domain: stat shs

text:
Milena-Jael Silva
email: milena-jael.silva@ecolonical.org

Atreyi Kankanhalli

Dimitris Karagiannis

H Karjaluoto

E Kasabov

T Kawai

J Kemppinen

Peter Kenning

Marco Kerkhof

Don Kerr

F Kerrigan

Effie Kesidou

Dan J Kim

H G Kim

Kibae Kim

Kyung Kyu Kim

Sojung Kim

Young Hoon Kim

Tony Kinder

Daniel Kindstrom

J Kingmanbrundage

S Kiumarsi

A Kiviniemi

V Kiviniemi

M Kleijnen

Michael Kleinaltenkamp

Marcus Koelling

Christos D Koritos

Helmut Krcmar

Dennis Krumwiede

Cheng-Yuan Ku

Sabine Kuester

Pluralist service logics to ecological service system innovation: An integrative framework based on text mining, network analytic and qualitative analysis

Keywords: innovation, service logics, service systems, institutional pluralism and complexity, network analytic, text mining, sociology of science

This article proposes an integrative framework to service logics pluralism and complexity in service research. This paper presents a longitudinal review of innovation, service logics and service systems research between 1986 and 2015. The article starts with a discussion about institutional limits of service-dominant logic of the market that has served as a theoretical foundation for service science. We use this as a starting point to analyse other latent service logics and the different ways in which service systems and service innovation have been conceptualised, to propose and pluralist and inclusive research framework. Authors perform eight iterations of a ten-step methodological process combining quantitative and qualitative methods based on text mining, network analytic, and grounded theory analysis, to capture latent research topics, theories and authors over time. The cleaned corpus has allowed us to examine 796 English articles, published in 277 peer-reviewed journals, indexed in WoS and Scopus, which synthesises the intellectual structure of these areas of research between 1986 and 2015. Draw on quantitative and qualitative analysis this paper offers several contributions. From a methodological point of view, the article provides a ten steps approach to a longitudinal quantitative-qualitative intellectual structure analysis. From a conceptual point of view, this research highlights: 1) a longitudinal view of innovation, service logics and service systems intellectual and conceptual structure with relevant topics, theories, and authors over time; 2) an integrative framework highlighting individual, organisational and field level to a new service research perspective based on service logics pluralism, complexity and co-existence of service logics, beyond a service-dominant logic (SDL) of the market perspective. This research put outs some ambiguities in SDL literature concerning institutional perspective. Paper concludes with five future research directions for improving institutional pluralism into service system innovation.

Introduction

Over the last decades, a considerable amount of research has been done on digital innovation, service innovation, service logics and service systems. Researchers from different disciplines have studied this research themes from various point of view: marketing [START_REF] Gummesson | The emergence of the new service marketing: Nordic School perspectives[END_REF][START_REF] Ostrom | Service Research Priorities in a Rapidly Changing Context[END_REF]Vargo et al., 2008); innovation management [START_REF] Maglio | Innovation and Big Data in Smart Service Systems[END_REF][START_REF] Sundbo | Management of Innovation in Services[END_REF][START_REF] Sundbo | Innovation as a loosely coupled system in services[END_REF]; public management [START_REF] Osborne | The SERVICE Framework: A Public-service-dominant Approach to Sustainable Public Services[END_REF][START_REF] Osborne | From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organizations capable of coproduction and value co-creation[END_REF]; information system [START_REF] Barrett | Service Innovation in the Digital Age : Key Contributions and Future Directions[END_REF][START_REF] Eaton | Distributed tuning of boundary resources: the case of Apple's iOS service system[END_REF][START_REF] Lusch | Service Innovation: A Service-Dominant-Logic perspective[END_REF]; operation management [START_REF] Spohrer | Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Design (SSMED)[END_REF] and economy [START_REF] Gallouj | Innovation in services: a review of the debate and a research agenda[END_REF]. Previous research clarified that monodisciplinary approaches have various well-known limitations in the study of service systems. For instance, Kingman-Brundage et al. (1995, p. 21) remind us that: "The stovepipe world of academia seems to offer them few useful models; it continues to turn out single-focus articles -on services marketing, op-erations, or human resource management -that rarely capture the complexity of actual service systems".

On this basis, interdisciplinary research is required to understand the multidimensional and complex phenomenon of innovation in service systems [START_REF] Chae | An evolutionary framework for service innovation: In-sights of complexity theory for service science[END_REF][START_REF] Chae | A complexity theory approach to IT-enabled services (IESs) and service innovation: Business analytics as an illustration of IES[END_REF], by considering not only a dominant logic but also the complexity and pluralism of institutional logics approach [START_REF] Thornton | Institutional Logics[END_REF]. Although early research on the phenomenon of innovation and transformation in service systems, such as service science [START_REF] Chesbrough | A research manifesto for services science[END_REF][START_REF] Maglio | Service systems, service scientists, SSME, and innovation[END_REF][START_REF] Maglio | Fundamentals of service science[END_REF] and service-dominant logic [START_REF] Vargo | Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing[END_REF] (SDL) aroused great excitement, there are few longitudinal analyses of the change or transformation in service systems over time, including various service logics analysis, at the individual and collective level [START_REF] Silva-Morales | Understanding the institutional and structural transformation of an urban public service system that is becoming smart: a neo-Schumpeterian approach to understanding technological and institutional innovation in service systems[END_REF].

As Greenwood & Suddaby (2006, p. 31) remind us, a theoretical elaboration or refinement is a process in which one contrasts preexisting understandings with phenomena observed to extend the existing theory. In this context, critical research of [START_REF] Hietanen | Against the implicit politics of service-dominant logic[END_REF] about the theoretical refinement of SDL [START_REF] Vargo | Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic[END_REF], adopting systemic and institutional elements from the institutional theory, has argued that SDL represents markets, rather than marketing; capitalist ideology rather than the "science of customer persuasion". For [START_REF] Hietanen | Against the implicit politics of service-dominant logic[END_REF], SDL is now not limited to "marketing" but includes broader perspectives of "markets" as networks of interactions, "complex systems configurations" or multiservice platforms [START_REF] Lusch | Service Innovation: A Service-Dominant-Logic perspective[END_REF]. They also point out, that several concepts, stemming from the institutional, practice and actors theory, now can allow SDL to consider: institutions -rules, standards, meanings, symbols, practices and collaboration and, more generally, institutional arrangements, regardless long-term and transition, transformation or change process. Nevertheless, SDL has integrated the institutional perspective in a slightly too light manner without taking into account: 1) epistemological/ontological aspects in the theoretical combination process and 2) theoretical/conceptual challenges of the combined theories. Also, the service research to date has tended to focus on dominant service logic rather than pluralist service logics co-existence.

From an epistemological and ontological point of view, SDL is not clear on how it has been combining and transposing concepts and theories [START_REF] Ketokivi | Renaissance of case research as a scientific method[END_REF][START_REF] Avenier | Finding one's way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks[END_REF][START_REF] Fisher | Using Theory Elaboration to Make Theoretical Advancements[END_REF], for example:

• Specify the epistemological framework in which the integration was carried out.

• Interpret theory, according to the arrival epistemological framework. For example, if a theory has been developed in critical realism and the transposition place theoretical refinement in constructivism or interpretativism, the Generative Mechanisms will be interpreted as organising principles of our knowledge (they describe how we understand things and not necessarily how the world works).

• Check the compatibility of the theories to combine. Example of incompatibility: one is based on an atomistic vision of the world, the other on a relational vision.

• Finally, argue the merits of how theories have been combined.

If we consider only the theoretical / conceptual challenges of SDL with institutional theory [START_REF] Vargo | Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic[END_REF], SDL does not discuss ambiguous aspects that various institutional theory approaches mobilises, for example, epistemological and methodological differences:

• The institutional theory has its theoretical foundations in sociology, economics, political science and history [START_REF] Olsson | Subversion in Institutional Change and Stability: A Neglected Mechanism[END_REF]. The seminal works on institutional theory appeared around the first half of the XXth century with the old institutionalism theory, a prototheory with five determining characteristics [START_REF] Peters | Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism[END_REF]): 1) legalism; 2) structuralism; 3) holism; 4) history; 5) normative analysis.

• In the 1970s, the work of [START_REF] Meyer | Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony[END_REF] contributed to institutional theory by pointing out that institutional environments are often pluralistic; there-fore, institutional arrangements are often incompatible.

• The neoinstitutionalism, born in the early 1980s. [START_REF] Olsson | Subversion in Institutional Change and Stability: A Neglected Mechanism[END_REF], synthesise four currents of neoinstitutionalism:

-Normative neoinstitutionalism. It studies how the norms and values embedded in political institutions shape the behaviour of individuals. Institutions have their dynamics, and change is understood to be linked to rules, following standard processes of interpretation, learning and adaptation. The logic of action is an adaptive behaviour.

-Sociological neoinstitutionalism, having significant similarities with normative institutionalism, was inspired by the work of Max Weber, to emphasise how institutions and their resulting myths influence the process of bureaucratisation [START_REF] Meyer | Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony[END_REF]. His argue that rationalisation and bureaucratisation have changed in society, resulting from a process in which organisations have become more similar, without necessarily becoming more efficient [START_REF] Dimaggio | The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields[END_REF]. Sociological institutionalism has a broad interest in institutions, including intra-organisational and interorganisational studies (institutionalised fields), private and public institutions, symbolic and material aspects. The concept of institutional isomorphism constitutes their funding base. A central perspective within sociological institutionalism is to see the institutional change at the macro level resulting from the adaptations of organisations in their environments (imitation, diffusion and isomorphism). Institutional arrangements deeply shape the structuring of organisational fields. A source of controversy in sociological institutionalism is related to the way of understanding the change in the "paradox of the integrated agency".

-The neoinstitutionalism of rational choice. The economic theory, notably the institutionalism of rational choice and the idea of induced exogenous change are the base of this approach.

-The specificity of historical neoinstitutionalism is to re-enter diachronic changes in behaviour and rules. It arose to deal with institutional (diachronic) change. It then presents itself in two versions: 1) simple historical institutionalism in which the synchronic differences and 2) complex historical institutionalism which allows an analysis of social life in all its complexity. It is the most structural version of all the neoinstitutionalist currents, with the path-dependency as a key concept. It studies how the choices made on the institutional design of government systems influence the future decision-making of individuals. Complex historical institutionalism tries to explain why and how change takes place during long periods of stability in a path-dependency action.

• The institutional work perspective of [START_REF] Lawrence | Institutions and Institutional Work[END_REF] highlights the dynamics of the process of institutionalisation -deinstitutionalisation and legitimation -delegitimation of rules, norms and practices.

• The institutional logics perspective with the paradox of the integrated agency which questions itself on "how can actors change institutions if their actions, their intentions and their rationality are conditioned by the institution itself they want to change? " (Holm, 1995, p. 398); society as an interinstitutional system; the material and cultural foundations of the institutions; multi-level institutions; and historical contingency [START_REF] Thornton | Institutional Logics[END_REF][START_REF] Thornton | The institutional logics perspective: a new approach to culture, structure, and process[END_REF][START_REF] Casasnovas | Constructing organizations as actors: Insights from changes in research designs in the study of institutional logics. In Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency[END_REF].

• The institutional pluralism perspective is a variation of the institutional theory. This variation refers to contexts where actors are confronted with several more or less complementary institutional logics allowing cooperation or competition [START_REF] Dunn | Institutional Logics and Institutional Pluralism: The Contestation of Care and Science Logics in Medical Education, 1967-2005[END_REF][START_REF] Yu | Institutionalization in the Context of Institutional Pluralism: Politics as a Generative Process[END_REF].

• The institutional complexity perspective, other variation of the institutional theory which refers to how the individual and collective actors face and respond to the conflicting requirements associated with different logics [START_REF] Lee | Filtering Institutional Logics: Community Logic Variation and Differential Responses to the Institutional Complexity of Toxic Waste[END_REF][START_REF] Smith | Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands[END_REF][START_REF] Ocasio | Advances to the Institutional Logics Perspective[END_REF]. The institutional complexity emphasises multiple, sometimes concurrent, logics and complex organisational fields in which organisations can have multiple responses and feedback cycles [START_REF] Thornton | The institutional logics perspective: a new approach to culture, structure, and process[END_REF].

Although SDL fails to consider institutional pluralism and service logics co-existence, this article provides new insights into service logics co-existence and pluralist perspective to service system innovation research. In this sense, analyse service system innovation and service logic research with this institutional theory approach, offers a significant opportunity to rethink and reorganise service system innovation and service logics research transformation. The term "service innovation" will be used in its broadest sense to refer to the process of creating value to improve o generate a new service. In the present study "service system" refer to an adaptive and complex system allowing the co-creation of the value for the provision of multisectoral services, for example, health, education, mobility and transport, employment, urban resilience, culture, tourism, sport, leisure, allowing the combination of resources according to institutional arrangements. Service systems concern several individual and collectives service logics co-existence to value creation or destruction. This article adopts the definition of institutions of Friedland & Alford (1991, p. 243) as "patterns of human activity by which individuals and organisations produce and reproduce their material subsistence and organise time and space. They are also symbolic systems, ways of ordering reality, and thereby rendering the experience of time and space meaningful". Also, this research adopts institutional logics definition of Thornton & Ocasio (1999, p. 804) as "the socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organise time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality".

From an epistemological point of view, this article is positioned with the interpretativism approach [START_REF] Avenier | Finding one's way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks[END_REF], coherent with the "becoming ontology" for a longitudinal process of complex transformation analysis [START_REF] Tsoukas | Complex Thinking, Complex Practice: The Case for a Narrative Approach to Organizational Complexity[END_REF][START_REF] Langley | Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality,activity, and flow[END_REF]. Winter et al. (2006, p. 643) consider that: the becoming ontology emphasises the process, verbs, activities and dynamics of constitution or evolution of entities. A becoming ontology requires constant questioning of the conceptual categories considered as fixed". De Vaujany (2015) suggest that "relational ontology" is more in keeping with the becoming ontology. In relational ontology, Orlikowski & Scott (2008, p. 456) argue that in a relational ontology "social and material are intrinsically inseparable". According to Orlikowski (2009, p. 134), relational ontology does not favour humans or technologies and does not consider them as separate realities and, for Cecez-Kecmanovic et al. (2014, p. 809) and Orlikowski (2009, p. 128):

"the hypotheses which underlie a relational ontology are different from those which "substantialist ontology" which has long characterised and at the same time limited research. A "substantialist ontology" supposes that social / human objects and materials / techniques exist separately as distinct and autonomous entities which interact and influence other entities ". Indeed, a relational ontology breaks with the separation of entities (for example, people, technology) by making the primary unit of analysis the transaction rather than its constituent elements.

The nature of the phenomena implies that they are tangled and emerging. It is important to note that entanglement is not about adding relationships to connect ontologically distinct entities. The concept of entanglement means that the "things" that makeup reality are never separated before they have interacted; instead, they are always intertwined constitutively".

In this theoretical, epistemological and methodological basis, this article addresses the following questions:

From a longitudinal analysis of digital innovation, service innovation and service system research, what service logics are latent in the academic literature (English journal articles)? How has this intellectual structure evolved ?

In order to address these questions, this paper has been divided into five parts. Section 2 presents: 2.1) a gathering of a fragmented knowledge from multiple disciplines concerning innovation, service logics and service system research; 2.2) institutional pluralism, institutional complexity and institutional change relationships. Section 3 describes the ten-step methodology. The fourth section presents the findings of the research, focusing on highlighting an intellectual structure evolution over three periods. Section 5 presents the integrative framework. Finally, this paper presents some future research directions, limitations, and conclusions.

Background

2.1. Gathering fragmented knowledge from multiple disciplines concerning innovation, service logics and service system research

In a comprehensive study of service innovation research evolution, [START_REF] Carlborg | The evolution of service innovation research: a critical review and synthesis[END_REF] reported that the first serious discussion about a theory on service innovation emerged during the 1980s with the seminal work of [START_REF] Barras | Towards a theory of innovation in services[END_REF]. Although the notion of service innovation has been studied and characterised by different disciplines, and different authors with various point of view, some investigations [START_REF] Miles | Twenty Years of Service Innovation Research[END_REF][START_REF] Snyder | Identifying categories of service innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature[END_REF][START_REF] Barrett | Service Innovation in the Digital Age : Key Contributions and Future Directions[END_REF][START_REF] Carlborg | The evolution of service innovation research: a critical review and synthesis[END_REF] consider that service innovation is a commonly used unclear concept challenging to define precisely. There is no consensus developed in the academic community on what constitutes the boundary between the notions of "service innovation", "innovation in services", "new service development (NSD)", and "service design". These terms are often used interchangeably. In other words, researchers consider some of the concepts mentioned previously as synonyms; others, as distinct. This lack of clarity in the definition and the boundaries of service innovation across disciplines makes it challenging to implement interdisciplinary research [START_REF] Carlborg | The evolution of service innovation research: a critical review and synthesis[END_REF][START_REF] Snyder | Identifying categories of service innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature[END_REF]. According to Mendes et al. (2017, p. 185) and Carlborg et al. (2014, p. 374), several early studies in service research used "new service development" and "service innovation" interchangeably, for example in [START_REF] Menor | New service development: areas for exploitation and exploration[END_REF]; [START_REF] Droege | Innovation in services: present findings, and future pathways[END_REF]. [START_REF] Mendes | Uncovering the structures and maturity of the new service development research field through a bibliometric study (1984-2014)[END_REF] presented that the NSD concept is closer to marketing and service management domains. It involves a process for new service offerings that encompasses several stages from idea generation to launch in a market. Furthermore, the author has emphasised that service innovation is a larger and more complex notion. It includes any change that transforms one or more service attributes. Moreover, Carlborg et al. (2014, p. 386) argue that for future research, it is essential to distinguish the "innovation in service firms" from that of "service innovation".

Regarding the digital dimension, [START_REF] Huang | IT-Related Service: A Multidisciplinary Perspective[END_REF] discussed that recent research uses the notions "digital innovation" and "IT-enabled service innovation" as synonyms. Compared with other researchers, [START_REF] Barrett | Service Innovation in the Digital Age : Key Contributions and Future Directions[END_REF] have regrouped the notions "service innovation", "digital innovation", and "IT-enabled service innovation" indistinctly. According to this authors, digital innovation research has emerged as a new discourse in the field of information systems, beyond the usual study of technology adoption and diffusion. In this context, digital innovation is defined as new combinations of digital and physical components for creating new products [or services] [START_REF] Yoo | Research Commentary -The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research[END_REF]. It differs from other forms of innovation, mainly through generativity and numerical characteristics such as modularity [START_REF] Tilson | Research Commentary -Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda[END_REF][START_REF] Yoo | Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research on Experiential Computing[END_REF]. Through digital innovation, a company can extend its boundaries to markets connected to digital networks beyond their organisations [START_REF] Lyytinen | Research Commentary: The Next Wave of Nomadic Computing[END_REF]. [START_REF] Barrett | Service Innovation in the Digital Age : Key Contributions and Future Directions[END_REF] suggest that digital innovation is gradually relocating from its periphery to the centre of service innovation in the digital age research, particularly involving smart service systems. They argue for service innovation in the digital age as an umbrella notion. Although previous research has differentiated "innovation in service" and "innovation in service industries", these differences have been questioned in recent years. Vargo et al. (2008) remind us that each economic exchange is essentially an exchange of services, where ICT has played a fundamental role as a resource that can be combined to create new opportunities for the exchange of services. Service innovation in the digital age [START_REF] Barrett | Service Innovation in the Digital Age : Key Contributions and Future Directions[END_REF] refers to the possible combination of digital technologies with other resources that service systems are enabled to process received in-formation to offer adaptive services to different contexts and audiences.

