Enhancing new service development effectiveness: the role of customer participation and the moderating effects of empowerment and satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of Customer Participation (CP) in the effectiveness of New Service Development (NSD) by examining the moderating roles of Customer Empowerment (CE) and Customer Satisfaction (CS). The research reduces the risk of failure of the NSD process and/or improves the NSD processes used by companies through the consideration of the results in the practical dimension. Design/methodology/approach This study investigates the effects of CP at different stages of NSD using a quantitative approach. Data were collected through an online survey questionnaire. Smart PLS was used to analyse the data collected from 509 newsreaders and users of the news agency’s application. Findings The model confirmed that CE has an impact on the effectiveness of NSD in the idea generation and commercialization stages, but not in the development stage. Empowerment and customer satisfaction did not influence the three stages of NSD indirectly but directly. The results show that CP, CS and CE do not always have a direct or indirect effect on the development of new services. Therefore, in order to design new service development projects, media news companies need to determine the level of user cooperation. Research limitations/implications The lack of objective data, especially on company performance, forces researchers to use questionnaires to analyse NSD effectiveness. Another limitation is that newspaper users answered the questionnaires, which creates “common method variance.” Practical implications Researchers on NSD effectiveness must use questionnaires due to a lack of objective data, especially on company performance. Another limitation is “common method variance” from newspaper users answering questionnaires. Originality/value This paper is a response to a perceived need for an examination of how new service development can be successful and effective.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".