whole value chains However, these paradigm shifts are not considered in this paper We relate service innovation to standardization in a rather cross-sectional manner so that it would not be appropriate to explore dynamic paradigm Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 3.4 Patterns of service innovation related to the committee output Standards committees are responsible for establishing, revising, and eventually withdrawing all standards within the respective scope of the committee Accordingly, each standard can be assigned to a single standards committee within the committee structure Moreover, each standard is classified according to the standards classification ICS imprinted on the title page The ICS classification intends to serve as a structure for catalogues of all types of standards (ISO, 2005) Thereby, ICS is a hierarchical classification consisting of three levels Level covers 40 standards fields, of which one explicitly deals with service standards Using this classification should enable service providers to find and access relevant standards Different scholars applied this classification and discovered a very small number of service standards in comparison to the overall stock of standards, which amounts to less than five percent (Blind, 2003; Wakke, 2012) Based on our patterns of service innovation, the third pattern “innovation in services” is related to the definition of service standards as outlined above Additionally to Subsection 3.3, this subsection uses the ICS classification to further explore the significance of the different patterns of service innovation in the context of standardization More precisely, the industry classification NACE and the standards classification ICS are empirically matched in order to measure the standard output according to ICS for each service industry Therewith, the extent to which different standards fields are used by the service industries is determined Using the industry classification of the committee members and the committee structure, a NACE-committee-matrix (Matrix A) was set up in Subsection 3.3 This matrix provides first insights into the participation level of service industries within certain standards committees We now gather the ICS classification and the responsible committee (the committee that set up the standard) for all available standards within NEN and DIN from the PERINORM Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 database9 ICS data is gathered at ICS level 01 (two digit notation) covering 40 standards fields (e.g., road vehicle engineering, agriculture or metallurgy) (ICS, 2005) for all documents ever published at NEN and DIN that are relatable to a committee In case of several classifications for one single document, all classifications are considered since they are not ordered by importance Thereby, a standard with more than one classification is considered to serve in different standards fields according to its full extent Based on the ICS standards field and the responsible committee of each standard, an ICScommittee-matrix (Matrix B = (bic)i=1…97, c=1…71) is set up This matrix provides the number of standards published within a certain ICS standards field (i) in a certain standards committee (c) Focusing on service standards as defined by several sublevels of ICS level 03 (03.060, 03.080, 03.180, 03.200, 03.220, and 03.240), only the standards committee “services” mainly publishes service standards All other standards committees publish less than five percent of the overall output within these certain ICS sublevels Thus, there is little service standardization outside the DIN committee “services”, which slightly violates the assumption within Subsection 3.3 In order to answer the question in which standards fields service industries publish standards, the two matrices, the NACE-committee-matrix (A) and the ICS-committee-matrix (B), were multiplied by each other in a next step To remove effects due to the committee size, the following restrictions were imposed on Matrix A (Equation 1) and B (Equation 2) respectively in advance: ∑ (̂ ) Perinorm is the world's leading bibliographic database of national, European and international standards from more than 200 standards publishing organizations in 23 countries, with a total of more than 1,400,000 records Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 (1) ∑ (̂ ) (2) The resulting NACE-ICS-matrix (C) given by ∑( ̂ ̂ ) (3) was normalized according to each ICS standards field (i) so that ∑( ̂ ) (4) Doing so, the percentage of an industry is determined for each ICS standards field Finally, the percentage pserv,i of all service industries (NACE division 45-96) for each standards field was determined in the following way: ∑( ̂ ) (5) The resulting percentages of the service industries within each ICS standards field (pserv,i) are summarized in Figure for NEN and DIN As explored earlier, the diversity of service providers’ activities within standardization is confirmed Even though the standards field ICS 03 dealing with services is the most important one, service industries use several other standards fields to a considerable extent The second most important standards field of the service industries is entitled “information technology” This result is in line with the fact that nearly 80 percent of information technology