Except for the conference communication research of [START_REF] Brust | Servicedominant logic and information systems research: a review and analysis using topic modeling[END_REF] that only consider SDL, regardless data triangulation (data collection based only on Web of Science database), no reviews were found dealing whit institutional pluralism and complexity of service logics coexistence approach. Concerning service system literature, few researchers have focused on the analysis of its evolution. [START_REF] Hsu | A bibliometric study of SSME in information systems research[END_REF] as well as [START_REF] Sakata | Bibliometric analysis of service innovation research: Identifying knowledge domain and global network of knowledge[END_REF] conducted bibliometric studies, but have not attempted to analyse the evolution of intellectual structure.

Moreover, [START_REF] Beuren | Product-service systems: A literature review on integrated products and services[END_REF] emphasised that in future studies, researchers should delve into the environmental and social aspects, beyond the economic aspect of integrated products and service systems. Lindhult et al. (2018, p 478) conclude that: "crossbreeding the system, complexity, and innovation fields in research and management of a systemic logic for innovation are still in its infancy and deserve much more attention".

Institutional pluralism, institutional complexity and in-

stitutional change: service logics pluralism, innovation and service systems For [START_REF] Greenwood | Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms[END_REF], the perspective of institutional logics emerges as a means of explaining the institutional change. They suggest that the process of articulating different levels of analysis representing individuals, organisations, industries and society at the micro, meso and macro can be linked through the institutional logic [START_REF] Friedland | Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions[END_REF]. These authors indicated the existence, in contemporary Western societies, of a dominant logic in each of the institutional orders existing such as the church, the family and the market. This dominant logic or, institutional logics, represent a set of material practices and symbolic constructions which form the fundamental organisational principles of each of these institutional orders. For example, the institutional logic of capitalism would be the accumulation and commercialisation of human activity. The concept of institutional logic was introduced by [START_REF] Alford | Powers of Theory: Capitalism, the state, and democracy[END_REF] to analyse how the conflicting logics of capitalism, bureaucracy and democracy shape the formation of the modern state. Between the years 1990 and 2000, some seminal works pointed out institutional logics as what defines the content and the meaning of institutions [START_REF] Friedland | Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions[END_REF][START_REF] Haveman | Structuring a theory of moral sentiments: Institutional and organizational coevolution in the early thrift industry[END_REF][START_REF] Thornton | Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958-1990[END_REF][START_REF] Scott | Reviewed Work: Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations: From Professional Dominance to Managed Care[END_REF]. They make it possible to link several levels of analysis concerning an inter-institutional system: a) the societal, b) the field and c) the individual level [START_REF] Friedland | Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions[END_REF][START_REF] Casasnovas | Constructing organizations as actors: Insights from changes in research designs in the study of institutional logics. In Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency[END_REF].

Institutional pluralism focuses on contexts where actors are confronted with a variety of more or less complementary institutional logics allowing cooperation or competition. On the other hand, institutional complexity refers more specifically to how individual and collective actors face and respond to the conflicting demands associated with different logics [START_REF] Ocasio | Advances to the Institutional Logics Perspective[END_REF]. Institutional complexity is a variation of the institutional theory that emphasises multiple, sometimes concurrent, logics and complex organisational fields in which organisations can have multiple responses and feedback cycles [START_REF] Thornton | The institutional logics perspective: a new approach to culture, structure, and process[END_REF]. Although most of the work after [START_REF] Friedland | Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions[END_REF] continued to recognise the existence of multiple logics in reality, rapid analysis of studies on institutional logics [START_REF] Thornton | Institutional Logics[END_REF] identified two ways of approaching around two main research categories:

• Research which considers how a logic predominates in a specific field, being a "dominant" logic in this field and serving as a guide for the behaviour of social actors. For example, [START_REF] Thornton | Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958-1990[END_REF] and [START_REF] Reay | The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta[END_REF].

• Research which considers the "co-existence" of multiple logics for long periods, without there necessarily being a predominance of one logic over the others. For example, [START_REF] Dunn | Institutional Logics and Institutional Pluralism: The Contestation of Care and Science Logics in Medical Education, 1967-2005[END_REF] and [START_REF] Goodrick | Constellations of Institutional Logics: Changes in the Professional Work of Pharmacists[END_REF].

In the first case, the aim is to explore how one dominant logic in a specific period has been "replaced" by another or has disappeared. In the second case, the aim is to analyse the co-existence in different periods of a specific field. However, the researcher must focus on how elements from different institutional logics coexist within a particular period. The researcher's interpretations must also consider the social and historical context at differ-ent times. For [START_REF] Besharov | Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications[END_REF], the multiple institutional logics present a theoretical puzzle. Various logics, often conflicting, characterise organisational fields.

In practice, an institutional logic can help, delay or even prevent different processes of change [START_REF] D'adderio | Artifacts at the centre of routines: performing the material turn in routines theory[END_REF]J ärvenp ä ä & L änsiluoto, 2016;[START_REF] Casasnovas | Constructing organizations as actors: Insights from changes in research designs in the study of institutional logics. In Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency[END_REF]. Institutional studies have also pointed out that multiple and heterogeneous logics struggle to persevere over time, as they are modified by dynamic tensions between different power and interest groups which simultaneously advocate separate logics [START_REF] Busco | Sustaining multiple logics within hybrid organizations: Accounting, mediation and the search for innovation[END_REF].

Reminding that this research is based on multiple institutional logics co-existence approach, actors can be located in different social fields acting according to their interests by contributing in their way to the gradual transition from one logic to another, in particular, because organisations maintain alignment with societal changes [START_REF] Wright | Wielding the willow: Processes of institutional change in English county cricket[END_REF]. This pluralist approach allowing to answer questions such as: how the balance between different logics evolves in pluralist fields; how do the different actors, public, private and citizens, negotiate different logics and, in so doing, contribute to maintaining the balance between the logics within the different fields and level of analysis, for example, at societal, collective, individual?

According to [START_REF] Friedland | Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions[END_REF], institutional logics arise from the institutional orders of the interinstitutional system. For these authors, institutional logics can be defined at different levels of analysis, for example, global systems, societies, institutional fields or domains and organisations. While societal logics permeate other levels, institutional logics at different levels are not only variants or combinations of societal logics, but they are also shaped by local variations and cultural adaptations from this level. An institutional logic at a particular level of analysis can be identified insofar as we recognise an institution associated with this level and the organisational principles of this institution have a certain unifying coherence, but not complete, because the institutional logics are subject to internal contradictions. For [START_REF] Thornton | The institutional logics perspective: a new approach to culture, structure, and process[END_REF] institutional logics are the organising principles of institutions, where institutions can be identified at different levels of analysis, including the institutional orders of society. These authors suggest the need to analyse how logics at other levels of analysis are influenced by societal logics. The institutional logics are historically contingent and evolve and change over time: where institutional orders change, institutions at other levels change. Research is needed to examine historical changes in institutional logics at several levels of analysis. The research of [START_REF] Lee | Filtering Institutional Logics: Community Logic Variation and Differential Responses to the Institutional Complexity of Toxic Waste[END_REF] shows how different types of community logics filter the logics at the field level when the actors of the organisation interpret them. These authors emphasise the need to analyse the role of community logics, particularly how logics are articulated at different levels of analysis. They explored the conditions under the logical manifestations at different levels (for example, the individual, the organisation, the region, the nationstate) become more salient and more powerful. [START_REF] Scott | Reviewed Work: Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations: From Professional Dominance to Managed Care[END_REF] have examined how professional, government and managerial logic at the societal level is shaping the transformation of the organisational health domain in San Francisco. Their research shows the transition from a dominant professional logic to the co-existence of three logics without any one dominating. This interpretation differs from that of [START_REF] Vargo | Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing[END_REF], who emphasise a dominant logic. For some authors, this is surprising because most studies claim to be a "descendants" of [START_REF] Friedland | Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions[END_REF] for which, the organisational fields are always subject to multiple logics. In this sense, institutional complexity, as defined by [START_REF] Ocasio | Advances to the Institutional Logics Perspective[END_REF], refers to the experience of organisations confronted with incompatible prescriptions of multiple institutional logics. Also, for these authors, pluralism describes a multiplicity of institutional logics, and complexity implies the involvement of incompatibility and tensions between logics. These authors put out that complexity is particularly acute when the defenders of logic, who are not powerful enough to dominate the field but whose influence, however, restricts the actions of others. The above considerations are compatible with the way we see heterogeneity in the degrees of institutional pluralism, and the related experiences of complexity, in all fields and organisations. In fields where a single logic is dominant or where institutional settlements lead to relatively stable adjustments between the logics, institutional complexity is likely to be latent for most organisations. While scholars recognise their increasing prevalence within organi-sations, research offers conflicting perspectives on their implications, causing confusion and inhibiting deeper understanding. [START_REF] Besharov | Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications[END_REF] proposed a framework that delineates several types of logics within organisations. Its framework classifies several types of logic multiplicity within organisations in contested, aligned, estranged, dominant, in terms of "degree of compatibility" and "degree of centrality" and, explains how field, organisational, and individual factors influence these two dimensions.

• Degree of centrality -High: multiple logics are core to organisational functioning.

-Low: one logic is core to organisational functioning, other logics are peripheral.

• Degree of compatibility -High: logics provide compatible prescriptions for action.

-Low: logics provide contradictory prescriptions for action. Also, [START_REF] Ocasio | Advances to the Institutional Logics Perspective[END_REF] pointed out four forms of change in institutional logics: 1) assimilation, which concerns the incorporation of external elements into existing logics; 2) development, which refers to endogenous reinforcement; 3) expansion, which involves changes from one field to another; and 4) contraction, which refers to a decrease in logical range. From the phenomenological institutionalism and sociology of knowledge, Casasnovas & Ventresca (2019, p. 135 -136) identifies two research design trends for institutional logics analysis:

• A shift in research design from field-level studies to organization-specific contexts, where conflicts are prominent in the organization,

• and a shift in the conception of logic transitions, originally from one dominant logic to another, then more attention to co-existence or blending of logics.

Based on these research trends, these authors proposed a typology of four available research designs to institutional logics studies that mark a changed conception of organisations as actors, highlighting differences in levels of analysis and logics struggles. Their findings point to changed conceptions of actors in institutional analysis.

Research method

We used an inductive approach (Bandara et al., 2015, p. 169) because our research goal is to inductively highlight the underlying themes and theories on service logics, service system and service innovation delineating the intellectual structure evolved. The raw and processed data are available in a GitHub repository. Except for researcher triangulation that not be performed due to the enormous amount of time required for this type of qualitative and quantitative analysis combining several datasets, this research used four types of triangulation to increase the research validity (Murray, 1999, p. 194): 1) data triangulation. This article uses two source of primary raw data: a) ISI WoS and b) Scopus bibliometric databases.

Secondary data: pdf journal articles; 2) methodological triangulation, an attempt to improve validity by combining various techniques in one study ; 3) theoretical and 4) analytical triangulation. In line with the methodological triangulation, Figure 1 presents the methodological approach combining quantitative and qualitative analysis.

The quantitative phase is based on bibliometric methods, networks analytic, text mining and science mapping techniques. On the other hand, the qualitative phase is based on a grounded theory with thematic analysis [START_REF] Gioia | Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research[END_REF][START_REF] Wolfswinkel | Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature[END_REF]. The methodological process takes into consideration the recommendations of [START_REF] Wolfswinkel | Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature[END_REF] and [START_REF] Rowe | What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations[END_REF]. The following paragraphs will go into detail and explain all the tasks required in each of the ten steps.

3.1.

Step 1: Define research design, research questions, methods and tools Zupic & Čater (2014, p. 11), research design undergoes three stages:1) to define research questions; 2) to chose appropriate methods to answer these research questions (e.g., bibliometric methods, text mining, science mapping, qualitative thematic analysis, a combination of methods);

3) select appropriate tools. For this research, we have selected the following tools: VantagePoint to text mining; NVivo to content analysis; Mendeley to the bibliographic management; Ucinet and Gephi to network analysis. In order to answer research questions presented in the introduction, we have combined several methods: intelligent bibliometric methods based on text mining; network analytic; science mapping; and qualitative content analysis.

These are defined below.

Intelligent bibliometrics and intellectual structure approaches

According to [START_REF] Zupic | Bibliometric methods in management and organization[END_REF], the bibliometric method offers a vast potential for mapping the scope of different domains. They stress that science mapping with bibliometric methods is useful to support researchers to understand the field's structure and to introduce quantitative rigour into traditional qualitative literature reviews.

Their study provides evidence that in the future bibliometric methods will become the third significant approach besides the traditional qualitative literature reviews and meta-analyses. Furthermore, these authors argue that while a traditional qualitative analysis gives us depth with a reduced number of documents, bibliometric methods allow us to rigorously manage a vast number of records resulting in a graphical description of the knowledge base or the intellectual structure of a research area. For Shafique (2013), the term "knowledge base" refers to the ideas, perspectives, approaches, theories, and methods used to create new knowledge in a specific scientific field. This author argues that "intellectual structure" refers to a set of attributes of the knowledge base that can provide an organised and fundamental understanding of a scientific field or research topic [START_REF] White | Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure[END_REF][START_REF] Culnan | Mapping the Intellectual Structure of MIS, 1980-1985: A Co-Citation Analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Ramos-Rodríguez | Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: a bibliometric study of theStrategic Management Journal, 1980-2000[END_REF][START_REF] Pilkington | The evolution of the intellectual structure of operations management-1980-2006: A citation/co-citation analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Zhang | Parallel or intersecting lines? intelligent bibliometrics for investigating the involvement of data science in policy analysis[END_REF]. Also, [START_REF] Vogel | The Visible Colleges of Management and Organization Studies: A Bibliometric Analysis of Academic Journals[END_REF] suggests that the intellectual structure of a field encompasses research traditions, disciplinary composition, evolutionary patterns over time, related research topics, and theories over time. An intellectual structure provides compelling evidence of appearance, transformation, drift, differentiation, fusion, implosion, the revival of research traditions, or invisible colleges [START_REF] Kuhn | The structure of scientific revolutions[END_REF][START_REF] Vogel | The Visible Colleges of Management and Organization Studies: A Bibliometric Analysis of Academic Journals[END_REF].

Likewise, the intellectual structure also means to uncover the existence of scientific schools and college networks known as "invisible colleges" (De Solla [START_REF] De Solla Price | Collaboration in an invisible college[END_REF][START_REF] Vogel | The Visible Colleges of Management and Organization Studies: A Bibliometric Analysis of Academic Journals[END_REF]. [START_REF] Culnan | Mapping the Intellectual Structure of MIS, 1980-1985: A Co-Citation Analysis[END_REF] and [START_REF] Hassan | Distilling a body of knowledge for information systems development[END_REF] research utilises these methods to distilling a body of knowledge of information system field. [START_REF] Love | Reflections on Information Systems Journal's thematic composition[END_REF] investigation has utilised latent semantic analysis (LSA) and cluster analysis to identify Information System structure research themes by a quantitative literature review and mapping of IS field history. Moreover, [START_REF] Shibata | Detecting emerging research fronts based on topological measures in citation networks of scientific publications[END_REF] have developed a method to detect new emerging topics by combining co-citation and cluster analysis. To [START_REF] Cobo | Scimat: A new science mapping analysis software tool[END_REF], bibliometric approaches concern two types of procedures: performance analysis and science mapping. While performance analysis evaluates scientific actors (e.g., countries, universities, departments, researchers) to study the impact of their scientific activities, science mapping allows longitudinal or temporal analysis to obtain perceived structural changes of scientific research over time.

Although several bibliometric methods were studied (e.g., citation, bibliographic coupling, co-citation, coauthor, co-word), the authors have decided to use: 1) co-citation analysis [START_REF] Small | Citation structure of an emerging research area on the verge of application[END_REF] and 2) coword analysis [START_REF] Callon | From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis[END_REF]. According to previous literature, the output of co-citation analysis returns a set of groups that represent the intellectual basis of a research field. Whereas, the co-word analysis allows mapping of the force of association into textual data that can be understood as semantic or conceptual groups, hence represent the research topics studied in a research field. This show that the two methods complement each other.

The combination of several bibliometric methods allows investigating different units of analysis of the collected data (e.g., word/concept/keyword or term extracted from a title, abstract, or document's body; document; author; journal; reference; institution from affiliation, and country from affiliation) [START_REF] Cobo | Science Mapping Software Tools: Review, Analysis, and Cooperative Study AmongTools[END_REF][START_REF] Zupic | Bibliometric methods in management and organization[END_REF][START_REF] Ñoz | Analysing the scientific evolution of egovernment using a science mapping approach[END_REF]. Besides, while a longitudinal co-word analysis allows studying literature evolution, a longitudinal co-citation analysis can help to study intellectual structure continuity.

In this sense, this research performs intelligent bibliometric based VantagePoint text mining tool. According to Zhang et al. (2020, p. 5), VantagePoint proposed intelligent bibliometric streaming data analytics and machine learning techniques to identify complicated relationships and tracing potential topic changes in a dynamic scenario.

For this authors, this tool allows highlighting the development and application of intelligent models for recognising patterns in bibliometrics and entitle this cross-disciplinary direction Intelligent bibliometrics. They suggest that intelligent models could be any computational models incorporating advanced data analytic approaches or artificial intelligence techniques, such as optimisation, streaming data analytics, network analytics, fuzzy systems, and various machine learning techniques as neural networks, extends the scope of traditional bibliometrics.

Social network theory and network analytic

Networks theory is a basis for uncovering an intellectual structure by bibliometric approaches [START_REF] Borgatti | On Network Theory[END_REF][START_REF] Borgatti | A Graph-theoretic perspective on centrality[END_REF][START_REF] Borgatti | The Network Paradigm in Organizational Research: A Review and Typology[END_REF][START_REF] Borgatti | A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks[END_REF]. [START_REF] Wasserman | Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications[END_REF] and [START_REF] Parkhe | New frontiers in network theory development[END_REF] argue that social network perspective focuses on multilevel relationships among social entities (e.g., persons, groups, organisations, nation-states, cities, websites, scholarly publications). [START_REF] Lazega | R éseaux sociaux et structures relationnelles[END_REF] has observed that the analysis of social networks helps to recognise the structural properties of social groups, one of the contributions of sociology. It facilitates the reconstruction of a system of interdependencies to describe how the system influences the behaviour of its members.

The systematic application of mathematical or statistical models, graph theory, and linear algebra to relational data is the basis of the analysis of the social networks. As the interdependencies that can exist between social system components are complex, network analysis can synthesise their structure by offering a simplified representation of this complex social system. These authors point out that this brings a significant added value of the sociology of science to understand how collective action creates academical change. Furthermore, network analysis has developed several measurement techniques [START_REF] Borgatti | A Graph-theoretic perspective on centrality[END_REF][START_REF] Borgatti | On Network Theory[END_REF][START_REF] Wasserman | Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications[END_REF] to describe the relational structures of networks (e.g., structural equivalence, cohesion, centrality, and autonomy). In this sense, we have chosen the degree centrality measure for analysing the "authors by research themes/theories" networks over time which refers to the central authors of a research domain.

