IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

A Different Path to Growth? Service Innovation and Performance amongst UK Manufacturers

Listed author(s):
  • Tether, B.
  • Bascavusoglu-Moreau, E.

Introducing and innovating services is advocated as a means by which manufacturing firms in advanced economies can retain or enhance their competitiveness. But little is known about how manufacturers innovate services, nor about the impact of service innovation on manufacturers' performance. Using two consecutive waves of the UK Innovation Survey, this paper first examines how manufacturers innovate services, comparing this with how they innovate goods (i.e., material products) and production processes. We find that manufacturers tend to innovate services differently: R&D is found to be unimportant, whilst investments in marketing and training are found to be related to service innovation. The paper then examines the impact of service innovation on performance, in terms of innovative sales per employee and total sales per employee. We find that service innovation does not increase innovative sales but is associated with higher total sales per employee.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: https://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/centre-for-business-research/downloads/working-papers/wp433.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge in its series Working Papers with number wp433.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Jun 2012
Handle: RePEc:cbr:cbrwps:wp433
Note: PRO-1
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Fariborz Damanpour, 2001. "The Dynamics of the Adoption of Product and Process Innovations in Organizations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 45-65, 01.
  2. Mohnen, Pierre & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2005. "Complementarities in innovation policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1431-1450, August.
  3. Toke Reichstein & Ammon Salter, 2006. "Investigating the sources of process innovation among UK manufacturing firms," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(4), pages 653-682, August.
  4. Vandermerwe, Sandra & Rada, Juan, 1988. "Servitization of business: Adding value by adding services," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 314-324, December.
  5. Gallouj, Faiz & Weinstein, Olivier, 1997. "Innovation in services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 537-556, December.
  6. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
  7. Bronwyn Hall & Francesca Lotti & Jacques Mairesse, 2009. "Innovation and productivity in SMEs: empirical evidence for Italy," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 13-33, June.
  8. Acs, Zoltan J & Audretsch, David B, 1988. "Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(4), pages 678-690, September.
  9. Malleret, Véronique, 2006. "Value Creation through Service Offers," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 106-116, February.
  10. Jacques Mairesse, 2008. "Employment, innovation, and productivity: evidence from Italian microdata," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 813-839, August.
  11. Rachel Griffith & Elena Huergo & Jacques Mairesse & Bettina Peters, 2006. "Innovation and Productivity Across Four European Countries," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(4), pages 483-498, Winter.
  12. Geweke, John F. & Keane, Michael P. & Runkle, David E., 1997. "Statistical inference in the multinomial multiperiod probit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 125-165, September.
  13. Polder, Michael & Leeuwen, George van & Mohnen, Pierre & Raymond, Wladimir, 2009. "Productivity effects of innovation modes," MPRA Paper 18893, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  14. Tether, B. S., 1998. "Small and large firms: sources of unequal innovations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 725-745, November.
  15. Prais,S. J., 1995. "Productivity, Education and Training," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521556675, September.
  16. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
  17. Arora, Ashish, 1996. "Testing for complementarities in reduced-form regressions: A note," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 51-55, January.
  18. Tether, Bruce S. & Tajar, Abdelouahid, 2008. "The organisational-cooperation mode of innovation and its prominence amongst European service firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 720-739, May.
  19. Megan MacGarvie, 2006. "Do Firms Learn from International Trade?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(1), pages 46-60, February.
  20. Giulio Cainelli & Rinaldo Evangelista & Maria Savona, 2006. "Innovation and economic performance in services: a firm-level analysis," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 435-458, May.
  21. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1990. "The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 511-528, June.
  22. Gaganan Awano & Mark Franklin & Jonathan Haskel & Zafeira Kastrinaki, 2010. "Measuring investment in intangible assets in the UK: results from a new survey," Economic & Labour Market Review, Palgrave Macmillan;Office for National Statistics, vol. 4(7), pages 66-71, July.
  23. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2003. "MVPROBIT: Stata module to calculate multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood," Statistical Software Components S432601, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 25 Jan 2006.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cbr:cbrwps:wp433. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ruth Newman and Georgie Cohen)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.