investments are consumed by the service industries in the United Kingdom and the United States (Miles, 1995) Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 Figure 5: Percentage of service providers within the standards fields of ICS (sorted in descending order by the mean per standards field) ICS 3: Services, company organization,… ICS 35: Information technology, office machines ICS 61: Clothing industry ICS 37: Image technology ICS 1: Generalities, terminology,… ICS 7: Mathematics, natural sciences ICS 55: Packaging and distribution of goods ICS 13: Environment, health protection, safety ICS 79: Wood technology ICS 19: Testing ICS 17: Metrology and measurement, physical… ICS 91: Construction materials and building ICS 11: Health care technology ICS 27: Energy and heat transfer engineering ICS 43: Road vehicle engineering ICS 93: Civil engineering ICS 71: Chemical industry ICS 73: Mining and minerals ICS 81: Glass and ceramics industry ICS 97: Domestic and commercial equipment,… ICS 67: Food technology ICS 95: Military engineering ICS 49: Aircraft and space vehicle engineering ICS 65: Agriculture ICS 59: Textile and leather technology ICS 45: Railway engineering ICS 39: Precision mechanics, jewelry ICS 85: Paper technology ICS 75: Petroleum and related technologies ICS 23: Fluid systems and components for… ICS 25: Manufacturing engineering ICS 33: Telecommunications, audio and video… ICS 31: Electronics ICS 53: Materials handling equipment ICS 83: Rubber and plastic industries NEN ICS 47: Shipbuilding and marine structures DIN ICS 87: Paint and color industries ICS 77: Metallurgy ICS 29: Electrical engineering ICS 21: Mechanical systems and components for… 0% 25% 50% Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 75% 100% Based on the NACE-ICS-matrix (C), our three different service innovation patterns can be quantified The standards field ICS 03 (i=3) defines our third service innovation pattern “innovation in services” and the four service industries mentioned in Subsection 3.2 define our second pattern “innovation through services” Table provides the percentages of the three different patterns estimated with this approach Table 3: Quantitative importance of the three different service innovation patterns within standardization Pattern Typical service providers NEN DIN Mean Pattern 1: Supplier dominated Technology users 69.5% 60.8% 65.2% innovation Pattern 2: Innovation through Technology developers 24.8% 34.9% 29.8% services Pattern 3: Innovation in Service-based innovators 5.7% 4.3% 5.0% services In principle, the importance of the three different patterns is quite similar among the two NSBs under investigation, which underlines the robustness of our results Moreover, the results within Table are in line with the ones of Subsection 3.3 Thus, “supplier dominated innovation” is the most important pattern of service innovation within standardization “Innovation through services” is the second most important pattern related to standardization Finally, “innovation in services” seems to play only a minor role within standardization Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 Conclusions and discussion This study provides comprehensive insights into the standardizing behavior of the Dutch and German service providers and relates these activities to three different patterns of service innovation Thereby, evidence is found that the service industries use standardization to an extent more or less in accordance with their economic importance This result elucidates earlier findings insofar as it puts the imbalance between service standardization and the economic importance of the service industries (Blind, 2006b) into perspective by depicting the service industries’ preferences towards technological standardization In this respect, the service industries’ standardization activities, irrespective of whether technological or nontechnological, correspond much better to the economic importance of the service industries With regard to the three identified service innovation patterns, standardization is heavily related to technological innovations within the service industries More detailed, “supplier dominated innovation” is the most important pattern of service innovation within standardization Our findings suggest that service providers use standardization in the first place to exert influence on technologies from the manufacturing industries upon which they innovate their service provision later on However, the results also support the presumption that service industries use standardization to a considerable extent with the aim to enable a broad diffusion of technologies they invented themselves (innovation through services) Thereby, the results are in line with characteristic features of post-industrial societies, in which growth in services is explained by the increasing integration between services and manufacturing industries rather than by services replacing manufacturing (Diaz-Fuentes, 1998) Concerning the “assimilation/demarcation/synthesis” discussion, the importance of technological innovation within standardization is highlighted, which supports the Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 assimilation viewpoint However, there is also some support for the demarcation viewpoint even though the non-technological pattern of service innovation (innovation in services) represents only a minor reason for the service industries to become involved in standardization Service standardization that is closely related to this pattern reflects only a small portion of the service industries’ innovation activities within standardization Given the parallel existence of technological innovation activities and service-specific innovation within standardization, future research may consider standardization as an appropriate measure within the synthesis viewpoint that tries to integrate all perspectives of innovation into one single framework (Drejer, 2004) The dominance of “supplier dominated innovation” within standardization confirms earlier findings of Evangelista and Savona (1998) who came to the result that three out of four employees within the Italian service sector refer to the technology-using industries that are typical for performing “supplier dominated innovation” However, the technology-developing service industries are responsible for 30 percent of all innovation efforts even though they make up less than percent of overall employment (Evangelista and Savona, 1998) These industries that typically perform “innovation through services” are therefore the leading industries with regard to innovation (Vence and Trigo, 2009) The paper on hand confirms this highly innovative character of the technology-developing service industries in that these industries are represented far above average within standardization Apart from that, the importance of standardization for the interaction between manufacturing and service industries is highlighted and therewith its importance for the “process by which goods spring from services and services, in turn, from goods” (Miozzo and Soete, 2001, p 164) Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 Implications and limitations Service providers utilize standardization for different reasons Based on our findings, the most prominent reason is to bring the customer perspective into technical standardization in order to innovate upon standardized technologies later on This implies that standardization fosters innovation activities within the service industries The two minor reasons reflect the use of standardization for diffusion and commercialization of own intellectual properties so that innovation fosters standardization Though, the most prominent reason suggests that the service industries’ innovation activities occur rather downstream of standardization Accordingly, standardization constitutes an appropriate mean to promote innovativeness of the service industries, which might be of interest for policy makers As for service standardization and the request of the European Commission to investigate the extent to which European or international standardization could facilitate compatibility and quality of services (see Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market), valuable insights are offered as well Even though service standardization reflects only a minor portion of the service providers’ involvement within standardization, there is certainly some standardization awareness within the service industries Accordingly, standardization is not at all an unknown quantity for the service industries upon which service standardization can build As for managers of service companies, the paper demonstrates the potential of standardization for supporting different kinds of innovation activities Service providers not yet involved in standardization gain insights into the different opportunities of standardization to enable innovation Already involved service providers might explore further potentials of standardization The paper’s findings are certainly limited by the assumptions made First of all, the assumption that a clear line can be drawn between companies that are involved in either Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 products or services limits the validity of our findings Several companies from the manufacturing industries certainly also perform service innovation to some extent that is not considered in the paper Moreover, the diversity amongst service firms (Tether et al., 2001) is not adequately taken into account Likewise, several assumptions are made for the purpose of substantiating the different patterns of service innovation First of all, we assume that several service industries perform only a certain pattern of service innovation, which is doubtless quite far from reality Second, service standardization is defined by the standards classification ICS Although allowing for service standards, this classification is rather centered around products and technologies Accordingly, service standardization is probably not grasped comprehensively leading to an overestimation of the technological patterns of service innovation Finally, the generic assumption of this paper that standardization is always related to some sort of innovation activities may result in impairment of the findings’ significance and calls for more in-depth research on this promising topic Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 References Allen, R., Sriram, R., 2000 The role of standards in innovation Technological Forecasting and Social Change 64, 171-181 Antonelli, C., 1994 Localized technological change and the evolution of standards as economic institutions