Step 2: Interdisciplinary data collection

In order to gather fragmented knowledge from multiple disciplines and increase research validity, this recherche performed raw dataset collection triangulation from 2 databases.Search criteria were defined iteratively by debating and contrasting perspectives with different disciplines of researchers. As claimed by [START_REF] Leslie | Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A content comprehensiveness comparison[END_REF] [START_REF] Carlborg | The evolution of service innovation research: a critical review and synthesis[END_REF], the starting point for data collection was the work of [START_REF] Barras | Towards a theory of innovation in services[END_REF], and the total study period was from 1986 to 2015. Also, in line with [START_REF] Mendes | Uncovering the structures and maturity of the new service development research field through a bibliometric study (1984-2014)[END_REF], we have considered only peer-reviewed articles in English. The first author export the final (iteration 8) WoS and Scopus' search equations (see appendix .1) and the raw datasets are available in a repository.

Step 3 Data merge

Taking into account data triangulation (WoS and Scopus data sources), we refining data collection consistency and reliability through eight iterations. The last dataset collection allowed us to merge a corpus of 2439 articles, 1004 derived from WoS and 1435 from Scopus. We used Van-tagePoint text mining tool to merge data whit appropriate filters: "Scopus Filter" and "WoS Filter".

Step 4: Data cleaning

Data cleaning and preprocessing was a long necessary step to validate the data consistency, especially when merging a dataset corpus from several databases for data triangulation.

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 3 4 3 7 (1986-1995), P2 (1996-2005), and P3 (2006-2015). The P1-corpus is composed of 12 articles, the P2-corpus of 57, and the P3corpus of 727. Figure 2 presents the total corpus of 796 articles after data cleaning. proving the quality of data [START_REF] Kongthon | A Text Mining Framework for Discovering Technological Intelligence to Support Science and Technology Management[END_REF]. For example, the set of constructs S-D Logic, Service-Dominant Logic, SDL, S-D L have been grouped in the same category. Subsequently, Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) allows a truncated representation of the original structure to improve the accuracy of posterior quantitative data analysis, reducing the adverse effects of synonymy and polysemy [START_REF] Evangelopoulos | Latent Semantic Analysis: five methodological recommendations[END_REF]. The LSA algorithm is based on cosine similarities, a measure of cohesion between a forthcoming article and the centroid of all existing topics to assign it to the most similar topic from the euclidean distance between the article and the centroid of its assigned topic (Zhang et al., 2020, p. 5) [START_REF] Porter | Research profiling: Improving the literature review[END_REF].

2. The continuous graph layout "ForceAtlas2" Gephi algorithm [START_REF] Jacomy | Forceatlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the gephi software[END_REF], to analyse the authors by themes adjacent correlation matrix in periods P1, P2, and P3 (see ForceAtlas2 network analytics section in appendices).

3. The global network cohesion, Freeman's degree centrality and 2-mode centrality measures to the author by themes/topics matrix in P1, P2, and P3 whit UCINET (see appendices).

In the results (section 4), only (a) MDS of FA with Van-tagePoint longitudinal data visualisation and interpretation will be presented. The other data visualisations and measures will be presented in appendices.

3.8.

Step 8: Qualitative analysis based on selective content analysis and inductive grounded theory By considering Zupic & Čater (2014, p. 30):

"bibliometric methods are no substitute for extensive reading and synthesis. Bibliometrics can reliably connect publications, authors, or journals; identify research substreams, and produce maps of published research, but it is up to the researcher and their knowledge of the field to interpret the findings -which is the hard part".

To interpret preprocessing data in previous steps, selected articles were downloaded and imported into the Mendeley reference management software and analysed with the software for qualitative analysis NVIVO. We have performed: (a) an analytical reading [START_REF] Boell | A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches[END_REF][START_REF] Bandara | Achieving Rigor in Literature Reviews: Insights from Qualitative Data Analysis and Tool-Support[END_REF] to longitudinal qualitative analysis based on NVivo selective coding [START_REF] Wolfswinkel | Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature[END_REF]. (b) Also, an inductive grounded theory analysis [START_REF] Gioia | Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research[END_REF], compatible with the interpretative epistemological paradigm and the becoming ontology hypotheses. As shown data structure in figures 3, 4, 5 and by considering [START_REF] Gioia | Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research[END_REF], the first-order codes were grouped through more theoretical categories (second-order themes). Then, the theoretical categories were grouped into more general dimensions (aggregate global dimensions or categories).

Grounded theory articulation was performed iteratively in step 9 and 10, in order to propose an analytical service logics framework based on institutional pluralism [START_REF] Reay | Qualitatively capturing institutional logics[END_REF][START_REF] Ocasio | Advances to the Institutional Logics Perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Casasnovas | Constructing organizations as actors: Insights from changes in research designs in the study of institutional logics. In Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency[END_REF]) and institutional complexity [START_REF] Smets | From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change[END_REF][START_REF] Thornton | The institutional logics perspective: a new approach to culture, structure, and process[END_REF][START_REF] Smith | Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands[END_REF]. The process of interpreting empirical data allowed to highlight relationships between theories, concepts and collected data.

3.9.

First-order codes

"Customer logic is the underlying rationale that drives the customer's behaviour, based on his needs and wants. Typically, it interjects realities into service process that are foreign to the process itself (Storbacka, 1992), and whose impact is often unpredictable. Customers often have expectations about anticipated service experiences (Parasuraman et al., 1991): about the role of contact employees, about how the service is to be provided, and about how service outcomes will compare with those of other providers (McCallum and Harrison, 1985). A customer often "scripts" future service encounters in his mind, imagining a "coherent sequence of events . . . involving him either as participant or as observer" (Abelson, 1976). Two scripts drive customer logic: customer as consumer and customer as coproducer. As consumer, the customer asks, "How can I get what I want? (Gr önroos, 1984;Johnston and Lyth, 1991;Parasuraman et al., 1985). As coproducer, he asks, "What is my role, and how do I perform it?" (Bowen, 1986;Bowen and Schneider, 1985;Kelley et al., 1990;Lovelock and Young, 1979;Mills et al., 1983). Customer logic can be surfaced by exploring the question, "What is the customer trying to do, and why?..." In Kingman-Brundage et al. (1995, p. 24). "We propose that marketing should start considering CD logic as the next step towards an in-depth understanding of customer experience. This means that the ultimate outcome of marketing should not be the service but the customer experience and the resulting value-in-use for customers in their particular context. "The service logic model proposed in this article delineates the organizing principles that govern a service system, and presents a way of fostering integration through design of the interactions that link the key processes of seamless servicecustomer, technical and employee logics..." In Kingman-Brundage et al. (1995, p. 20). "A service logic describes how and why a unified service system works. It is a set of organizing principles which govern the service experiences of customers and employees. Only after the logic of a service system has been made explicit does the system become amenable to management control, mainly through the activities of service system design... Such principles, or "logics", are often competitive and hence divisive among themselves. Some of an organization's departments are dominated by a sales logic; others by a bureaucratic-legal logic; still others by an industrial logic (Gummesson, 1993;Schlesinger and Heskett, 1991;Zuboff, 1988)... In contrast, the service logic is integrative and collaborative..." In Kingman-Brundage et al. (1995, p. 21). "Service logic propositions. Proposition 1: Service logic analysis of customer, technical and employee logics, performed against operating demands implied by the service concept, reveals the organizing principles that govern the services experiences of customers and employees..." In Kingman-Brundage et al. (1995, p. 35) First-order codes "The distinctive context and nature of public (compared to private) service and services.

Individual service logics

Global dimension

There is thus an element of value creation negotiation across the stakeholders for any particular public service that is unfamiliar to the majority of for-profit firms. In this case the value creation relationship is not a simple dyadic one but is rather dependent upon relationships between the user, a network of PSOs, and possibly also their family and friends... public service users also inhabit the dual role of being both the users of public services and citizens who may have a broader, societal interest, in the outcomes of public services. This is entirely unknown ground for-profit firms and is an issue that has been explored by Pestoff (2006) and Strokosch and Osborne (2016), amongst others..." In Osborne (2018, p. 2-3). "Public Service Logic challenges the product-dominant assumptions of the New Public Management (NPM) about the nature and management of public service delivery... , the focus here has been primarily upon 'value' as welfare outcomes and personal well-being. The co-creation of value as capacity to change and develop has not been explored sufficiently. " Osborne (2020)

Theoretical categories

• Public service logic [START_REF] Osborne | The SERVICE Framework: A Public-service-dominant Approach to Sustainable Public Services[END_REF][START_REF] Osborne | From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organizations capable of coproduction and value co-creation[END_REF][START_REF] Osborne | Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A perspective from service management[END_REF][START_REF] Osborne | Public Service Logic: Creating Value for Public Service Users, Citizens, and Society Through Public Service Delivery[END_REF]. • Research designs in the study of institutional logics [START_REF] Besharov | Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications[END_REF][START_REF] Casasnovas | Constructing organizations as actors: Insights from changes in research designs in the study of institutional logics. In Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency[END_REF]. "Technical logic is the "engine" of service operation.

Collective service logics

Global dimension

Impersonal and objective, it comprises the basic principles that govern service production. When technical logic is consistent with the service concept, it generates outcomes valued by customers. When divorced from the service concept, technical logic takes on a life of its own to the mutual dissatisfaction of customers and employees alike. It derives from hard and soft technologies, from relevant law, and from corporate policy, rules and regulations. Technical logic's effect on service process is generally predictable, but the logic itself is normally implicit (Zuboff, 1988)... Technical logic can be surfaced by asking, "How are service outcomes produced, and why?..." In Kingman-Brundage et al. (1995, p. 24-25). "The term "product-service systems" (PSSs) has been defined as "a marketable set of products and services capable of jointly fulfilling a user's need..." In Mont (2002, p. 238).

First-order codes

"The service-centered view can be stated as follows: 1. Identify or develop core competences, the fundamental knowledge and skills of an economic entity that represent potential competitive advantage..." In Vargo & Lusch (2004, p. 5). "We offer a broadened view of service innovation-one grounded in service-dominant logic-that transcends the tangible-intangible and producer-consumer divides that have plagued extant research in this area..." In Lusch & Nambisan (2015, p. 155). "We criticize this notion by contrasting their views on commodity value with Marxist and post-Marxist literatures, finding SDL ill-equipped to understand consumer culture, but also continuing to propagate simplistic and misguided views of "value" in commodity markets. We conclude by challenging SDL's suitability as a candidate for all-encompassing social theorizing because of its tacit neoliberalism. SDL continues to provide a logic without political economy in its incapability to question its relationship with culture and inequalities of power..." In Hietanen et al. (2017, p. 1,15) "Traditionally, many people have considered products separately from services. However, recent years have seen the 'servitization' of products and the 'productization' of services. Morelli... sees 'servitization' as the evolution of product identity based on material content to a position where the material component is inseparable from the service system. Similarly, 'productization' is the evolution of the services component to include a product or a new service component marketed as a product. The convergence of these trends is the consideration of a product and a service as a single offering -a PSS. This is consistent with Wong... who sees a PSS as fitting into a spectrum where pure products are at one end and pure services at the other." In Baines et al. (2007, p. 4) • Technical logic [START_REF] Zuboff | Automatefin-fonnate: The two faces of intelligent technology[END_REF][START_REF] Kingman-Brundage | Service logic": achieving service system integration[END_REF][START_REF] Silva-Morales | L'Innovation des Services Publics à l'aide de Tics dans le contexte des Smart Cities[END_REF][START_REF] Mikhaylov | Artificial intelligence for the public sector: opportunities and challenges of cross-sector collaboration[END_REF][START_REF] Reichstein | Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven earth system science[END_REF][START_REF] Dresp-Langley | Seven properties of self-organization in the human brain[END_REF][START_REF] Vecoven | Introducing neuromodulation in deep neural networks to learn adaptive be-haviours[END_REF]. • Research designs in the study of institutional logics [START_REF] Besharov | Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications[END_REF][START_REF] Casasnovas | Constructing organizations as actors: Insights from changes in research designs in the study of institutional logics. In Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency[END_REF].

Theoretical categories

• Service-dominant logic of the market [START_REF] Vargo | Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing[END_REF][START_REF] Lusch | Service Innovation: A Service-Dominant-Logic perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Vargo | Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic[END_REF][START_REF] Hietanen | Against the implicit politics of service-dominant logic[END_REF].

• Research designs

in the study of institutional logics [START_REF] Besharov | Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications[END_REF][START_REF] Casasnovas | Constructing organizations as actors: Insights from changes in research designs in the study of institutional logics. In Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency[END_REF].

• Goods / Products dominant logic of PSS [START_REF] Mont | Clarifying the concept of product-service system[END_REF][START_REF] Manzini | A strategic design approach to develop sustainable product service systems: Examples taken from the 'environmentally friendly innovation' Italian prize[END_REF][START_REF] Tukker | Eight types of product-service system: eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet[END_REF] From the industrial era until today...

• Research designs

in the study of institutional logics [START_REF] Besharov | Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications[END_REF][START_REF] Casasnovas | Constructing organizations as actors: Insights from changes in research designs in the study of institutional logics. In Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency[END_REF]. 4.1. P1 intellectual structure (1986 backwards -1995) Table 1 shows an overview of the ten journals of P1 cor- (1995).

Societal service logics

Global dimension

Inside corpus P1, [START_REF] Barras | Towards a theory of innovation in services[END_REF], [START_REF] Miles | Services in the new industrial economy[END_REF], [START_REF] Kingman-Brundage | Service logic": achieving service system integration[END_REF][START_REF] Buzzacchi | Technological regimes and innovation in services: the case of the Italian banking industry[END_REF] are the four most cited articles. In addition, [START_REF] Khan | Models for distinguishing innovative and noninnovative small firms[END_REF], [START_REF] Smith | Computer Simulation Applications in Service Operations : A Case Study from the Leisure Industry[END_REF][START_REF] Latour | Cultural Anchoring in the Service Sector[END_REF], [START_REF] Kerkhof | Improved customer service using new information technology as an enabling tool[END_REF], [START_REF] Evangelista | Measuring innovation in services[END_REF], [START_REF] Beltramini | High technology salespeople's information acquisition strategies[END_REF], [START_REF] Metcalfe | Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework[END_REF], and [START_REF] Barras | Interactive innovation in financial and business services: The vanguard of the service revolution[END_REF] complete the P1 corpus. As shown in Table 1, most of P1 corpus articles were published in marketing and innovation journals.

4. 1.1. P1 (1986 -1995) theoretical point of view

The results of P1 corpus analysis indicate that the following theories have strongly influenced the intellectual structure in this period:

• The Schumpeterian approach.

• The Barras' reverse product cycle.

• The evolutionary theory of technology policy. peter et al., 1934, p. 66). The Schumpeter approach highlights many features of service innovation, such as the strong presence of organisational innovations, the involvement of multiple actors in innovation processes, and the importance of knowledge coding to lead innovation.

In Schumpeterian perspective innovation research is confronted with a problem of mixing activities or domains.

Therefore, conceptual reinforcement of service-oriented innovation studies is needed to build a bridge based on a broad and conceptually sound perspective of innovation that encompasses both product and services.

Barras' reverse cycle model [START_REF] Barras | Towards a theory of innovation in services[END_REF][START_REF] Barras | Interactive innovation in financial and business services: The vanguard of the service revolution[END_REF] adopted the three innovation cycle phases proposed by Abernathy & Utterback (1978) to build a theory of innovation in services. [START_REF] Barras | Towards a theory of innovation in services[END_REF] argues that the innovation process adopts the form of an "inverted product cycle" with a process innovation preceding a product innovation because services adopt products developed by the manufacturing sector. Products then stimulate the change in the service provision resulting in process innovation.

This type of change also stresses the central role of new From the evolutionary theory of technology policy Metcalfe (1995) theoretical point of view, the success of economic development of a country needs to forge a link between the ability to acquire, absorb, disseminate, and implement technology and a national system of innovation.

According to this author, for policy purposes, the degree of connection between these different dimensions is at the core of technology policy.

P1 (1986 -1995) factor analysis

The decomposition of the P1 corpus via technical NPL highlights as results 496 terms distilling a synthesis of knowledge on research in service innovation, service system for the period P1. A thesaurus grouped the 496 terms extracted from the corpus into 20 driving themes / theories. Globally, the P1 intellectual structure exposes the beginning development of ICTs. In this period, technologies have influenced services industries and earliest service innovation theories. For example, Barras' model of the "reverse product cycle" has often been cited as the earliest service innovation theory [START_REF] Barras | Towards a theory of innovation in services[END_REF][START_REF] Carlborg | The evolution of service innovation research: a critical review and synthesis[END_REF][START_REF] Toivonen | Service Innovation: Novel Ways of Creating Value in Actor Systems[END_REF]. In fact, in this period, there was a tendency to transpose the theories developed for .2 is available in appendices. The four factors representing the P1 corpus intellectual structure will be presented in the following paragraphs.

The "innovation in services industries factor" is linked to the Schumpeterian theory and the "reverse product cycle" theory. Figure 6b shows that this factor brings together the following themes: Schumpeterian, generation of new types of services, reverse product cycle, consumer/customer/user, service/sector, innovation in services, adoption and diffusion. Furthermore, Figure 6b shows that the "innovation in services industries factor" is connected to two other factors: "service innovation"

and "information technology".

Besides, in this factor, [START_REF] Miles | Services in the new industrial economy[END_REF] deals with "adoption and diffusion of technology" in service companies. In this sense, the "service innovation" factor, is associated with adoption and diffusion themes and highlights Miles'

(1993) and [START_REF] Barras | Towards a theory of innovation in services[END_REF] works. The "service innovation/service logic" factor brings together the themes of service logic, service system, and service innovation.

Also, in this factor, [START_REF] Smith | Computer Simulation Applications in Service Operations : A Case Study from the Leisure Industry[END_REF] stresses the complexity of service systems and, [START_REF] Kingman-Brundage | Service logic": achieving service system integration[END_REF] provide the first model for service logic in service systems. These authors suggest three fundamental logics for resource integration in a service system: customer, technical, and employee logics. According to these authors, these three logics are linked through three interfaces: the encounter interface links the client and the employee' logic, the technical interface links customer and technical logic, and the support interface links employee and technical logics.

Furthermore, Figure 6b shows that the factor "national government" brings together the themes "technology policy", "national system of innovation", and "institutional". In this factor, [START_REF] Metcalfe | Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework[END_REF] outlines an evolutionary theory of technology policy. This author argues that the success of the economic development of a country is closely linked to its ability to acquire, absorb, disseminate, and implement technology in a national system of innovation.

In this sense, a national system of innovation is a set of institutions that contribute to the production and dissemi- The factor "neo-Schumpeterian theory" encompasses the theme "Innovation in services" and is linked to the "consumer theory" factor. There are several attempts to develop neo-Schumpeterian theories. For example, [START_REF] Gallouj | Towards a Neo-Schumpeterian Theory of Innovation in Services ?[END_REF] discusses the [START_REF] Barras | Towards a theory of innovation in services[END_REF]'s neo-Schumpeterian theory, that is, the reverse product cycle.

