Handbook of Management Scales/New service development strategy
New service development strategy (composite reliability = 0.78; average variance extracted = 0.53)
[edit | edit source]Description
[edit | edit source]The authors report a two-stage approach for the development and validation of new multi-item measurement scales reflecting a multidimensional construct called new service development competence. It is operationalized as a multidimensional construct reflected by five complementary dimensions: new service development process focus, market acuity, new service development strategy, new service development culture, and information technology experience.
Definition
[edit | edit source]New service development competence reflects an organization’s expertise in deploying resources and routines, usually in combination, to achieve a desired new service outcome. New service development strategy defines the role of development within the overall business strategy. It integrates the overall business strategy with the new services/products strategy and service design/delivery decisions.
Items
[edit | edit source]- Current service capabilities are critical factors in determining the "go/no go" decision for the development of new services/products. (0.577)
- Ideas for new service/product development are largely driven by the service’s overall business strategy. (.737)
- Our firm’s new service development strategy and new offerings decisions are always formulated with the overall business strategy in mind. (0.821)
- Senior managers are always willing to commit resources to promising new service/product development projects. (0.589)
Source
[edit | edit source]Comments
[edit | edit source]Much efforts have been made by the authors in order to ensure that the new scales exhibit sufficient psychometric properties, which make them quite useful. The mean values of all items are between 3.45 and 3.76, and therefore above the expected 3. The items may therefore be reworded to achieve normal-distributed data (e.g. "are the most critical factors" instead of "are critical factors").