Information Economics and Policy 6, 195-216 Barcet, A., 2010 Innovation in services: A new paradigm and innovation model, in: Gallouj, F., Djellal, F (Eds), The handbook of innovation and services Edward Elgar, pp 49-67 Barras, R., 1986 Towards a theory of innovation in services Research Policy 15, 161-173 Berger, F., Blind, K., Thumm, N., 2012 Filing behaviour regarding essential patents in industry standards Research Policy 41, 216-225 Blind, K., 2002 Driving forces for standardization at standardization development organizations Applied Economics 34, 1985-1998 Blind, K., 2003 Standards in the service sector: An explorative study Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe Blind, K., 2006a Explanatory factors for participation in formal standardisation processes: Empirical evidence at firm level Economics of Innovation and New Technology 15, 157-170 Blind, K., 2006b A Taxonomy of standards in the service sector: Theoretical discussion and empirical test The Service Industries Journal 26, 397-420 Blind, K., Mangelsdorf, A., 2010 Driving factors for service companies to participate in formal standardization processes: An empirical analysis 18th RESER conference 2008, Stuttgart, Germany Blind, K., Thumm, N., 2004 Interaction between patenting and standardisation strategies: Empirical evidence and policy implications Research Policy 33, 1583-1598 Blind, K., Vries, H de, Wakke, P., 2012 Driving factors for Dutch service providers to participate in formal standardization (downloaded on August 2012 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2045527) Chesbrough, H., 2003 Open Innovation Havard University Press: Cambrigde, MA Chiesa, V., Toletti, G., 2003 Standard-setting strategies in the multimedia sector International Journal of Innovation Management 7, 281-308 David, P A., Greenstein, S., 1990 The economics of compatibility standards: An introduction to recent research Economics of Innovation and New Technology 1, 3-41 Diaz-Fuentes, D., 1999 On the limits of the post-industrial society structural change and service sector employment in Spain International Review of Applied Economics 13, 111-123 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 Djellal, F., Francoz, D., Gallouj, C., Gallouj, F., Jacquin, Y., 2003 Revising the definition of research and development in the light of the specificities of services Science and Public Policy 30, 415-429 Drejer, I., 2004 Identifying innovation in surveys of services: A Schumpeterian perspective Research Policy 33, 551-562 Droege, H., Hildebrand, D., 2009 Innovation in services: Present findings, and future pathways Journal of Service Management 20, 131-155 Dyer, J H., Singh, H., 1998 The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage The Academy of Management Review 23, 660-679 Eurostat, 2011 NACE Rev 2: Statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community (downloaded on August 2012 from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-07-015/EN/KS-RA-07015-EN.PDF) Evangelista, R., Savona, M., 1998 Patterns of innovation in services: The results of the Italian innovation survey Proceedings of the 7th RESER conference 1998, Berlin, Germany Fritsch, M., Lukas, R., 2001 Who cooperates on R&D Research Policy 30, 297-312 Gadrey, J., Gallouj, F., Weinstein, O., 1995 New modes of innovation: How services benefit industry International Journal of Service Industry Management 6, 4-16 Gallouj, F., 2002 Innovation in services and the attendant old and new myths The Journal of Socio-Economics 31, 137-154 Gallouj, F., Weinstein, O., 1997 Innovation in services Research Policy 26, 537-556 Gallouj, F., Windrum, P., 2009 Services and services innovation Journal of Evolutionary Economics 19, 141-148 Glueckler, J., Hammer, I., 2011 A pragmatic service typology: Capturing the distinctive dynamics of services in time and space The Service Industries Journal 31, 941-957 Hertog, P den, 2000 Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation International Journal of Innovation Management 4, 491-528 Hipp, C., Grupp, H., 2005 Innovation in the service sector: The demand for service-specific innovation measurement concepts and typologies Research Policy 34, 517-535 Hipp, C., Tether, B S., Miles, I., 2000 The incidence and effects of innovation in services: Evidence from Germany International Journal of Innovation Management 4, 417-453 Hippel, E von, 1988 The sources of innovation Oxford University Press: New York ISO, 2005 International classification for standards Sixth edition, International Organization for Standardization Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 Koning, C de, Vries, H de., 2009 Impact of formal service standardization on service innovation - A case study in Facility Management Proceedings of the 14th EURAS conference 2009, Cergy-Pontoise Cedex, France Love, J., Roper, S., 1999 The determinants of innovation: R&D, technology transfer and networking effects Review of Industrial Organization 15, 43-64 McDermott, C M., Kang, H., Walsh, S., 2001 A framework for technology management in services IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 48, 333-341 Meiren, T., 2009 Technologie und Dienstleistung, in: Spath, D., Ganz, W (Eds), Die Zukunft der Dienstleistungswirtschaft Carl Hanser Verlag München, pp 297-306 Meuter, M L., Ostrom, A L., Roundtree, R I., Bitner, M J., 2000 Self-service technologies: Understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters Journal of Marketing 64, 50-64 Miles, I., 1995 Service innovation: Statistical and conceptual issues Mimeo, PREST, University of Manchester Report to OECD NESTI Working Group on Innovation Surveys Miles, I., 2007 Research and development (R&D) beyond manufacturing: The strange case of service R&D R&D Management 37, 249-268 Miozzo, M., Soete, L., 2001 Internationalization of services: A technological perspective Technological Forecasting and Social Change 67, 195-185 Moeller, S., 2010 Characteristics of services – A new approach uncovers their value Journal of Service Marketing 24, 359-368 Pavitt, K., 1984 Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory Research Policy 13, 343-373 Sheng, O R L., Hu, P J.-H., Wei, C.-P., Ma, P.-C., 1999 Organizational management of telemedicine technology: Conquering time and space boundaries in health care services IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 46, 265-278 Sirilli, G., Evangelista, R., 1998 Technological innovation in services and manufacturing: Results from Italian surveys Research Policy 27, 881–899 Swann, G M P., 2010 The economics of standardization: An update, Report for the UK Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Swann, G M P., Lambert, R J., 2010 Why standards enable and constrain innovation?, Unpublished paper, Nottingham University Business School Statistisches Bundesamt, 2011 Unternehmen (Unternehmensregister-System 95): Deutschland, Jahre, Wirtschaftszweige (Abschnitte), Beschäftigtengrưßenklassen (52111-0001) Tether, B S., 2002 Who co-operates for innovation, and why? An empirical analysis Research Policy 31, 947-967 Tether, B S., Hipp, C., Miles, I., 2001 Standardisation and particularization in services: Evidence from Germany Research Policy 30, 1115-1138 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 Toivonen, M., Tuominen, T., 2009 Emergence of innovation in services The Service Industries Journal 29, 887-902 Vence, X., Trigo, A., 2009 Diversity of innovation patterns in services The Service Industries Journal 29, 1635-1657 Wakke, P., 2012 Macroeconomic causes and effects of formal service standardization (downloaded on August 2012 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2045518) Wakke, P., Blind, K., 2012 The impact of participation within formal standardization on firm performance (downloaded on August 2012 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2045529) Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 Appendix Table A1: Types of organizations within DIN covered and not covered by Hoppenstedt Type of Organization Organizations Organizations Percentage Service covered by not covered of provider Hoppenstedt by organization Hoppenstedt covered Steel, metal and metal products 562 186 75.1% No Machinery, plant construction 1,003 442 69.4% No Trade 203 96 67.9% Yes Mining, mineral products 123 67 64.7% No (extraction, processing) Transport equipment (motor 185 108 63.1% No vehicles, shipbuilding, rail, air and space vehicles, bicycles) Medical and optical equipment 385 233 62.3% No Electrical, office machines, data 471 285 62.3% No processing equipment and facilities, radios Chemicals, pharmaceuticals, rubber 361 227 61.4% No and plastic products Textile, clothing, leather, wood, 219 152 59.0% No paper, publishing and printing, furniture, sports equipment, musical instruments, toys, jewelry Banks 57.1% Yes Food, beverage, tobacco processing, 51 39 56.7% No agriculture and forestry Energy and water supply, oil and 130 110 54.2% No gas (extraction, processing) Transport, storage and 61 52 54.0% Yes communication (people, goods transportation, airports, travel agencies, letters, packages, telecommunications) Insurance 52.9% Yes Construction, Construction Industry 120 116 50.8% No Crafts 16 16 50.0% No Private/other 3 50.0% TÜV, institutes, laboratories 122 185 39.7% Yes Other Services 813 1,413 36.6% Yes Science, research, education (private) 54 106 33.8% Yes Technical and scientific associations 30 66 31.3% Yes Environment 23 52 30.7% Yes Public service agencies 14 33 29.8% Yes Unions 25.0% Yes Consumer 25.0% Trade Associations 87 363 19.3% Yes Science, research, education (public) 108 937 10.3% Yes Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 Government agency, public authority Professional organization, public insurances Federal Ministry Ministry of State Standardization Total 56 578 8.8% Yes 93 7.0% Yes 0 5,228 29 53 18 6,084 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 46.2% Yes - Note: The classification on hand is an internal classification of DIN Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2045484 ... patterns of service innovation Drawing upon the theory of innovation in services, we then apply the standardization behavior of the service industries to this theory 2.2 Different patterns of service... seats within DIN by NACE division 500: Mining of coal and lignite 600: Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas 700: Mining of metal ores 800: Other mining and quarrying 900: Mining support... potential of standardization for supporting different kinds of innovation activities Service providers not yet involved in standardization gain insights into the different opportunities of standardization