Gallouj claims that it is necessary to specify the area in which the model is valid or extend Barras' theory because their model is exclusively based on the industrial era tradition. Gallouj suggests extending Barras' model in at least two directions: 1) beyond IT and 2) the service sector. On the other hand, Figure 7b shows that the factor "consumer theory" encompasses the theme "Lancasterian" and is linked to the neo-Schumpeterian theory and the innovation in service factors. Figure 7a shows that [START_REF] Gallouj | Innovation in Services[END_REF] has proposed a neo-Schumpeterian ap- Another factor in Figure 7a and 7b, that is the factor "innovation in services" factor, embraces the themes "interorganisational", "service sector/industries" and the factor service innovation encompass the themes "web service innovation", "service system", "service innovation", and "consumer/customer/user". In this factor Sundbo (1997)'s investigation aimed at understanding how service companies innovate and organise innovation activities, whereas

Evangelista & Sirilli (1998) provided empirical evidence for the relevance and nature of innovation activities in the service sector. [START_REF] Lee | Smart products and service systems for e-business transformation[END_REF] discussed the needs of next-generation products and manufacturing systems.

Concerning product-service systems, Manzini & Vezzoli (2003, p. 851) defined a "product-service system" as an innovation strategy that goes from the design (and sale) of physical products to the design (and sale) of a system of products and services capable of meeting the specific requirements of customers, that is, Product-Service System (PSS). [START_REF] Tukker | Eight types of product-service system: eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet[END_REF] argued that it is necessary to promote sustainable PSSs.

Another latent factor into P2 was the "service management" factor that brings together the themes "technological innovation", "service management", and "value coproduction". In this factor, [START_REF] Van Der Aa | Realizing innovation in services[END_REF] shed some light on innovations in multi-unit forms, combinations of services, and cooperation with customers. According to these authors, a multi-unit organisation fosters new ways of organisation with a new balance between standardisation and personalisation. Furthermore, the new combinations of services extends and redefines service companies' service portfolio. The creation of new service groups requires the integration and realisation of synergies in the service portfolio. The cooperation with customers redefines roles and relationships such as "coproduction". Also, these authors suggest that the application of IT to services can increase their efficiency and quality. On the other hand, in this factor, Den Hertog To continue, Figure 7b shows that the factor "value co-creation" embraces the theme "service-dominant logic". This factor marks the transition between coproduction and co-creation of value and has gained importance from the work of [START_REF] Vargo | Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing[END_REF]. These authors emphasised that we are the heirs of a dominant logic based on the exchange of "goods" or products (the industrial era tradition), based on material resources, intrinsic value, and transactions. This factor shows the emergence of a new focus on intangible resources, cocreation of value, and relationships. According to these authors, the offer of services for economic exchange is beyond the supply of products and service (singular) must be separated from services (plural). Singular refers to the process of using its skills for the benefit of others, while the plural relates to the carriers of competences and, are comparable to products.

Along with into P2 corpus, the factor "ICT/digital technology/IT" encompasses the themes "service encounter", "service provider", "service sector", "market", "customer", and "ICT/digital technology/IT". In this factor, [START_REF] Sundbo | Innovation as a loosely coupled system in services[END_REF] noted that many studies on innova- Figure 7b shows that the factor "standard" brings together the themes "institutional", "standard", and "eservice/m-service". In this factor, Figure 7a underlines the research of [START_REF] Sundbo | Management of Innovation in Services[END_REF]; [START_REF] Sundbo | Innovation as a loosely coupled system in services[END_REF]; [START_REF] Gallouj | Towards a Neo-Schumpeterian Theory of Innovation in Services ?[END_REF]; [START_REF] Gallouj | Innovation in Services[END_REF]. [START_REF] Gallouj | Innovation in Services[END_REF] discuss the problems of product standardisation and [START_REF] Sundbo | Innovation as a loosely coupled system in services[END_REF] point out that service industries are under pressure to reduce costs and tend to standardise. According to these authors, this standardisation means that the production of service is not unique, and, the service companies use modular systems. Also, in this factor, [START_REF] Yoo | The role of standards in innovation and diffusion of broadband mobile services: The case of South Korea[END_REF] The factor "resource-based view/theory (RBV)" brings out the themes of "complex/complexity" and "health-care".

In this factor, [START_REF] Ray | Information Technology and the Performance of the Customer Service Process: A Resource-Based Analysis[END_REF] presented an empirical study that examined the degree to which IT influence customer service through an RBV-based analysis.

Within the factor "public services" the theme "public service innovation" was tackled. In this factor, [START_REF] Walker | Evidence on the Management of Public Services Innovation[END_REF] analysed innovation as a central element of the UK government program to improve public services. This author has stressed that there is little evidence on how innovation is managed in public service organisations.

The factor "competition" brings together the themes "digital/ICT/IT service innovation", "business model", "e-service innovation/m-service innovation", and "eservice/m-service". For example, the search of Michalski ( 2003 The corpus of period P3 is composed of 727 articles from 255 sources synthesised in Table 3 & Spohrer (2006) and [START_REF] Maglio | Service systems, service scientists, SSME, and innovation[END_REF].

An essential aspect of the intellectual structure development observable in the P3 corpus is the adoption of a more systemic and holistic view in service research.

This systemic approach was gained ground thanks to the emergence of interdisciplinary service science (Chesbrough & Spohrer, 2006;[START_REF] Maglio | Service systems, service scientists, SSME, and innovation[END_REF][START_REF] Spohrer | Steps toward a science of service systems[END_REF][START_REF] Spohrer | Service Science[END_REF][START_REF] Maglio | Fundamentals of service science[END_REF]. The goal of service science is to move forward in understanding the creation of value in a complex and human-oriented service system, no matter if it is based on IT or not. Furthermore, in P3, a service system can have some supplementary characteristics beyond intangible characteristics related to the context of P1 corpus [START_REF] Barras | Towards a theory of innovation in services[END_REF][START_REF] Barras | Interactive innovation in financial and business services: The vanguard of the service revolution[END_REF][START_REF] Buzzacchi | Technological regimes and innovation in services: the case of the Italian banking industry[END_REF][START_REF] Kerkhof | Improved customer service using new information technology as an enabling tool[END_REF] and the and P2 corpus [START_REF] Gallouj | Towards a Neo-Schumpeterian Theory of Innovation in Services ?[END_REF]. [START_REF] Kerkhof | Improved customer service using new information technology as an enabling tool[END_REF] and [START_REF] Miles | Services in the new industrial economy[END_REF] show examples of P1 technologies' characteristics, such as electronic data interchange (EDI), automated teller machines (ATM), and fax, disseminated in the industrial era and service era traditions. According to Mukhopad- Smart technologies allow and need the horizontal and vertical integration of actors in a service ecosystem. Such integration is achieved through digital infrastructures and architectures in modular layers that can be reconfigured dynamically [START_REF] Tiwana | Platform Ecosystems: Aligning Architecture, Governance, and Strategy[END_REF][START_REF] Tiwana | Evolutionary Competition in Platform Ecosystems[END_REF]. The global corpus shows that although in P1 and P2 the research focused on the notion of IT adoption in organisations [START_REF] Barras | Towards a theory of innovation in services[END_REF][START_REF] Miles | Services in the new industrial economy[END_REF][START_REF] Gallouj | Innovation in Services[END_REF][START_REF] Lyytinen | Research Commentary: The Next Wave of Nomadic Computing[END_REF], in the P3 period a considerable number of re- What can be clearly seen in P3 corpus is an emphasis on institutional arrangements, and complexity surrounding value creation efforts through innovation, integration of service innovation into daily life activities and multiactor perspectives. Also, this period shows an interest in knowledge, competencies, and capabilities behind concrete results. SDL and service science topics have paid particular attention to the institutionalisation of innovation at different levels of analysis [START_REF] Vargo | Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystems perspective[END_REF]. Figure 8b shows the following 23 factors with the heaviest weight: "Smart City/smart city services", "service innovation", "complexity theory", "well-being/transformative service research", "institutional theory", "Digital Divide", "Self-service systems", "national health system", "ITservice innovation", "Public service innovation", "C-B approach", "Value co-creation", "Service Science (SSMED)", "Public Service System", "product-service systems", "boundary resources", "governance", "mobile ecosystems", "digital artefact", "modularity theory", "eservices", "service delivery", and "Internet of things (IoT)".

Due to space constraints, we will describe below only some factors.

As can be seen from the Figure 8b, the factor "Service Innovation" brings together the themes "service innovation", "consumer/ customer/ user", "service provider", "market-oriented", "resource-based view (RBV)", "customer service innovation", "reasoned action theory", "dynamic capability", and "context-aware service". This factor is linked to two other factors: "Institutional theory" and "Complexity theory". Papers concerning this factor regard service innovation and resource integration principally. Besides, the factor "Complexity theory" embraces the themes "Complexity theory" and "Dynamic capability".

This factor is linked to the factor "Service Innovation". Some authors [START_REF] Gummesson | Quality, service-dominant logic and many-to-many marketing[END_REF][START_REF] Gummesson | B2B is not an island![END_REF][START_REF] Gummesson | 2B or not 2B: That is the question[END_REF][START_REF] Gummesson | The emergence of the new service marketing: Nordic School perspectives[END_REF] analysed value co-creation within complex service systems. [START_REF] Gummesson | Quality, service-dominant logic and many-to-many marketing[END_REF] From the graph 8b we can see that the "Smart City / Smart City Services" factor connects the themes "Smart City / Smart City Services", "Urban /City", "Citizen", and "e-Government". This factor is linked to the factors "Selfservice systems", "Public service innovation", and "Institutional Theory". In this factor, some authors [START_REF] Arduini | Technology adoption and innovation in public services the case of e-government in Italy[END_REF][START_REF] Reggi | How advanced are Italian regions in terms of public e-services? the construction of a composite indicator to analyze patterns of innovation diffusion in the public sector[END_REF]Arduini et al., One interesting factor is the Service Science (SSMED), embracing "Service system" and "Complex service system" themes, and linked to the factors "value co-creation"

and "Product-Service System (PSS)". Service science was born around 2006 as an interdisciplinary approach to advance the understanding of different service systems [START_REF] Spohrer | Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Design (SSMED)[END_REF]. SSMED emerged independently from SDL, but SSMED and SDL are part of the same research community or invisible college [START_REF] Vogel | The Dynamic Capability View in Strategic Management: A Bibliometric Review[END_REF]). An invisible college can be defined as communications in dyads or groups amongst scholars sharing interests in a particular area [START_REF] Price | Networks of scientific papers[END_REF][START_REF] Vogel | The Dynamic Capability View in Strategic Management: A Bibliometric Review[END_REF]. For [START_REF] Maglio | Fundamentals of service science[END_REF] SDL is the theoretical basis is service science. On the other hand, other authors [START_REF] Pan | Achieving Customer Satisfaction through Product-Service Systems[END_REF][START_REF] Liu | Constructing a sustainable service business model: An SD logic-based integrated product service system (IPSS)[END_REF][START_REF] Smith | Servitization and operations management: a service dominant-logic approach[END_REF][START_REF] Beuren | Product-service systems: A literature review on integrated products and services[END_REF] dealing with PSS and servitisation. Their investigation is an extension of Baines' review, considering "servitisation" and "productisation" material component inseparable from a service system. • Appearance: is the emergence of a new college without a predecessor in the same field (p. 1031). In the case of this article, several service logics appeared in P1. Also, the service system construct.

• Transformation: is the gradual or sudden change of an existing college, which may result in the formation of a new college. To some extent, this evolutionary pattern applies to all colleges because they always change over time (p. 1031). Figure 9 shows that the SDL has been changing since its appearance in the P2 period until after the P3 period.

• Drift: is the process by which parts of a college become incorporated into another, preexisting college (p. 1032). Modularity theory, systemic innova-tion theory and complex adaptive systems theory become incorporated into another preexisting college.

• Differentiation: is the process by which a broadly defined college splits up into several new colleges In some cases, even core colleges suddenly disappear (p. 1033). In this article, the reverse product cycle is an example of a college implosion.

• Revival: refers to the reappearance of a college that has temporarily disappeared (p. 1033). For example, after a loss of popularity, the ANT and the characteristics-based approach have reappeared in P3 corpus. 4 presents some service logics latent in the P1, P2 and P3 corpus.

Institutional pluralism and complexity in

Considering that institutional logics are defined as "the socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organise time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality" (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999, p. 804), in the following paragraphs we present some service logics latent in the corpus. Before presenting the service logics latent in the literature, it is essential to note that according to [START_REF] Cruz | A criticism of the use of ideal types in studies on institutional logics[END_REF], institutional logics should not be confused with ideal-types. For this author, an ideal type is a concept of sociology defined by Max Weber to help understand or theorise certain phenomena, without claiming that the characteristics of this type are always and entirely found in the phenomena observed in reality. Weber focuses on the neo-Kantian theory of knowledge regarding reality as an infinite reality. The concept of ideal-type would, therefore, be an instrument to unify the parts of this reality, chosen contingently by the researcher who fixes a particular interest on a subjective analysis of certain aspects. In the Weberian methodology, dimensions that the researcher keeps of the phenomenon studied through an ideal-type depends on the way the researcher is positioned, their vision of the world and culture. In this sense, it is essential to note that it is not possible to find an ideal-type pure in the real world. This is not a problem, because the principal value of the concept is its ability heuristics, namely its 2011), the artefacts are at the centre of routines as theories and routines as practices (ostensive and performative aspects). Our article suggests that value is created through a (re-)framing process and destroyed through an overflowing process (figure 10a).

Co-Existence or Blending

Constellation of logics

Two or more logics co-exist over a long period of time in a specific industry, either blending or in an uneasy truce.

Organizational responses

Two or more institutional logics co-exist in an organization, with varying degrees of conflict or hybridization.

Individual coping

Organizational members straddle between two or more logics within their organization, amidst contradictory institutional demands.

Outcomes

Institutional logics

Description

Employee logic

Employee logic is the underlying reason that motivates the behaviour of employees. This logic is individualistic and gives rise to irregular and inconsistent service performance, especially in cases where work procedures are ambiguous, and employees are forced to invent their processes [START_REF] Kingman-Brundage | Service logic": achieving service system integration[END_REF].

Client / Customer's logic

To Kingman-Brundage et al. (1995, p. 23): " the client's logic is the underlying reason that drives the behaviour of the client according to their needs and wants which are often unpredicTable. Customers often have expectations regarding their service experiences (Parasuraman et al., 1991, cited by (Kingman-Brundage et al., 1995)). The client's logic signals the client as a consumer and as a co-producer of the service. It can be addressed by exploring the question: "What is the client trying to do and why?"." In the customer-dominant logic (CDL) of [START_REF] Heinonen | A Customer-Dominant Logic of Service[END_REF], the study of the human dimension which can contribute to new insights on the concepts: human-centred service innovation and human-centred service system.

Service logic

Service logic describes how and why a unified service system works. It is a set of organising principles that govern the service experiences of customers and employees [START_REF] Kingman-Brundage | Service logic": achieving service system integration[END_REF]. Concerning the Nordic school of service logic, Saarij ärvi et al. (2017, p. 17-18) puts out that: "according to the American Marketing Association's definition, and in particular the stakeholders that are defined as being involved in marketing, service logic is more concerned with customers, clients and partners, whereas S-D logic stresses enlarging the perspective to networks, economies, and nations, that is, to society at large. This evident difference in emphasis helps understand and reflect the contradictions between the perspectives. The contradictions are due to different ontological approaches to what eventually constitutes value creation and the fact that S-D logic adopts and is better suited to a more macro level of analysis whereas service logic takes a more micro perspective. The perspectives view interaction in different ways due to S-D logic using the concept in describing interaction on a more macro level whereas service logic is more focused on the interaction taking place between the firm and the customer. According to these authors "provider service logic is a business logic based on service provision (Gr önroos, 2011a)"... Service logic sees service both as the fundamental basis of business and as a logic of value creation (Gr önroos, 2011a). In this respect, too, all firms are service businesses (Gr önroos, 2009)..."(p. 9).

Public service logic (PSL)

For [START_REF] Osborne | The SERVICE Framework: A Public-service-dominant Approach to Sustainable Public Services[END_REF] and [START_REF] Osborne | From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organizations capable of coproduction and value co-creation[END_REF][START_REF] Osborne | Public Service Logic: Creating Value for Public Service Users, Citizens, and Society Through Public Service Delivery[END_REF] the PSL and its implications for public services are in their infancy. The search for Osborne (2018) argued for a separation of the PSL (Public Service Logic) from the SDL for the following reasons:

• PSL requires considering co-production and co-creation of "public" value.

• SDL seeks to explore how to leverage value creation in private sector service companies for customer retention and profitability. However, for PDL, in public services, the repetition of service is likely to be seen as a sign of service failure rather than success.

Continue on the next page

Institutional logics

Description

Technical logic

The technical logic is the "engine" of the service's operation. According to [START_REF] Kingman-Brundage | Service logic": achieving service system integration[END_REF], when the technical logic is compatible with the concept of service, it generates results valued by customers. However, when separated from the concept of service, technical logic "leads its own life" and creates mutual dissatisfaction for customers and employees. This logic stems from hard and soft technologies, from politics and business rules. Technical logic provides answers to a question repeatedly asked by the employee and the customer: What is my role and how to perform it?. This logic is based on the technological evolution impact in the transformation of society [START_REF] Schumpeter | The Creative Response in Economic History[END_REF]. "This logic can logic can be based on goods or services as intelligence artificial algorithms, sensors to teledetection, additive manufacturing, in order to create "product-service systems" (PSSs), "a markeTable set of products and services capable of jointly fulfilling a user's need..." Mont (2002, p. 238).

Good Dominant Logic

"Marketing inherited a model of exchange from economics, which had a dominant logic based on the exchange of "goods," which usually are manufactured output. The dominant logic focused on tangible resources, embedded value, and transactions... In its most rudimentary form, the goods-centered view postulates the following: 1. The purpose of economic activity is to make and distribute things that can be sold. 2. To be sold, these things must be embedded with utility and value during the production and distribution processes and must offer to the consumer superior value in relation to competitors' offerings. 3. The firm should set all decision variables at a level that enables it to maximize the profit from the sale of output. 4. For both maximum production control and efficiency, the good should be standardized and produced away from the market. 5. The good can then be inventoried until it is demanded and then delivered to the consumer at a profit..." In Vargo & Lusch (2004, p. 1-5).

Service-Dominant logic (SDL)

The SDL appeared for the first time in 2004 [START_REF] Vargo | Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing[END_REF] claiming that management sciences have been dominated for a long time by a "Dominant Logic of Goods or Products". These researchers (p. 203) argue that service logic replaces the old product logic. The SDL has evolved since 2004. SDL has moved from the concept of co-production to the concept of co-creation by proposing two additional fundamental principles (Vargo et al., 2008). In the SDL the term "services" in the plural, implicitly designates the output units, the term "service" refers to collaborative processes, where skills/resources are used for the benefit of another entity [START_REF] Lusch | Service Innovation: A Service-Dominant-Logic perspective[END_REF]. In 2015, the SDL and its fundamental principles were transposed from the field of Marketing to the field of Management of information systems, in the form of a conceptual framework [START_REF] Lusch | Service Innovation: A Service-Dominant-Logic perspective[END_REF].

The SDL has received several criticisms. We agree with the criticism of [START_REF] Hietanen | Against the implicit politics of service-dominant logic[END_REF]. These authors criticise the SDL for its tacit neo-liberalism. In this context, we consider the SDL as the logic of market service, focused on economic value and as indicated by [START_REF] Hietanen | Against the implicit politics of service-dominant logic[END_REF]. According to Saarij ärvi et al. ( 2017), SDL recent emphasis on studying markets instead of marketing.

