Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Embedded Relationships: Implications for Networks, Innovation, and Ecosystems

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Business Market Management

Abstract

In today’s dynamic market environment, no single actor has enough knowledge and sufficient human resources to innovate on a globally competitive level. This trend has accelerated the need for a deeper understanding of relationship management in alliances, virtual corporations, and networks to maximize capacity for innovation. We refer to these structures as service ecosystems and propose a framework for investigating how innovation occurs in service ecosystems. Specifically, we review the conceptualization of relationship as it has evolved from the relationship marketing, service and business-to-business marketing, and service-dominant logic literature. Then, we draw on centrality and embeddedness to explicate how actors in these service ecosystems draw on resources from their extended networks for innovation. We propose an embedded relationships framework for investigating innovation as a dynamic and continuous ecosystem of information seeking and information processing. Future research directions are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arndt, J. (1979). Toward a concept of domesticated markets. Journal of Marketing, 43, 69–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bavelas, A. (1948). A mathematical model for group structure. Human Organizations, 7, 16–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, L. (1983). Relationship Marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickert, J. (1992). The database revolution. Target Marketing, 15, 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonacich, P. (1972). Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2, 113–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Network, 27, 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bristor, J., & Ryan, M. (1987). The buying center is dead, long live the buying center. Advances in Consumer Research, 14, 255–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J., & Vargo, S. (2010). Contextualization: Network intersections, value-in-context, and the co-creation of markets. Marketing Theory.

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y., & Hamel, G. (1998). Alliance Advantage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, R., Schurr, P., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. (1978). Centrality in Social Networks Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 6, 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönroos, C. (2000). Relationship marketing: The Nordic School perspective. In J. Sheth & A. Parvatiyar (Eds.), Handbook of Relationship Marketing (pp. 95–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grönroos, C. (1997). Value-driven Relational Marketing: from Products to Resources and Competencies. Journal of Marketing Management, 13, 407–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. (2008). Does familiarity breed trust? Managerial and Decision Economics, 29, 165–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gummesson, E. (1995). Relationship marketing: From 4Ps to 30Rs. Malmo, Sweden: Liber-Hermods.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakansson, H., & Snehota, I. (2000). The IMP persective. In J. Sheth, & A. Parvatiyar (Eds.), Handbook of Relationship Marketing (pp. 69–93). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside (published in digital form).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, J., Tellis, G., & Griffin, A. (2006). Research on innovation: A review and agenda for marketing science. Marketing Science, 26(6), 687–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hippel, E. v. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnoston, W., & Bonoma, T. (1981). The buying center: Strucuture and interaction patterns. Journal of Marketing, 45, 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoke, D., & Burt, R. (1983). Prominence. In e. b. Minor, Applied Network Analysis (pp. 195–222). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. (2006). Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, R., Vargo, S., & Tanniru, M. (2010). Service, value networks and learning. Journal of the Acadamy of Marketing Science, 38(1).

  • Money, R. B., Gilly, M. C., & Graham, J. L. (1998). Explorations of national culture and word-of-mouth referral behavior in the purchase of industrial services in the United States and Japan. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 76–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 3, 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organizations. In e. b. Cummings, Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 295–336). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, A., & Moorman, C. (2001). The acquistion and utilization of information in new product alliances: A strength-of-ties perspective. Journal of Marketing, 65, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovation. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rust, R., Zeithaml, V., & Lemon, K. (2000). Driving customer equity: How customer lifetime value is reshaping corporate strategy. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rust, R., Zeithaml, V., & Lemon, K. (2004). Return on marketing: Using customer equity to focus marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 68, 109–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabidussi, G. (1966). The centrality index of a graph. Pychometrika, 31, 581–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheth, J., & Parvatiyar, A. (2000). Handbook of relationship marketing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a new dominat logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17 (January).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2008). Service-dominant logic; further evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing, 36(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L. (2009). Toward a transcending conceptualization of relationship: a service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketin, 24(5/6), 373–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 254–259 (The transition from product to service in business markets).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S., Lusch, R., Horbel, C., & Wieland, H. (2010). Alternative logics for service(s): From hybrid systems to service ecosystems. In W. Ganz. Fraunhofer-Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft und Organisation IAO.

  • Volberda, H. W. (1996). Toward the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7(4), 359–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis. Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuyts, S., Stremersch, S., Van Den Bulte, C., & Franses, P. H. (2004). Vertical marketing systems for complex products: A triadic perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(4), 479–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of transfer and Imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6(1), 76–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Shidler Colleges of Business, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hawaii, USA

    Jennifer D. Chandler & Heiko Wieland

Authors
  1. Jennifer D. Chandler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heiko Wieland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer D. Chandler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chandler, J.D., Wieland, H. Embedded Relationships: Implications for Networks, Innovation, and Ecosystems. J Bus Mark Manag 4, 199–215 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12087-010-0041-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12087-010-0041-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation