Developing Innovative Practice in Service Industries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter presents the argument that service innovation is promoted by supporting divergent interpretations, enlarging the scope of employee and organizational skills and competencies, making interactions and knowledge sharing between people easy, and by encouraging close ties with customers. The chapter further argues that service organizations that utilize sociotechnical mechanisms for knowledge sharing through the use of a successful community of innovation (which we term a CoInv), and that build into their innovative capacities a strong relationship with their customers and suppliers, are very likely to innovate successfully. The argument is demonstrated through a qualitative case study where data analysis was deductive from multiple data sources. The chapter also demonstrates the power and efficacy of channeling activities through community innovation lenses. We argue that identifying innovation champions and comprehensively supporting them will potentially trigger more successful innovations thus improving service competitiveness in the market place.Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it