Service logics and the organisational level of analysis

By considering that institutional logic is defined as socially constructed sets of material practices, assumptions, values and beliefs that shape cognition and behaviour [START_REF] Thornton | The institutional logics perspective: a new approach to culture, structure, and process[END_REF] Future studies may focus on issues related to the context of service provision. Also, more research is needed to understand sophisticated new features such as selforganising (Dresp-Langley, 2020), context-awareness [START_REF] Vecoven | Introducing neuromodulation in deep neural networks to learn adaptive be-haviours[END_REF] and artificial intelligence for the public sector [START_REF] Mikhaylov | Artificial intelligence for the public sector: opportunities and challenges of cross-sector collaboration[END_REF]. Its leads to the following research question: how can institutional complexity apprehend the multidimensionality, systemic aspect, opportunities and challenges of service logic cross-sector collaboration in service systems, in particular, the evolution towards context-awareness smart service systems?.

Our results highlight the following topics with technologi- [START_REF] Maglio | Innovation and Big Data in Smart Service Systems[END_REF][START_REF] Carlborg | The evolution of service innovation research: a critical review and synthesis[END_REF]. This evolution has highlighted relationships between digital innovation and technological agility [START_REF] Sørensen | Academic agility in digital innovation research: The case of mobile ICT publications within information systems 2000-2014[END_REF]. Subjects [START_REF] Srivastava | Bridging the Service Divide Through Digitally Enabled Service Innovations: Evidence from Indian Healthcare Service Providers[END_REF][START_REF] Ben Letaifa | Toward a service ecosystem perspective at the base of the pyramid[END_REF], well-being [START_REF] Anderson | Transformative service research: An agenda for the future[END_REF][START_REF] Sanchez-Barrios | Services for the underserved: unintended well-being[END_REF], and services of the Base of the Pyramid (BoP) [START_REF] Reynoso | Learning from socially driven service innovation in emerging economies[END_REF][START_REF] Sanchez-Barrios | Services for the underserved: unintended well-being[END_REF]. Does this lead to the to the fol- and interaction [START_REF] Bloch | Public sector innovation-From theory to measurement[END_REF][START_REF] Osborne | The SERVICE Framework: A Public-service-dominant Approach to Sustainable Public Services[END_REF]. We stress the lack of studies on the ecological transformation of urban service system (small, medium, big cities) (Silva-Morales, 2017).

Direction 5: multilevel and intermediation in service logics Thornton et al. (2012, p. 14) suggest that "researchers that combine multiple levels of analysis in their research are more likely to observe a more accurate picture". Casasnovas & Ventresca (2019, p. 149 -150) put out that:

To account for multilevel processes, researchers need to broaden their design ambition and also think about data sources in more analytically aggressive way. For example, they will need to look To advance the understanding of innovation in service systems, we emphasise the need to analyse several service logics. We remember that, although the emergence and evolution of SDL [START_REF] Vargo | Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing[END_REF][START_REF] Gummesson | Quality, service-dominant logic and many-to-many marketing[END_REF], 2016) was important, SDL has overshadowed other service logics. Therefore, it is important to study the different service logics co-existence, e.g., public-service logic [START_REF] Osborne | The SERVICE Framework: A Public-service-dominant Approach to Sustainable Public Services[END_REF][START_REF] Osborne | From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organizations capable of coproduction and value co-creation[END_REF], customer-dominant service logic [START_REF] Heinonen | A Customer-Dominant Logic of Service[END_REF]. The co-existence and refinement of several logics are necessary to contribute to the understanding of technological and non-technological innovations and value creation or destruction within service systems. In this sense, the institutional theory can help to combine several logics [START_REF] Boesen | Local food and tourism: an entrepreneurial network approach[END_REF]

Scopus database

57 articles ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "service science" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "Service science, management, and engineering" ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "service system*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "science of service systems" ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "complex service system" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "smart service system" ) TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "urban service system") ) AND DOCTYPE ( ar OR re ) AND SUBJAREA ( mult OR ceng OR CHEM OR comp OR eart OR ener OR engi OR envi OR mate OR math OR phys OR mult OR arts OR busi OR deci OR econ OR psyc OR soci ) AND PUBYEAR > 1986 AND PUBYEAR > 2015 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE , "English" ) )

1,378 articles (TITLE-ABS-KEY ("service innovation" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "innovation in services" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "innovation in service systems" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "digital innovation" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "smart service system" ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( service ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ("service system" ) ) AND DOCTYPE ( ar OR re ) AND SUBJAREA ( mult OR ceng OR CHEM OR comp OR eart OR ener OR engi OR envi OR mate OR math OR phys OR mult OR arts OR busi OR deci OR econ OR psyc OR soci ) AND PUBYEAR > 1986 AND PUBYEAR > 2015 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE , "English" ) )

Web of Science database 319 articles TOPIC: ("service science") OR TOPIC: ("Service science, management, and engineering") AND TOPIC: ("service system") OR TOPIC: ("urban service system") OR TOPIC: ("science of service systems") OR TOPIC: ("complex service system") OR TOPIC: ("Smart Service System") Refined by: DOCUMENT TYPES: (ARTICLE OR EDITORIAL MATERIAL OR REVIEW) AND LANGUAGES: (ENGLISH) AND DOCUMENT TYPES: (ARTICLE OR REVIEW) Indexes=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI Timespan=1986-2015 685 articles TOPIC: ("service innovation") OR TOPIC: ("innovation in services") OR TOPIC: ("innovation in service systems") OR TOPIC: ("digital innovation") OR TOPIC: ("smart service system*") AND TOPIC: (service) AND TOPIC: ("digital innovation") AND TOPIC: ("service system") Refined by: DOCUMENT TYPES: Factor 12 Adoption and diffusion 0,186 -0,192 0,339 -0,09 0,09 0,044 -0,099 -0,053 -0,144 0,061 -0,117 0,546 Service sector/Service industries 0,144 -0,213 -0,097 -0,05 -0,243 -0,356 0,317 -0,067 -0,168 -0,313 0,049 -0,287 Consumer/customer/user0,132 -0,046 -0,071 -0,25 0,094 -0,334 0,337 -0,101 -0,196 0,126 -0,47 0,012 Inter-organizational 0,109 -0,12 -0,007 -0,097 -0,011 0,244 -0,005 0,029 -0,058 -0,006 0,145 -0,308 Service provider/provision 0,104 0,312 0,074 -0,078 -0,108 -0,357 -0,173 -0,09 -0,059 0,102 0,25 -0,066 Product-service innovation 0,086 -0,04 -0,051 -0,07 -0,072 0 -0,009 0,114 0,008 -0,039 0,236 0,764 Innovation in services 0,085 -0,141 -0,039 -0,242 -0,194 0,467 0,318 -0,078 -0,098 -0,292 0,283 -0,368 neo-Schumpeterian theory 0,077 -0,022 -0,062 -0,097 -0,053 0,498 -0,097 0,019 -0,057 0,07 0,052 -0,18 Service encounter 0,076 -0,099 -0,03 -0,061 -0,002 -0,476 0 0,01 -0,022 0,002 0,014 -0,183 New service development 0,054 -0,078 -0,088 -0,073 -0,112 -0,207 -0,085 -0,107 -0,088 0,005 -0,179 0,088

Service system 0,049 -0,016 -0,02 -0,007 0,026 -0,044 0,009 0,051 0,018 -0,005 -0,574 -0,097 Service platform 0,048 0,005 -0,036 -0,043 -0,067 -0,036 -0,058 -0,011 0,019 0,047 -0,211 -0,035 Institutional 0,037 0,328 0,767 -0,077 -0,107 -0,008 -0,045 -0,047 -0,019 0,038 0,072 -0,038 Value co-creation 0,035 -0,034 -0,021 -0,025 0,007 0,007 -0,008 -0,023 0,97 0,014 0,012 -0,022 Service-Dominant Logic 0,035 -0,034 -0,021 -0,025 0,007 0,007 -0,008 -0,023 0,97 0,014 0,012 -0,022 KIBS 0,034 -0,045 -0,039 0,958 -0,001 -0,007 -0,005 -0,028 -0,032 0,023 0,073 -0,048 Knowledge-intensive services (KIS) 0,034 -0,045 -0,039 0,958 -0,001 -0,007 -0,005 -0,028 -0,032 0,023 0,073 -0,048

Technological innovation 0,031 -0,031 -0,033 -0,102 -0,345 -0,142 0,699 -0,015 -0,005 0,017 0,101 -0,104 Digital/ICT/ITservice innovation 0,023 -0,039 0,023 -0,014 0,042 0,061 0,007 0,791 -0,037 0,023 -0,094 0,04 Lancasterian 0,013 -0,008 -0,016 -0,014 0,005 0,015 -0,025 -0,021 -0,008 -0,978 0,035 -0,018 Consumer Theory 0,013 -0,008 -0,016 -0,014 0,005 0,015 -0,025 -0,021 -0,008 -0,978 0,035 -0,018 Value co-production 0,01 0,014 0,003 0,467 -0,268 0,097 0,689 -0,025 0,006 0,03 0,013 0,021 Sustainability 0,009 -0,129 -0,114 -0,16 0,073 0,136 0,049 -0,059 -0,101 0,11 0,222 -0,093 Health-care 0,007 0,37 -0,057 -0,038 0,744 -0,045 0,252 0,032 0,006 0,008 0,05 -0,021 Public services 0 0,96 0,035 -0,031 0,074 0,021 0,005 -0,028 -0,028 0,007 0,022 -0,02 Public service innovation 0 0,96 0,035 -0,031 0,074 0,021 0,005 -0,028 -0,028 0,007 0,022 -0,02

Service management -0,016 0,025 -0,019 0,015 -0,331 0,085 0,834 -0,025 -0,008 0,02 -0,001 0,046 (Continued... P2 Factors/themes.)

Standard

-0,03 -0,104 0,901 -0,004 0,052 0,009 0,016 -0,025 0 0,017 0,063 0,045 Business model -0,036 -0,035 -0,042 -0,055 -0,067 0,001 -0,003 0,711 0,005 -0,023 0,183 0,557 Competition -0,048 0,01 -0,046 -0,013 -0,033 -0,024 -0,062 0,818 0,013 0,037 0,018 -0,055 Resource-based theory -0,067 -0,033 -0,029 -0,057 0,821 -0,091 0,307 -0,015 0,013 0,024 0,041 0,013 ICT/digital technology/IT -0,074 0,104 -0,195 -0,106 0,17 -0,532 -0,041 0,194 -0,162 0,161 0,542 -0,014

Intra-organizational -0,085 -0,004 -0,116 -0,059 -0,103 -0,001 -0,024 -0,125 0,007 0,053 -0,147 0,145 Web service innovation/web innovation/web based -0,092 -0,085 0,016 -0,019 0,093 0,04 0,031 -0,022 -0,045 -0,008 -0,68 0,001

Service innovation -0,096 0,26 -0,1 -0,091 -0,129 0,174 -0,335 0,154 -0,185 0,151 -0,543 0,334 Market -0,183 0,028 0,188 -0,25 -0,339 -0,347 -0,163 0,146 0,272 0,112 -0,177 0,094 Management -0,417 -0,049 -0,293 -0,023 0,121 0,085 0,193 -0,003 -0,117 0,139 0,112 0,417 e-service/m-service -0,574 -0,112 0,511 -0,014 -0,011 -0,041 -0,012 0,455 -0,039 -0,003 -0,073 -0,046 Complex/complexity -0,612 0,154 -0,045 -0,072 0,445 0,117 0,139 -0,147 -0,011 0,003 -0,067 0,038 e-Service innovation/Mobile service innovation -0,734 -0,028 -0,002 -0,016 -0,07 -0,037 -0,056 0,611 -0,01 0,009 0,057 -0,027

Service delivery system -0,891 -0,03 0,004 -0,016 -0,077 -0,055 -0,083 -0,026 -0,013 0,007 0,061 -0,055

Cumulative Variance 2,039 3,839 5, 575 7,216 8,806 10,331 11,813 13,257 14,648 15,986 17,291 18,556 19,79 21,018 22,226 23,409 24,547 25,668 26,781 27,859 28,919 29,963 cocreation 0,749 0,05 0,061 -0,058 -0,003 -0,013 -0,024 -0,026 0,013 -0,004 -0,023 0,029 -0,041 0,015 0,028 0,058 -0,004 -0,022 -0,033 0,045 -0,001 0,01 -0,068 Servicedominant logic 0,726 0,05 0,051 0,005 -0,096 -0,007 -0,05 -0,009 -0,083 -0,076 -0,056 0,028 0,041 0,026 -0,118 0,008 -0,111 -0,037 0,004 -0,047 0,139 0,067 -0,066 Resource integration 0,456 0,025 -0,003 0,047 0,059 0,014 -0,02 -0,014 0,022 -0,053 0,122 0,003 0,023 0,003 0,061 0,08 0,025 0,033 -0,045 0,056 -0,102 -0,08 0,029 Value proposition 0,433 -0,017 0,009 -0,084 -0,193 -0,009 -0,056 0,05 -0,058 0,072 -0,049 0,004 0,004 0,018 0,056 0,123 -0,072 -0,002 0,027 -0,141 0,089 0,012 -0,044 Value-in-use 0,372 -0,043 -0,032 -0,025 0,008 0,021 -0,049 -0,025 -0,072 -0,004 -0,145 -0,054 -0,09 0,072 -0,022 -0,029 -0,449 0,033 -0,032 -0,025 -0,022 -0,008 -0,021 Service logic 0,329 -0,042 0,007 -0,039 0,041 -0,01 -0,009 -0,002 0,038 0,058 -0,034 0,005 0,015 -0,023 0,035 0,017 0,055 -0,036 -0,005 -0,037 0,005 -0,03 -0,034 Consumer/ customer/user 0,315 0,009 0,038 -0,031 0,088 0,013 0,161 -0,064 0,041 -0,173 -0,172 0 0,013 0,09 -0,044 -0,078 -0,001 0,068 -0,058 0,41 0,108 0,062 -0,01 Service ecosystem 0,3 0,408 0,029 -0,027 -0,008 0,049 -0,047 0,082 -0,094 -0,108 0,099 0,093 0,087 0,001 -0,013 -0,021 -0,028 0,186 0,173 -0,089 -0,014 -0,116 -0,067 Value-in-context 0,277 -0,061 -0,021 0,033 0,046 0,018 -0,013 -0,025 -0,007 -0,109 0,021 0 0,031 0,028 -0,035 -0,1 0,012 -0,001 -0,038 0,158 -0,073 0,034 -0,001 Value codestruction 0,235 0,054 0,092 0,03 0,032 -0,002 -0,027 -0,01 -0,078 0,002 0,026 -0,019 -0,019 -0,032 0,091 -0,007 0,017 0,046 -0,041 -0,075 0,107 0,046 0,004 Marketing Theory 0,228 0,049 0,166 0,032 0,01 -0,017 0 -0,022 -0,044 0,074 -0,032 0,008 0,021 -0,04 -0,005 -0,083 0,098 -0,038 -0,001 -0,147 0,381 0,115 0,013 Value-inexchange 0,213 -0,05 -0,082 -0,036 -0,036 0,008 -0,041 0,009 -0,039 0,035 0 -0,055 -0,04 0,029 -0,028 0,07 -0,135 -0,048 -0,013 -0,04 -0,008 -0,014 -0,017 Actor-to-actor (A2A) 0,19 0,113 0,006 0,096 0,06 -0,024 0,009 0,014 0,087 0,025 0,137 0,018 0,011 -0,014 -0,022 0,004 -0,049 0,095 0,026 0,116 -0,052 -0,04 0 Ecosystem 0,183 0,536 -0,012 -0,039 -0,12 0,011 -0,042 0,014 -0,006 -0,042 0,037 0,15 0,005 0,062 0,053 -0,115 -0,038 0,068 0,288 -0,107 -0,052 -0,108 -0,102 Structuration theory 0,18 -0,052 -0,046 -0,006 0,026 -0,01 0,001 -0,01 0,02 0,005 0,009 -0,012 0,033 -0,017 -0,008 0,188 0,072 -0,041 -0,001 0,036 -0,101 -0,028 0,044 Value coproduction 0,153 -0,006 -0,002 0,105 -0,074 0,015 0,096 -0,034 0,008 -0,101 0,058 -0,306 -0,05 -0,012 0,03 0,076 -0,141 0,101 -0,089 0,144 -0,042 0,013 -0,002 Customer-Dominant Logic 0,148 0,008 0,003 -0,027 0,003 -0,006 -0,014 -0,018 0,028 0,037 -0,007 0,013 0,026 -0,004 0,014 -0,057 0,05 -0,042 0,03 0,134 -0,007 -0,044 -0,017 Customer service system 0,131 -0,028 0,099 -0,007 -0,006 -0,004 0,078 -0,012 0,012 0,089 -0,08 0,004 0,016 -0,025 0,021 -0,046 0,054 -0,027 0,042 -0,062 0,461 0,151 0,017 Service system 0,131 0,04 0,005 0,002 0,005 0,091 -0,021 0 -0,044 -0,028 -0,424 -0,01 0,05 -0,006 0,048 0,579 -0,154 0,005 -0,035 -0,084 0,004 0,074 -0,06 Self-service 0,13 0,118 0,031 0,057 0,043 0,341 0,071 -0,014 -0,05 -0,251 0,028 -0,04 0,019 0,019 -0,084 0,043 0,036 0,085 -0,078 0,096 0,005 -0,016 0,032 Complexity theory 0,101 -0,044 0,006 0,019 -0,073 -0,043 -0,103 -0,062 0,02 -0,15 -0,039 -0,039 0,019 -0,008 -0,114 0,153 0,01 -0,355 -0,07 -0,068 -0,046 -0,132 0,062 Mobile technology 0,09 0,018 0 -0,04 0,015 0,106 -0,032 -0,01 -0,075 -0,03 0,001 0,103 0,03 0,021 -0,063 -0,108 -0,055 0,194 0,003 0 -0,027 -0,027 0,028 Smart tourism 0,085 0,017 -0,029 -0,104 -0,582 -0,003 -0,042 -0,003 -0,005 0,039 0,021 0,049 0,014 -0,024 -0,112 -0,082 0,013 0 0,016 -0,06 -0,014 0,006 -0,003 Well-being 0,083 -0,008 0,015 -0,035 -0,001 0,024 -0,016 -0,021 0,004 0,105 -0,011 -0,038 -0,009 0,006 0,705 -0,048 0,008 0,011 0 -0,054 -0,014 -0,01 -0,03 Service platform 0,083 0,44 -0,033 0,153 0,075 0 0,021 0,093 0,077 -0,027 0,056 -0,09 -0,023 -0,003 -0,004 0,041 0,014 0,1 -0,07 0,175 0,025 -0,034 -0,002 Service provision 0,079 0,029 -0,067 0,016 0,046 -0,024 0,072 -0,052 0,119 -0,144 -0,058 -0,071 0,023 0,007 0,016 0,062 0,048 0,027 -0,047 0,095 -0,08 -0,099 0,041 Service provider 0,077 -0,018 -0,164 0,021 -0,006 0,021 0,032 -0,001 -0,017 -0,118 -0,111 -0,235 0,053 0,029 -0,026 0,043 0,046 0,137 0,065 0,377 0 0,172 0,012 Practice theory 0,075 0,403 0,105 0,1 0,046 0,006 -0,024 -0,008 -0,108 0,008 0,008 0,022 -0,006 -0,081 0,002 0,101 0,097 0,171 -0,09 -0,034 0,123 -0,002 0,058 Service design 0,072 0,003 -0,003 0,029 0,042 -0,005 0,078 -0,046 0,25 0,009 -0,258 -0,047 0,033 0,035 0,334 -0,003 0,088 -0,039 0 0,152 0,116 -0,059 -0,101 Complex service system 0,065 -0,017 -0,036 -0,023 0,018 0,002 -0,017 -0,001 0,072 0,012 -0,013 -0,035 0,033 -0,013 -0,034 0,389 0,037 -0,114 -0,044 -0,021 -0,119 -0,065 0,022 Context-aware service / spacetime 0,061 -0,03 -0,025 -0,015 0,024 -0,029 -0,026 -0,034 0,054 0,118 -0,05 0,037 0,052 0,051 0,039 0,067 0,038 -0,133 0,004 0,219 -0,047 -0,099 0,176 Self-organising 0,051 0,034 0,028 -0,023 -0,071 0,004 -0,019 -0,026 0,253 0,09 -0,017 0,009 -0,012 0,025 -0,024 -0,024 0,006 -0,161 -0,008 0,052 -0,019 0,034 -0,053 Institutional Theory 0,046 -0,013 -0,004 -0,025 -0,012 -0,017 -0,001 0,748 0 -0,003 0,026 0,013 0,063 0,018 0,003 -0,001 0,005 -0,006 0,016 -0,103 -0,034 -0,02 -0,005 Intraorganizational 0,044 -0,012 -0,014 0,032 0,026 -0,004 0,012 -0,033 0,039 0,05 -0,052 0,037 -0,693 0,018 -0,05 -0,033 0,042 -0,016 -0,04 -0,025 -0,018 0,036 0,004 Collaboration 0,043 0,056 0,001 -0,078 0,026 -0,069 0,172 -0,007 0,022 0,052 0,236 0,083 -0,115 0,001 0,145 -0,028 -0,099 0,156 0,098 - 0,038 -0,004 0,034 -0,036 -0,052 -0,026 0,004 -0,014 0,069 0,078 -0,074 -0,018 0,009 0,001 0,591 0,008 0,048 0,006 0,01 -0,07 0,016 -0,06 -0,048 e-service 0,036 -0,009 0,036 -0,047 0,014 -0,001 0,613 -0,001 0,09 -0,155 -0,023 -0,14 0,022 -0,021 -0,064 -0,069 0,021 0,024 -0,017 -0,006 0,21 0,09 0,098 Emerging economies 0,032 -0,031 0,002 0,019 0,017 0,002 -0,053 -0,017 -0,094 0,051 0,027 -0,125 -0,181 -0,018 0,144 -0,006 -0,091 0,043 -0,048 -0,053 -0,035 0,031 -0,045 Service encounter 0,03 -0,049 0,048 0,032 0,064 0,019 0,027 -0,006 -0,041 -0,376 -0,023 0,009 0,08 0,061 -0,049 -0,061 0 0,029 -0,018 -0,014 0,023 -0,014 -0,139 Servitization 0,028 -0,029 0,035 0,014 -0,031 -0,039 -0,016 -0,008 0,009 0,081 -0,593 0,039 -0,024 0,06 0,029 0,012 -0,063 0,047 0,021 0,009 -0,044 -0,034 0,042 Market-oriented 0,027 -0,068 0,043 -0,1 -0,053 -0,023 -0,071 -0,049 -0,089 0,017 0,114 0,053 -0,012 0,011 -0,087 -0,056 0 -0,165 0,017 0,342 -0,023 -0,075 -0,034 Work system 0,025 -0,018 0,011 -0,002 0,002 -0,001 0,003 -0,007 -0,014 0 -0,002 0,017 0,007 0,006 -0,027 0,049 -0,002 0,002 0 -0,006 0,003 0,013 -0,009 Tourism 0,025 -0,003 -0,011 -0,132 -0,467 0,005 -0,039 -0,026 0 0,052 0,017 0,046 0,043 -0,031 -0,136 -0,125 0,022 -0,071 0,02 -0,016 -0,022 0,009 0,02 Modularity theory 0,022 -0,013 -0,737 0,017 0,019 0,001 0,03 0,047 -0,059 0,036 -0,117 0,023 0,007 -0,026 -0,028 0,053 0,023 0,041 0,02 -0,032 0,002 0,012 0,002 Complex adaptive system 0,015 0,009 0,009 0,06 -0,018 -0,01 -0,027 -0,026 0,044 0,064 0,048 -0,01 -0,005 -0,022 -0,047 0,013 0,043 -0,195 -0,006 0,027 -0,029 -0,024 -0,025 Interorganizational 0,013 -0,01 -0,053 0,001 0,01 -0,004 -0,058 -0,017 -0,011 -0,086 0,003 -0,062 -0,671 0,006 -0,003 0,004 -0,042 -0,012 -0,033 0,001 -0,028 -0,004 0,134 neo-Institutional Theory 0,01 -0,041 -0,008 0,027 0,003 0,003 -0,016 0,339 -0,06 -0,005 -0,014 -0,004 0,053 0,01 -0,033 0,001 0,036 0 0,007 -0,073 -0,04 0,001 0,045 Layered modular architecture 0,01 -0,089 -0,083 0,195 0,038 -0,005 0,035 -0,04 0,084 0,034 -0,007 0,037 0,084 0,093 -0,017 -0,06 0,004 -0,042 0,494 -0,056 -0,057 -0,035 -0,077 Public policy 0,009 -0,063 0,017 0,164 0,012 -0,015 -0,049 0,066 -0,093 0,096 0,041 -0,029 -0,08 -0,393 0,031 0,034 0,069 -0,063 0,036 -0,031 0,015 0,039 0,01 Stakeholder 0,009 0,086 -0,013 -0,038 0,012 -0,059 -0,016 -0,04 0,13 -0,087 -0,042 0,031 -0,001 0,075 0,052 0,025 -0,299 -0,102 -0,072 -0,029 -0,018 -0,08 0,277 Generativity 0,007 0,176 -0,018 0,44 0,068 -0,015 -0,009 -0,019 0,042 0,119 0,101 0,023 0,028 0,193 -0,078 0,024 -0,004 -0,068 0,214 -0,029 -0,073 -0,046 0,016 Lancasterian 0,005 -0,001 -0,018 -0,034 0,001 -0,019 0,019 -0,031 0,12 0,086 0,028 -0,695 0,022 0,022 -0,036 -0,01 0,033 0,294 0,046 -0,024 -0,014 0,003 0,014 Big Data 0,002 -0,008 0,033 0,105 -0,687 -0,036 0,023 -0,009 0,096 0,012 -0,02 0,021 -0,005 0,058 0,22 0,045 0,012 0,053 -0,006 0,019 0,008 -0,038 -0,018 neo-Schumpeterian 0,002 -0,029 -0,018 0,038 0,009 -0,002 -0,017 0,058 -0,058 0,027 0,022 -0,02 -0,001 -0,081 0,038 0,032 0,055 -0,008 0,014 -0,024 -0,023 0,041 0,033 Everyday activities/ everyday life 0 0,028 0,021 0,092 -0,091 0,009 -0,032 -0,02 -0,054 0,001 0,032 0,043 -0,025 0,022 -0,07 0,071 0,028 0,194 -0,084 0,011 -0,061 -0,006 0,028 Agency theory -0,002 -0,008 -0,692 -0,026 -0,001 0 0,01 0,003 -0,066 0,039 0,027 0,005 0,015 -0,036 0,019 0,045 0,011 0,022 0,005 -0,022 0,012 0,011 0,021 Characteristicsbased approach -0,003 -0,023 -0,017 -0,04 0,003 -0,022 -0,003 -0,032 0,076 0,138 0,022 -0,703 0,058 0,025 -0,05 -0,04 0,05 0,297 0,131 0 -0,031 0,024 0,037 Modular systems theory -0,004 -0,05 -0,082 0,068 0,03 -0,006 0,015 -0,009 0,001 -0,03 0,015 0,023 0,023 0,027 -0,004 -0,019 0,024 -0,017 0,026 -0,046 -0,048 -0,032 -0,047 Organizational change -0,006 0,025 0,018 0,064 0,037 -0,024 -0,025 -0,059 0,046 -0,019 0,016 0,134 0,025 -0,261 -0,014 0,027 0,081 0,245 -0,055 -0,031 -0,036 -0,068 0,006 Product-Service system -0,006 -0,034 -0,042 0,033 0,053 -0,019 -0,013 0,013 -0,01 0,063 -0,641 0,055 0,019 0,034 0,003 0,136 -0,038 0,066 -0,009 0,011 -0,066 -0,011 0,004 Healthcare service innovation -0,007 -0,036 -0,007 0,001 0,011 -0,002 0,005 0 -0,116 0,054 0,057 0,042 0,037 0,016 0,299 -0,026 -0,032 -0,018 0,003 0,026 -0,022 -0,007 0,324 Transit/trafic/transport management -0,007 -0,044 0,045 -0,035 0,013 -0,015 -0,018 -0,046 0,072 0,057 -0,431 0,013 0,001 0,016 -0,096 -0,002 -0,25 -0,048 0,244 0,006 0,027 -0,052 0,022 Modular architecture -0,008 -0,052 -0,445 0,421 0,094 -0,014 0,013 -0,013 0,059 -0,104 -0,082 0,038 0,069 0,158 0,005 -0,121 0,061 -0,067 0,188 -0,064 -0,057 -0,081 -0,129 Digital divide -0,009 0,003 -0,002 -0,025 0,004 -0,026 -0,011 -0,003 0,032 -0,103 0,02 0,035 0,019 0,007 0,04 0,035 0,003 0,006 -0,005 -0,024 -0,282 0,779 -0,009 Local government -0,01 -0,034 -0,002 0,261 0,012 -0,005 0,008 -0,048 0,006 0,078 0,013 0,041 0,025 -0,74 -0,024 -0,004 0,029 -0,007 0,012 -0,016 -0,032 -0,01 -0,022 Social Capital Theory -0,01 -0,019 0,006 -0,01 0,004 -0,01 0,008 -0,012 -0,009 -0,104 0,035 0,017 0,005 0,014 -0,02 0,016 0,005 0 0,008 -0,003 -0,017 0,019 0,006 Digitalization -0,01 -0,036 0,033 0,582 -0,209 -0,009 -0,04 0,02 -0,042 -0,071 -0,162 -0,069 -0,02 0,202 0,016 -0,065 -0,001 -0,029 -0,077 -0,028 -0,01 -0,003 0,018 Web -0,011 0,017 -0,184 -0,009 0,038 0,006 0,018 -0,02 0,032 -0,007 0,055 0,047 0,013 0,052 -0,07 -0,13 -0,044 0,03 -0,072 0,068 0,549 0,199 0,03 User-driven innovation -0,012 -0,031 0,026 0,004 0,03 0 -0,011 -0,009 -0,02 -0,087 0,008 -0,014 0,023 0,024 -0,037 -0,046 0,012 0,017 -0,026 -0,038 -0,01 -0,013 -0,063 Viable Systems Approach -0,013 0,008 -0,026 -0,037 -0,025 -0,007 -0,031 -0,005 0,007 -0,004 0,013 -0,022 0,024 -0,012 -0,048 0,241 0,022 -0,17 -0,037 -0,018 -0,065 -0,075 -0,024 APIs -0,013 -0,008 -0,029 -0,035 -0,019 -0,004 -0,013 -0,022 0,008 0,058 -0,016 0,063 -0,045 0,015 -0,05 -0,071 0,002 0,112 -0,035 -0,04 0,014 0,035 -0,017 Flexible standard -0,013 -0,012 -0,004 -0,018 0,005 -0,021 -0,007 -0,005 0 -0,024 0,003 0,018 0,026 -0,013 0,058 0,043 0,012 -0,077 0,002 -0,094 -0,034 -0,006 0,038 Digital innovation -0,014 -0,094 0,065 0,29 0,066 -0,036 0 -0,014 0,254 0,239 0,261 0,182 0,004 0,251 -0,084 0,077 -0,05 0,134 0,095 -0,06 -0,062 -0,018 0,099 e-service innovation -0,014 -0,009 -0,004 -0,019 -0,006 0,018 0,832 -0,011 -0,021 -0,021 0,018 -0,007 0,009 0,004 -0,009 -0,005 0,001 -0,002 -0,012 -0,028 -0,042 -0,007 -0,026 (Continued... P3 Factors/themes.) 57 Table .4: P3 Factors/themes (2006-2015) Platform -0,014 0,486 -0,086 0,085 0,049 -0,022 -0,063 -0,069 0,32 0,053 0,021 0,038 0,031 0,102 0,051 -0,254 0,027 -0,15 0,025 0,021 -0,052 0,152 -0,013 Technological innovation system -0,014 -0,029 -0,03 -0,09 -0,002 -0,025 -0,036 0,077 -0,045 0,033 -0,063 -0,026 0,118 0,014 -0,1 -0,18 0,039 -0,023 -0,035 -0,173 -0,055 -0,023 0,158 Queueing theory -0,015 0 -0,003 -0,008 0,014 0 -0,004 -0,002 -0,025 0,001 -0,015 0,001 0,013 0,001 0,058 0,101 0,003 0 -0,012 -0,02 -0,011 0,025 0,017 Service delivery -0,016 0,04 -0,002 -0,05 0,006 -0,02 0,067 -0,003 0,015 -0,604 0,053 -0,061 -0,043 0,009 -0,012 0,116 -0,022 -0,03 0,121 0,012 -0,023 0,136 0,089 Open platform -0,016 0,031 0 -0,002 0,011 -0,002 -0,012 -0,012 0,013 0,022 0,007 0 0,006 0,01 -0,003 -0,034 0,012 -0,03 -0,019 -0,021 -0,012 0,016 -0,021 Open data -0,018 0 -0,012 -0,029 0,029 0,618 -0,017 0,016 -0,043 0,055 0,028 0,109 0,04 0,042 0,085 -0,087 -0,015 0,156 0,016 -0,024 -0,015 0,002 0,173 Institutional -0,019 0,063 -0,061 0,053 0,041 0,016 -0,02 0,565 0,049 -0,081 -0,006 0,043 -0,059 -0,077 0,008 0,07 0,017 0,017 0,093 - -0,075 0,022 0,188 0,031 0,001 -0,063 0,1 -0,152 0,126 -0,103 -0,084 0,053 0,067 -0,067 -0,084 0,053 -0,004 0,033 0,073 -0,085 0,054 0,081 Innovation system -0,026 -0,029 -0,067 -0,134 0,008 -0,018 -0,039 0,36 0,037 0,013 -0,011 0,046 0,132 0,002 -0,055 -0,223 -0,028 0,018 -0,066 -0,175 -0,06 -0,061 0,151 Citizen -0,026 -0,059 0,077 0,005 0,045 -0,058 -0,021 0,26 0,508 -0,011 0,119 0,035 0,04 -0,041 -0,1 0,031 -0,185 0,001 0,033 -0,028 0,008 0,174 0,116 Nature conservation -0,028 -0,087 0,068 0,037 0,081 -0,049 0,004 -0,005 0,15 0,145 0,209 0,12 0,005 0,124 -0,065 0,181 -0,114 0,102 0,059 -0,046 -0,029 0,024 0,109 Hospitality -0,029 -0,009 0,007 -0,053 -0,062 0 -0,039 -0,021 -0,073 0,011 0,018 -0,008 0,034 -0,004 -0,052 -0,042 0,024 -0,062 0,008 0,122 -0,035 0,011 0,025 Eco-innovation in services -0,03 -0,009 0,009 -0,011 0,007 0,006 -0,021 -0,007 -0,021 -0,001 0,017 -0,034 -0,005 0 -0,037 -0,01 0,014 0,015 -0,026 -0,05 -0,008 -0,019 0,015 SaaS -0,03 0,01 -0,67 -0,007 -0,02 -0,001 -0,044 0,007 0,019 0,01 0,053 0,04 0,031 0,01 -0,004 -0,041 -0,005 0,044 -0,024 -0,027 0,209 0,056 -0,017 Health-care -0,03 -0,045 -0,057 0,017 -0,043 -0,011 -0,012 0,008 -0,039 -0,05 0,055 0,038 0,018 -0,011 0,509 0,057 0,013 -0,001 -0,032 -0,076 -0,066 0,07 0,421 Service management -0,03 -0,02 0,01 -0,008 0,065 0,013 0,289 -0,006 -0,078 0,01 -0,18 0,08 0,033 0,022 -0,049 0,052 0,049 0,032 -0,002 0,019 0,292 0,098 0,03 Knowledgebased theory -0,032 0,036 0,013 0,004 0,004 -0,006 -0,015 -0,008 -0,002 -0,002 -0,026 0,001 0,002 -0,005 0,024 -0,065 0,024 -0,045 -0,022 -0,017 0,001 0 0,015 Nation Health Service -0,032 -0,041 0,017 0,049 0,025 0,087 0,013 0,018 -0,165 0,091 0,027 0,056 0,043 0,04 0,158 -0,031 -0,012 0,021 0,028 -0,006 0,012 0,031 0,476 Data-driven -0,032 -0,023 0,003 -0,014 -0,013 0,931 -0,008 -0,008 0,077 0,031 -0,007 -0,026 -0,013 0,002 -0,011 0,043 0,002 -0,066 0,009 -0,031 -0,009 -0,009 -0,016 Self-service systems -0,032 -0,023 0,003 -0,014 -0,013 0,931 -0,008 -0,008 0,077 0,031 -0,007 -0,026 -0,013 0,002 -0,011 0,043 0,002 -0,066 0,009 -0,031 -0,009 -0,009 -0,016 Digital artifact -0,033 0,025 -0,037 0,585 0,024 -0,004 -0,042 0,004 -0,014 -0,062 -0,025 -0,01 -0,003 0,239 -0,024 -0,142 -0,024 -0,046 -0,052 -0,091 -0,007 -0,017 -0,049 Reasoned Action Theory -0,034 0,021 0,036 0,031 -0,004 0,022 -0,039 0,236 -0,009 0,05 -0,025 -0,051 -0,059 -0,009 0 -0,001 0,026 0,037 -0,03 0,262 0,051 0,059 -0,021 Governance mechanisms -0,035 0,005 0,036 -0,019 -0,005 -0,004 -0,054 0,098 -0,022 -0,122 -0,009 0,031 -0,672 -0,051 0,009 -0,017 0,033 -0,022 0,316 0,038 0,024 -0,007 0,01 Service delivery system -0,035 -0,009 0,02 -0,032 -0,005 -0,012 0,033 0,008 -0,002 -0,54 0,004 -0,007 -0,138 0,01 -0,021 0,075 0,009 -0,05 0,114 -0,083 -0,021 -0,02 0,116 Industrial service innovation -0,037 -0,035 -0,004 0,021 0,049 0,015 -0,041 0,025 -0,069 -0,03 0,028 -0,013 0,021 0,005 0,09 -0,121 -0,014 0,04 -0,006 0,095 -0,056 0,037 -0,028 Public service innovation -0,037 -0,032 0,001 0,291 0,008 0,001 0,002 -0,024 0,057 0,042 0,028 0,017 0,036 -0,796 -0,023 -0,028 -0,135 0,004 0,001 -0,004 -0,031 -0,011 -0,035 Public service system -0,038 0 0,016 0,055 0,004 0,004 0,019 -0,008 0,004 0,029 -0,023 -0,026 0,023 -0,146 -0,014 -0,003 -0,792 0,01 0,002 0,005 0,007 0,013 -0,02 Competition -0,038 0,047 0,002 -0,013 0,053 -0,015 0,12 -0,044 0,081 0,182 -0,105 0,039 -0,156 -0,036 -0,083 -0,221 0,08 -0,148 0,121 -0,089 -0,031 0,008 -0,096 Actor network theory (ANT) -0,04 0,042 -0,009 -0,008 0,007 -0,007 -0,021 -0,01 -0,006 0,006 0,016 0,004 0,011 0,002 0,08 0,019 0,006 -0,025 -0,02 0,004 -0,013 0,027 0,017 (Continued... P3 Factors/themes.) 58 -0,04 0,052 -0,003 0,017 0,012 -0,062 -0,008 0,544 0,012 0,026 0,052 0,024 0,043 0,035 0,021 0,028 0,065 -0,005 -0,052 0,026 -0,017 -0,076 Co-opetition -0,043 -0,027 0,016 -0,037 -0,003 -0,001 -0,04 -0,009 -0,026 0,005 0,063 -0,003 -0,182 0,001 -0,006 -0,033 -0,008 0,066 0,03 0,006 -0,006 -0,038 -0,068 New product development -0,043 0,005 -0,027 -0,003 0,052 -0,003 0,058 0,016 -0,011 0,064 0,021 0,06 -0,058 0,047 0,039 -0,086 -0,007 -0,083 -0,014 0,061 0,031 -0,08 -0,171 Flexibility -0,043 0,044 -0,403 -0,019 0,001 -0,004 -0,046 -0,01 0,03 0,029 0,088 -0,05 -0,139 0,004 0,032 0,075 -0,05 -0,062 -0,05 0,109 0,08 -0,06 0,016 Internet of Things (IoT) -0,044 -0,01 0,015 0,149 -0,774 0,008 0,006 0,002 0,003 -0,043 -0,03 -0,001 -0,01 0,024 -0,003 0,029 0,009 0,104 -0,046 0,023 -0,02 -0,006 0 Action theory -0,045 0,064 0,041 0,033 0,005 0,008 -0,005 0,644 0,039 0,056 -0,001 -0,053 -0,13 -0,025 0,007 0,009 0,028 0,01 -0,029 0,256 0,085 0,058 -0,072 Diffusion of innovation theory -0,045 -0,015 0,034 -0,005 0,01 0,011 -0,032 0,001 -0,066 -0,029 0,023 0,007 0,012 0,001 - -0,063 0,063 0,057 -0,094 -0,028 0,006 -0,067 0,022 -0,059 -0,063 0,017 -0,008 -0,169 -0,066 0 -0,011 0,001 -0,018 0,542 0,105 0,041 0,008 0,033 Customer service innovation -0,063 -0,023 0,022 -0,012 0,023 -0,01 -0,035 -0,02 -0,024 0,004 -0,027 0,032 0,039 0,014 -0,01 -0,011 0,012 0,009 -0,001 0,289 0,009 -0,02 -0,02 Digital/ICT/ITservice innovation -0,064 -0,008 0,011 0,052 -0,152 0,007 0,779 -0,018 -0,036 -0,014 0,034 -0,008 0,022 0,025 0,005 0,037 -0,012 -0,005 -0,017 0,028 0,001 0,004 0 Cloud computing -0,064 -0,043 0,04 -0,034 -0,065 -0,054 -0,054 -0,025 0,27 0 0,058 0,201 0,023 0,02 0,051 0,056 0,072 0,335 -0,007 -0,021 -0,004 -0,091 -0,019 Sociomateriality -0,064 0,385 0,052 0,46 0,023 0,017 0,01 0,026 -0,121 0,064 0,022 -0,019 -0,007 0,153 -0,074 0,105 0,003 0,053 -0,064 -0,046 0,014 0,001 0,03 Open service innovation -0,065 0,002 -0,022 -0,065 -0,093 0,032 -0,057 -0,031 0,017 -0,028 -0,121 0,244 0,002 -0,009 -0,105 -0,08 0,028 0,5 -0,045 0,018 -0,101 -0,079 0,015 Innovation diffusion theory (IDT) -0,066 -0,005 -0,002 -0,032 0,005 0,005 -0,038 -0,005 0,017 -0,024 0,056 -0,029 -0,128 -0,048 -0,036 -0,014 -0,028 -0,008 0,003 0,019 0,083 0,01 0,165 Boundary resources -0,071 0,744 0,02 0,026 -0,003 0,016 -0,001 -0,001 -0,081 0,037 -0,008 -0,014 0,024 0,014 -0,038 0,1 -0,009 -0,023 0,178 -0,032 0,004 0,015 0,047 Interoperability -0,071 -0,049 -0,141 0,043 0,011 -0,004 -0,114 0,001 0,258 -0,081 0,103 0,06 0,016 0,013 0,095 0,042 0,028 -0,005 -0,005 -0,07 0,233 0,021 0,03 Absorptive capacity/ACAP -0,072 -0,017 -0,006 -0,065 0,027 -0,002 0,305 0,282 -0,04 0,134 0,071 0,03 -0,094 0,04 -0,008 -0,095 -0,021 -0,054 -0,052 0,012 -0,043 -0,082 -0,187 Smart Service System -0,075 -0,016 0,028 0,111 -0,499 0,004 0,128 0,013 -0,016 0,011 0,025 -0,025 0,016 0,021 0,067 0,107 -0,032 -0,014 0,011 0,063 0,007 0,011 -0,016 Pervasive/ubiquitous -0,08 -0,093 -0,009 0,428 -0,228 -0,016 -0,003 -0,034 0,091 0,097 0,102 0,004 0,037 0,211 0,064 0,033 -0,027 -0,017 0,066 0,039 0,103 0,038 0,104 Digital platform -0,082 0,298 -0,025 -0,075 0 -0,019 -0,013 -0,071 0,146 0,079 0,015 0,016 0,025 0,012 -

