Purpose
Open service innovation is an emergent new service development practice, where knowledge on how to organize development work is scarce. The purpose of the present research is to identify and describe relevant archetypes of open service innovation. The study views an archetype as an organizing template that includes the competence of participants, organizing co-creation among participants and ties between participants. In particular, the study’s interest lies in how open service innovation archetypes are used for incremental and radical service innovation.
Design/methodology/approach
For the research, a nested case study was performed, in which an industrial firm with nine open service innovation groups was identified. Forty-five interviews were conducted with participants. For each case, first a within-case analysis was performed, and how to perform open service innovation in practice was described. Then, a cross-case analysis identifying similarities and differences between the open service innovation groups was performed. On the basis of the cross-case analysis, three archetypes for open service innovation were identified.
Findings
The nested case study identified three archetypes for open service innovation: internal group development, satellite team development and rocket team development. This study shows that different archetypes are used for incremental and radical service innovation and that a firm can have multiple open service innovation groups using different archetypes.
Practical implications
This study provides suggestions on how firms can organize for open service innovation. The identified archetypes can guide managers to set up, develop or be part of open service innovation groups.
Originality/value
This paper uses open service innovation as a mid-range theory to extend existing research on new service development in networks or service ecosystems. In particular, it shows how open service innovation can be organized to develop both incremental and radical service innovations.
Challenges arising from the special education legacy in Russia and South Africa: a cross-case analysis
