4.1 Article

Non-industrial Private Forestry Service Markets in a Flux: Results from a Qualitative Analysis on Finland

期刊

SMALL-SCALE FORESTRY
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 559-578

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11842-012-9231-1

关键词

Forestry value-chain; Service innovation; Service marketing; Service dominant logic

类别

资金

  1. FP-SERVE
  2. Finnish Innovation Agency (Tekes)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous research on European forestry service markets is scarce and mainly focused on analysing external market environment and modelling of timber selling behaviour of non-industrial forest owners (NIPFs). In this study, we aim to create a broader understanding about business perspectives of forestry service markets covering the whole array of market and institutional based services offered to the NIPFs in case of Finland. The more specific empirical objective of the paper is to describe market drivers and underlying challenges in existing and potential service business models based on the concepts of service-dominant logic and dynamic capabilities. Using a qualitative approach and 22 thematic expert interviews in service organisations, we strive to analyse the drivers and opportunities for creating new services within the NIPF market and also build insight in possible barriers for new service value creation. According to our results, the ongoing structural changes offer new opportunities to change traditional mindsets and search for new types of offerings that support the renewal of this traditional forestry sector. As one of the major barriers for new innovations we identified the dominant role of established organisations securing their current positions, mainly driven by the forest industry timber procurement needs. From a managerial perspective, the changing institutional base of the current service organisations may facilitate new innovative business start-ups in addition to enhancing the strategic capabilities and competitiveness of the established firms in Finnish forestry sector.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据