P2 FREEMAN'S DEGREE CENTRALITY MEASURES:

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------- 2

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Quantitative-qualitative methodological process performed for illuminates longitudinal intellectual / conceptual structure and institutional service logics.

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3: Data structure. Individual service logics.

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: Data structure. Collective service logics.

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 5: Data structure. Societal service logics.

3. 10 .

 10 Step 10: Report & multilevel perspective of service logics institutional pluralism framework By considering the methodology as an iterative process, authors enhanced the longitudinal analysis report, section 5 presents and discuss the final transformation of static data structures (figures 3, 4, 5), into a grounded theory integrative framework to service logics co-existence institutional pluralism and complexity analysis. reminds us that the stage of development of an intellectual structure can be determined through the consensus of the scientific community on the theoretical structures of the research themes and the methodological approaches used to explore them. Therefore, this section presents the evolution of intellectual structure (Figure6, 7, and 8) of service innovation, service logics and service system research. This structure includes the links between themes, theories, and authors over three periodsbetween 1986 and 2015: P1 (1986- 1995); P2 (1996-2005); P3 (2006-2015). Aligned with the interpretative epistemological paradigm and the becoming ontology, and based on a historical approach by the sociology of science to analyse intellectual structure, the authors present the results of quantitative and qualitative corpus analysis.

  pus. This corpus was present in the following WoS categories: Management, Planning Development, and Economics. Similarly to the Carlborg et al. (2014) analysis, our findings show that in this period, service innovation research is present but marginal. On the other hand, service systems and service logic research are almost inexistent except for the work of Kingman-Brundage et al.

  The widespread notion of innovation from the Schumpeterian perspective covers five fields: 1) the entrance of a new good or product characteristic (product innovation); 2) introduction of a new production method (process innovation); 3) the opening of a new market (market innovation); 4) the introduction of a new supplier of raw materials (innovation of inputs); and (5) the establishment of a new organisation (organisational innovation) (Schum-

  innovation in manufacturing industries to the service industries. In this period, a large part of researchers treated the services as another offer entirely comparable to tangible products. Our research shows that in periods P2 and P3, researchers have argued for the non-compatibility of transposition of product-oriented theories to the service context. P1 dataset analysis shows that Kingman-Brundage et al. (1995) provides the first model for service logic in service systems. These authors suggest three fundamental logics for resource integration in a service system: customer, technical, and employee logics. A factor analysis of P1 corpus whit the VantagePoint thesaurus-based topic modelling highlights 4 factors, which represent the corpus intellectual structure of this period (figure 6a and 6b). Complete FA P1 matrix Table

  Lancaster's theory of 1966 and the approach of Saviotti and Metcalfe to propose their "Characteristics-based approach (C-B A)". These authors have considered that the characteristics of innovation processes play an important role in service innovation. Furthermore, their model has added two additional components: 1) the competence of the supplier to interact with the user and produce the desired output of service and 2) the competence of the customer which indicates the skills of the final user to understand and interact with the competence and technical characteristics of the supplier. Also, their work illuminates various modes of innovation: radical innovation, innovation based on improvement, innovation involving the addition of new characteristics, ad hoc innovation, recombinant/architectural innovation, and innovation through formalisation. As will be seen later in the period P3, De Vries (2006) and Savona & Steinmueller (2013) extended Gallouj & Weinstein (1997)'s approach for better contextualisation to the digital service research (cf. P3).

(

  2000) has attempted to develop a comprehensive model to conceptualise service innovation. Their model includes four dimensions of service innovations: 1) new service concept; 2) new customers interface; 3) technological options, and 4) new service delivery. According to this perspective, each innovation in the service context consists of a combination of previous dimensions at different de-grees. Den Hertog's model implies that not only new services are being discussed, but also new organisational frameworks, new processes, and new technologies that improve the service offer. Den Hertog concluded that this permits to map, analyse, and manage the diversity of innovations in more detail and a structured manner through discussions with decision-makers and service providers. Another reported factor into P2 was the "knowledgeintensive services (KIS)". This factor covers the themes "knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS)", "knowledge-intensive services (KIS)", and "value-coproduction". In this factor, Miles et al. (2000) examine the challenges of innovation and KIBS. Besides, for Gallouj & Weinstein (1997), innovation in services may appear as an ad hoc innovation in KIS, where service providers customise services for each customer and develop new service portfolios for a market. In this way, the search of Wood (2002) addresses several issues in the context of the development of KIS in urban areas. For this author, the identified issues are related to the competitive basis of cities and the degree to which they possess distinctive sources of innovation. Also, Den Hertog (2000) proposes an analysis of the role played by KIBS in innovation in organisations. According to Den Hertog, KIBS are external companies enabling an organisation to acquire and develop new knowledge for developing a competitive advantage. This author points out that KIBS play an important role either as a facilitator or as a source of innovation.

  tion in services were based on technological approaches and focused exclusively on the adoption of technological innovations, to the detriment of non-technological innovations. These authors argued that technological approaches could be interpreted in a variety of practical and theoretical ways. The authors stressed that the boundary between products and services is becoming blurred. Furthermore, in this factor, Lyytinen & Rose (2003) have discussed disruptive IT-based innovations in services and processes.

  analyse the role of standards in the promotion, activation, and barriers of innovation in mobile services. Their study shows how standards have shaped specific configurations of stakeholder networks that have enabled the rapid and aggressive development and deployment of 2G mobile infrastructures and a transition to 3G services. These networks of actors span three distinct and critical areas: the regulatory regime, the innovation system, and the market place. They point out that standards play essential roles because they serve as mediators of interests and motivations of different actors.

  ) mobilised the resource-based view to analyse the e-services. This author stressed that in the hypercompetitive and rapid market of new IT, a large number of new business models are needed for the competitive advantage of tech companies and organisations offering e-services. The author points out that e-services offer new opportunities for companies, which must respond quickly to maintain their market position. In the field of e-services,[START_REF] Michalski | E-service innovations through corporate entrepreneurship[END_REF] discusses the possibilities of innovations at the level of business models. He examined means that could lead global technology companies to a rapid and systematic generation of business models for e-services to increase their competitiveness. Furthermore, their paper suggested integrating an R&D department within companies focusing on business models and technological innovations.[START_REF] Walker | Managing technology-enabled service innovations[END_REF] considered several managerial implications associated with the development and adoption of technological services. These authors examined the impact of technology on service delivery using the theory of innovation diffusion. Also, in this factor, Van Birgelen et al. (2005) investigated the effects of e-service quality on customer satisfaction, complementing traditional quality service frameworks. They proposed a model to analyse traditional services and eservices through the combination of traditional theoretical frameworks. In the factor "product-service innovation" the model of Lievens & Moenaert (2000) examined specific services characteristics during innovation processes: intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity, and perishability.4.3. P3 intellectual structure (2006 -2015 forward)

  hyay et al. (1995, p. 138), these technologies are characterised by the vertical integration of information among trading partners along their value chain. Regarding the evolution of IT in P3, the context is marked for the development of smart technologies, Internet of Things and big data (Medina-Borja, 2015; Maglio & Lim, 2016), which need the activation of new features (Yoo, 2010) and new digital capabilities. Some examples of such characteristics are ubiquity, self-organisation, and the sensitivity to the context of the daily activities of the users. These features inherent to smart technologies go beyond the simple digitisation of service by traditional IT.

  searchers focused on digital innovation and digital service innovation research areas. Some transpositions of service innovation, service logics and service system disciplinary research into information system management field were illustrated by the articles of[START_REF] Lusch | Service Innovation: A Service-Dominant-Logic perspective[END_REF];[START_REF] Eaton | Distributed tuning of boundary resources: the case of Apple's iOS service system[END_REF];[START_REF] Barrett | Service Innovation in the Digital Age : Key Contributions and Future Directions[END_REF];[START_REF] Srivastava | Bridging the Service Divide Through Digitally Enabled Service Innovations: Evidence from Indian Healthcare Service Providers[END_REF];[START_REF] Huang | IT-Related Service: A Multidisciplinary Perspective[END_REF]. In this context,Huang & Rust (2013, p. 257) concluded that "IT transforms and renovates service into two seemingly polarized directions: making service more goods-like (more tangible, separable, homogeneous, and storable) or even more service-like (less tangible and separable, but more personalized and perishable)". According to these authors, the two directions provide two evolution paths for service and manufacturing companies, which may perhaps end up blurring the distinction between goods and services. Furthermore, Huang and Rust have invited researchers from various disciplines to contribute to service research to broaden and enrich our understanding of IT services (e.g. e-services, m-services), and to advance towards a better comprehension of ser-vice systems. 4.3.1. P3 (2006 -2015) theoretical point of view Concerning theories in the P3 corpus intellectual structure, data reveals that there has been a marked number of articles based on the following theories: Systemic innovation theory; complex adaptive systems theory; Miller's theory of living systems and systemic thinking; modular systems theory; modularity theory; collective action theory; institutional theory; neo-institutional theory; action theory; contingency theory; design theory; dynamic capability theory; structuration theory; practice theory; activity theory; agency theory; consumer theory; Lancaster's theory; the characteristics-based approach/theory; competence-based theory; knowledgebased theory; resource-based theory; conservation of resources theory; absorptive capacity theory; actor-network theory (ANT); behavioural reasoning theory; consumer culture theory; consumer resistance theory; disruptive innovation theory; queueing theory; reasoned action theory; service-oriented theory; social capital theory; Abrahamson's management fashion theory; innovation diffusion theory; user innovation theory.

4. 3

 3 .2. P3 (2006 -2015) factor analysis The application of NLP techniques to P3 corpus allowed to extract 19,607 terms. Data reduction techniques allowed to synthesise them into 164 latent terms used for factor analysis. The execution of factor analysis illuminated the 23 factors representing the P3 period structure (Figure 8a and 8b). Despite the popularity of the SDL, the other logics revealed by the P3 corpus did not have enough weight to appear after the factor analysis. Therefore, they are shown in the complete factor analysis matrix in the appendix .4.

For

  example, Tsou & Hsu (2011); Tsou & Chen (2012); Tsou et al. (2014) analyse the effects of market and technology orientations on innovations in service delivery. According to these authors, IT became indispensable in service management. In this context, the dynamic capability perspective also emphasises that the company's internal and external sources can be adapted, configured, and coordinated quickly and efficiently through service innovation processes geared to the IT new context. Tsou & Hsu (2011) emphasise the need to move towards the development of "e-service innovation" based on the dynamic capacity of resources absorption: an internal driving force capable of combining internal and external resources to increase their operating capacity through internal cooperation, coordination, and relational capacities. In P3 Savona & Steinmueller (2013) have extended the characteristics-based approach of Gallouj & Weinstein (1997)), by considering the client's time in the service experience. Their contribution on functionalities associated with the use of ICTs in defining and delivering services based on technical and competency characteristics.

  has used network theory to analyse the complexity of a service system. Additionally,Chae (2012a[START_REF] Chae | A complexity theory approach to IT-enabled services (IESs) and service innovation: Business analytics as an illustration of IES[END_REF] have analysed KIBS applying complexity theory.Chae (2012a) proposed an analytic framework that suggests an ambidextrous view of research (a combination of local and global research). Other authors[START_REF] Barile | Linking the viable system and manyto-many network approaches to service-dominant logic and service science[END_REF][START_REF] Barile | Reflections on service systems boundaries: A viable systems perspective. The case of the London Borough of Sutton[END_REF][START_REF] Barile | Service economy, knowledge, and the need for T-shaped innovators[END_REF] dealing with the complex service system and the viable service system. They argued that complex service systems are often ICT-based because technology facilitates the re-configuration and smartness behaviour in complex environments[START_REF] Demirkan | Service-oriented technology and management: Perspectives on research and practice for the coming decade[END_REF].They pointed out that complex service systems are everywhere, e.g., health services, traffic management, smart grids energy sources, and waste management. Moreover,[START_REF] Wu | Applying complexity theory to deepen service dominant logic: Configural analysis of customer experience-and-outcome assessments of professional services for personal transformations[END_REF] point out that complexity theory provides a sound basis for SDL advancing. Furthermore, Akaka et al.(2013) argued that the multiplicity of institutions influences the complex nature of a service system at micro, meso and macro levels.

  2014; Arduini & Zanfei, 2014) examined the notion of a smart city from digital innovation in public services. For these authors, the growing attention given to electronic public services is only partially reflected in the literature. As a result, their study developed a meta-analysis of the literature on the delivery, dissemination, adoption, and impact of public electronic services in five categories of services: e-government, e-education, e-health, info-mobility, and e-procurement. Their research has revealed a significant heterogeneity of scientific production in the service categories. Their work highlights that ICTs en-able the availability of service offers and accessibility of high-quality, real-time value-added services virtually anywhere, enabling unprecedented participation of citizens, businesses, and other institutions. These authors pointed out that it is necessary more research analysing of institutional changes and public policies. Misuraca et al. (2011) seek to contribute to the European academic and institutional debate on interoperability as a means of enabling governments to collaborate within member states and across frontiers. For these authors, debates are necessary to formulate an interdisciplinary framework for assessing the different dynamics of service systems emerging from ICT based service innovations in European cities. Further, the "Internet of Things" (IoT) factor regroup the themes "Big Data", "Smart /tourism", "Smart Service System", and "Tourism". This factor is linked to the IT Service Innovation factor. Inside this factor, Perera et al. (2014) argued that IoT plans to connect and use billions of sensors to the Internet for efficient service systems management in smart cities. According to Xu (2012, p. 716), IoT's smart capabilities and features enable innovation in services by expanding human and nonhuman-centric data collection and providing smart services through integrated sensor networks.

Figure 9 :

 9 Figure 9: Patterns of service logics college evolution. Source: adapted from Vogel (2012).

  4.4. Intellectual Structure Evolution DynamicsThe P1, P2, P3 factor maps presented in the previous sections (figures 6, 7, 8) and complete factors maps in appendices(.2, .3, .4) have offered a broadened view of service innovation, service logics and service system research over thirty years. Our examination suggests that, while various aspects of the structure remained stable over time, some notable changes are reflecting technological evolution and complexity of service systems regarding sustainable, public, intrinsic and economic value co-creation. Similarly to[START_REF] Vogel | The Visible Colleges of Management and Organization Studies: A Bibliometric Analysis of Academic Journals[END_REF], figure9, presents seven dynamics patterns of intellectual structure service logics evolution colleges:

  with a higher degree of specialisation. It is thus a pattern of divergent evolution (p. 1032). Public Service-Dominant Logic decided to separate from the Service-Dominant Logic of the Market, to become known as Public Service Logic and to be based more on the creation of public value.• Fusion: occurs when two or more previously independent colleges merge into a single college (p. 1032). Practically the SDL and the SSMED are part of the same college. SDL has even been declared to be the pillar of SSMED.• Implosion: is what happens when a college disappears without a successor. Like the appearance of new, so the disappearance of extant colleges is a common feature of evolving scientific fields. Only a few colleges survive longer than a decade, and 'mortality' is particularly high among peripheral colleges.

  logics resulting from the analysis indicated how institutional logics shape the capture of value by a subset of actors (Figure10and Table4). While most of the corpus publications focused on one level of market analysis does not mean that what happens at other levels is less important. For example, in P3, many of the articles are based on SDL. However, a few studies are based on other service logics allowing to consider the individual and collective level of analysis. Results have shown that few studies were positioned from the perspective of the analysis of antagonistic and complimentary service logics. Also, outside of the corpus few researchers (Silva-Morales, 2017) was found that includes public[START_REF] Osborne | The SERVICE Framework: A Public-service-dominant Approach to Sustainable Public Services[END_REF][START_REF] Osborne | From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organizations capable of coproduction and value co-creation[END_REF] and private[START_REF] Lusch | Service Innovation: A Service-Dominant-Logic perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Vargo | Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic[END_REF] antagonist and complementary service logics analysis. As well, several investigations concluded that value creation was not clear in the literature. For example,[START_REF] Hietanen | Against the implicit politics of service-dominant logic[END_REF] suggest that value is an enduring chimaera in managerial and social sciences, and that value becomes thoroughly subjective, a matter of consumer's personal experiences. In this regards, institutional pluralism and complexity in service logics can allow advancing in the analysis and understanding of value creation or destruction. Table

  ability to generate new ideas. According to this author, recent studies indicate a misunderstanding of this concept by some institutionalist researchers in institutional logics on what Weber recommends concerning the construction of ideal-types. Such researchers ignore the question of axiological neutrality and the impossibility of finding standard ideals empirically. In this regard, this author suggests that the manner as ideal types were used in the institutional logic studies should be reconsidered. Without further delay, below we present some latent service logics in the analysed corpus 5.1. Service logics and the individual level of analysis Employee, client, customer logics (figure 10a) are linked whit value co-production, value co-creation, value co-destruction, value-in-use, value-in-context, value-inexperience, value-in-exchange, intrinsic-value, publicvalue, sustainable-value. The value can only be created or destroyed by the user of the service. In some cases, employees can contribute to the destruction or creation of value, especially front-line employees. Figure 10b suggests that a research design can consider a) that individuals adhere to a single dominant logic; b) that individuals straddle between two or more logics within their organisation, amidst contradictory institutional demands. According to D'Adderio et al. (

  (a) Service logics at individual, organisational and field level. Source: Authors.

  (b) Institutional logics research designs. Source: adapted from[START_REF] Casasnovas | Constructing organizations as actors: Insights from changes in research designs in the study of institutional logics. In Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency[END_REF].

Figure 10 :

 10 Figure 10: Individual, organisational and field level service logics (co-existence / domination), artefacts and routines (intensive / preformative) to value creation / destruction.

Direction 1 :

 1 [START_REF] Besharov | Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications[END_REF], key dimensions of logical multiplicity in organisations, dependent on heterogeneity concerning how multiple logics manifest within organisations are compatibility and centrality. The first dimension describes the degree of compatibility between multiple logic organisational instances. These authors have defined compatibility as the extent to which logical instances imply coherence and reinforcement of organisational actions. They pointed out that consistency with respect to the objectives of organisational action is more critical for compatibility than consistency with respect to the means by which the objectives achieved must be achieved. The second dimension describes the extent to which multiple logics manifest central characteristics that are central to organisational functioning.5.3. Service logics and the field level of analysisForLusch & Nambisan (2015, p. 158), the servicedominant logic is based on a fundamental idea developed by the economic scholar Frederic Bastiat: all actors in an exchange deploy skills and competences when making an offering of their service to one another. Thus, value is the "comparative appreciation of reciprocal skills or services that are exchanged to obtain utility; value[means] 'value in use'". The SDL evolved from 2004 to 2008, passing from the notion of co-production to the notion of cocreation of value. WhenVargo & Lusch (2004, p. 1) put out that: "Marketing inherited a model of exchange from economics, which had a dominant logic based on the exchange of "goods," which usually are manufactured output", we suggest that perhaps there was a misunderstanding in their understanding of long socio-economic business cycle notion. Silva-Morales (2017) highlights paraphrasing Kondratiev and Schumpeter that, every new socio-economic cycle is related to a new kind of technology (product or service) that transforms society to offer novelties. For example, consumer products/services, production methods, standards, markets, types of industrial organisation, academic formations, job skills, works. Also, each business long cycle or Kondratiev wave has four phases: 1) depression, 2) recovery, 3) prosperity or expansion, and 4) recession. In other words, if, Vargo & Lusch (2004) argued that service logic replaces the 'old' goods logic, this research agrees with the criticism of Hietanen et al. (2017) for its tacit neo-liberalism, also with Saarij ärvi et al. (2017) article that concluded that SDL recent emphasis on studying markets instead of marketing. In line with Kondratiev waves, if good-dominant logic represents the old economic cycle based on products after the industrial revolution (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Kondratiev waves), the new service-dominant logic of the market represents the capitalist societal market logic (5th and 6th Kondratiev waves). Indeed, in the 1930s, the Russian economist Nikolai Kondratiev proposed a heuristic on socio-technical structural change in terms of development cycles. Kondratiev pointed out that modern economies fluctuate in cycles of 40 to 60 years, called waves of Kondratiev. Each Kondratiev wave is based on its technological innovation logic which generates a dominant (Dosi, 1982) technological paradigm, penetrating existing economic and social systems. In this context, the organisations or the pre-established actors are either displaced by new entrants, or in competition/coopetition, sometimes managing to survive and prosper in this new socio-economic cycle. Although there is no consensus on the dating of waves since different authors rely on slightly different chronologies (Wilenius & Casti, 2015, p. 339), the Kondratiev waves show several disruptive technologies which have influenced the transformation of economic cycles since 1822. The industrial revolution marked the first cycle; the second by railways and steel; the third by the appearance of chemicals and electrification; the fourth cycle through petrochemicals, the automotive industry and the start of mass production, even today; the fifth by the appearance of information and communication technologies; the sixth by the appearance of intelligent or smart technologies.Without regard to the Kondratiev waves, at the individual, organisational and field level, the number of professional institutions established within an institutional field and the relationships between them determine the degree of compatibility of logic[START_REF] Besharov | Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications[END_REF] and their influence (centrality). When multiple professional groups are active within a field and compete for resources and power, members of each profession emphasise the legitimacy of their knowledge base versus that of other professionals to maintain control[START_REF] Dunn | Institutional Logics and Institutional Pluralism: The Contestation of Care and Science Logics in Medical Education, 1967-2005[END_REF].[START_REF] Besharov | Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications[END_REF] suggest that this situation reduces compatibility since each professional group affirms its logic as unique with the logic of other professional groups. In contrast, when only one professional group is active in a field when several professional groups are active, but one is dominant, or when the claims of different professional groups do not overlap, fewer battles for control occur, resulting in greater compatibility of logic. Also, these authors define centrality as the degree to which multiple logics are relevant to organisational functioning. Said centrality is higher when various central logics are created for organisational functioning. It is less when a logical only guide core operation, while others are not directly linked to the functioning of the organisation. Likewise, these authors suggest four types of logic multiplicity in organisations according to a high or low degree of centrality and compatibility: 1) contested (extensive conflict); 2) aligned (minimal conflict) 3) estranged (moderate conflict) 4) dominant (no conflict). This provides a basis for linking institutional approaches to multiplicity within organisations with other theoretical traditions that address issues of multiple goals, values and identities within organisations. Their field, organisation and individual level of analysis framework lay the foundation to consider additional factors at each of these levels and the relationships between them.Future researchIn line with the research of[START_REF] Casasnovas | Constructing organizations as actors: Insights from changes in research designs in the study of institutional logics. In Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency[END_REF] that proposed various research designs on 1) coexistence, 2) domination, at the field, organisation or individual level of institutional logic (Figure10b), future research on service logics and service systems innovation may analyse institutional change at the field, organisational or individual level: 1) from a co-existence perspective or 2) from a dominant perspective. Future studies may analyse how an organisational field changed from having a single dominant logic to having another. The second genre of research in figure 10b, concern a constellation of logic or institutional complexity. This encompasses processes at the field level, where it is seen that two or more logics have a continuous and robust presence. The third type of investigation in figure 10b concerns how multiple logics can coexist peacefully or in permanent conflict, or can also be combined into a new hybrid field-level logic. According to these authors, a "hybrid organisation" refers to those organisations that are integrated into multiple logics, and the focus is on the strategies they carry out to respond to contradictory demands, such as oscillation, synthesis, response or selective coupling. The fourth genre of research is called individual coping and represents the individual intersections of coexistence and the individual level the figure 10b. This includes research focused on how individuals within organisations deal with the conflicting demands of multiple institutional logics. These studies generally present different mechanisms by which individuals cope with this complexity, such as compartmentalisation, hybridisation, negotiation, or bridging. Complexity and multi-dimensionality of service logics at the field level

  cal implications: Internet of Things (IoT) and Mobile technologies (IoT-based service system, PSS), Data Science, Big Data, Open Data, Digitalisation, Digital Infrastructure, Interoperability, Platform-ecosystem, Mobile Ecosystems, Digital platform, Generativity/governance, Boundary resources (APIs, standards) and Digital divide. Agility in the evolution of technologies has highlighted opportunities for innovation in service systems. For Demirkan et al. (2015); Maglio & Lim (2016), due to the confluence of large amounts of data, mobile applications, the cloud and the Internet of Things, service innovation has captivated the attention of many firms in recent years. According to these authors, this represents promising ways for organisations to provide news services in a fast and efficient way. The combination of physical and digital components (Yoo et al., 2010) through platforms (Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2013) and digital infrastructures (Tilson et al., 2010) has increased the generative nature of digital technologies through service innovation (Henfridsson & Bygstad, 2013) within service systems. This combination makes it necessary to integrate and coordinate new actors with new resources, characteristics and capabilities, such as competencies and knowledge in digital infrastructures such as sensors, IoT, big data, smart technologies. Our results showed the evolution from service systems to smart service systems needs analyse innovation in service systems based on real-time data of sensors, IoT artefacts and smart technologies

Figure 11 :Direction 3 :

 113 Figure 10 consider in the field level sustainable logic concerning the environmental dimension. In this sense, in view of nature conservation and transformative service research (Anderson et al., 2013; Kuppelwieser & Finsterwalder, 2016) we propose the following research questions: How service logics co-existence can integrate longterm initiatives for the development of sustainable service systems at local, regional, national and global levels of analysis? How can sustainable logic encourage citizens to contribute to urban service systems transformation to sustainable cities (Anderson et al., 2013; Silva-Morales, 2017)? Direction 2: Complexity and multi-dimensionality of service logics at the organisational level One of the main challenges of collaboration between private organisations and research centres with the government is the environmental issue. Public and private organisations are very different, which makes it challenging to work in inter-organisational teams. For example, the goals public organisations are public services, and they are accountable to the public on a large scale while, on the other hand, private organisations are concerned about their shareholders and for these reasons their interests may become different in many ways. Such a difference of interests can cause clashes in the collaboration between public and private organisations (Silva-Morales, 2017). Also, Mikhaylov et al. (2018) suggest more research direction on artificial intelligence for the public sector. Public organisations work according to state orders, while private organisations work according to market demand. This separates the real interests of the two organisations on many points. Due to this problem, owners of private

  lowing questions: Which aspects of the dialogic process that occurs during service delivery facilitate or undermine the notion of the well-being of service users (Anderson et al., 2013) ? How can resources be orchestrated in service systems to create service innovations through service logics in the context of the developing countries (Srivastava & Shainesh, 2015)? How ostensive and performative routines can contribute to the creation of value through artefacts D'Adderio et al. (2011)? Direction 4: ecological service logics and dynamic service system transformation Researchers in the field of public management and other disciplines have highlighted the lack of analytic frameworks to understand the logic of digital innovation in public service systems, their evolution, modes of configuration

  at field-level data to understand what institutional logics are present in a certain setting, at organizational processes to observe whether the overlap of different logics results in challenges or opportunities (or both), and at inter-organizational relations to keep track of the role that different types of actors have in the field dynamics. This often means including different types of data, from policy documents and industry reports to interviews with a wide range of organizations, and from data on organizational performance to observation of field-events.

  and to understand resource integration in service systems at individual and collective levels. This research direction motivates the following research question: To advance the understanding of different service systems, how can the combination or co-existence of various service logics support innovations in complex service systems? Also, it is necessary to understand the boundaries and relationships between co-production, value cocreation[START_REF] Prahalad | Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation[END_REF][START_REF] Leclercq | Ten years of value co-creation: An integrative review[END_REF], value co-destruction[START_REF] Echeverri | Co-creation and co-destruction: A practice-theory based study of interactive value formation[END_REF][START_REF] Smith | The value co-destruction process: a customer resource perspective[END_REF], value-in-use, value-in-context, value-inexperience, value-in-exchange within a service system and multilevel service logics. Moreover, it is essential to understand the specificity of public value and economic value. Thus, future research will address the following questions: How can multilevel service logics encourage service systems transformations ? According to public service logic, how do public service organisations integrate and coordinate the heterogeneity of resources and new characteristics of "smart service systems" ? How the balance between different logics evolves in pluralist fields; how do the different actors, public, private and citizens, negotiate different logics and, in so doing, contribute to maintaining the balance between the logics within the different fields and level of analysis, for example, at societal, collective, individual? Limitations This research has methodological and conceptual limitations. From a methodological point of view, a known limitation in the area of machine learning and factorial analysis is the judgement of the number of factors. In this context, another number of factors can not reveal the same outputs. In fact, according to Evangelopoulos et al. (2012) terms selection and dimensionality selection remains an open issue in analytic data algorithms. Also, the estimation of an appropriate number of dimensions, clusters, factors, or predefined categories remains an open issue in data science. Also, quantitative and qualitative phases with data, methodological, analytical and theoretical triangulation is a very long process uninviting for researcher triangulation. In this context, data is available in a repository. Future research would be interesting to complementary analysis: 1) Use other longitudinal scientific mapping tools -for example, CiteSpace R or SciMAT R . 2) Use other bibliometric techniques (e.g., bibliographic coupling). 3) Set additional 5-year periods to analyse changes in research fronts. 4) Include other documents such as books or conference proceedings. While our research was based on triangulation of data and efforts were made such as dividing the corpus into several periods to reduce some biases in a scientific publication such as authority bias, our research was limited to articles in peer-reviewed English. From an artificial intelligence point of view, it is still a challenge to analyse texts in different languages for issues such as multilingual polysemy and synonymy. Although more complex, future research may include multi-language research, book chapters, and conference communications. Conclusions Being this research in agreement with the vision about the literature review proposed by Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic (2014), as a process for: "Generally, the term 'literature review' can refer to a published product such as literature reviews presented as parts of research reports (e.g. in papers or theses) or a stand-alone literature review publication. Literature reviews examine and critically assess existing knowledge in a particular problem domain, forming a foundation for identifying weaknesses and poorly understood phenomena, or enabling problematization of assumptions and theoretical claims in the existing body of knowledge... Literature reviews typically provide: an overview, synthesis and a critical assessment of previous research; challenge or problematize existing approaches, theories and findings; and identify or construct novel research problems and promising research questions (p. 258). Maps and classifications help in analyzing connections and disconnections, explicit or hidden contradictions, and missing explanations, and thereby identify or construct white spots or gaps... A critical assessment of the body of literature thus demonstrates that literature is incomplete, that certain aspects/phenomena are overlooked, that research results are inconclusive or contradictory, and that knowledge related to the targeted problem is in some ways inadequate... Ultimately such a mapping and classification allows the researcher to critically assess the body of literature, reveal weaknesses and underresearched problems and/or to problematize dominant knowledge claims (p. 267)". In this sense, combining network analytic, quantitative and qualitative approaches allowed to answer the following research questions: From a longitudinal analysis of digital innovation, service innovation and service system research, what service logics are latent in the academic literature (English journal articles)? How has this intellectual structure evolved (1986-2015)? This research has methodological and theoretical implications. From a methodological point of view, this research provides a longitudinal quantitative-qualitative methodology for the revision of literature as well as the bases to a new inclusive and pluralist paradigm based on co-existence of service logics research. From a theoretical point of view, this article proposed an integrative framework for designing pluralistic research on service logic and innovation in service systems. The analysis of the P1, P2 and P3 corpus showed the need for a change in the focus of service research: from a dominant perspective to a pluralistic perspective. A multilevel pluralistic perspective approach can provide opportunities for empirical resolution of theoretical discussions of service logic, service systems, innovation, and value creation. This article calls for expanding institutional research on service logics, based analytical tools and pluralistic theoretical lenses. From the sociology of science point of view, our results corroborate the ideas of Whitley (1984) on fragmented adhocracies. This author affirms that the political structures of fragmented adhocracies are pluralistic and shifting with dominant alliances being formed by temporary and unstable groups controlling resources and charismatic leaders (p. 341). This author has drawn attention to certain contextual features of management fields that are likely to prevent the establishment of a more unified and integrated intellectual field. The findings show that intellectual structure evolution insinuates that service innovation, service logics and service system research is moving slowly from a fragmented adhocracy towards integrated interdisciplinary service research. Service research needs to be redirected to propose pluralist approaches regarding service logics. It is necessary to offer other alternatives based on the service logics co-existence, in parallel to approaches based on a service-dominant logic, the pillar of the Service Science. By considering the limitation of mostly analysing a dominant logic approach, a reorientation of service logics research is essential. The study several service research communities over time through this article put out the need for new paradigms or research programs. In this sense, the philosophy of science perspectives of Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos or Feyerabend could be useful to restructure service logic and innovation in service systems research. Then, research in service, service logics and service system innovation will have come a long way: 1) from a fragmented and fragmented knowledge into disciplinary silos; 2) to a dominant logic; 3) towards an interdisciplinary, pluralist and ecological thought based on the co-existence of inclusive (individual and collective) service logics as an alternative to a dominant logic research design. Data repository Raw and processed data are available in the following repository https://github.com/milensys/Article_ Data. Bibliography Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns of industrial Innovation. Technology Review, 80, 40-47. URL: http://teaching.up. edu/bus580/bps/Abernathy%20and%20Utterback%2C%201978.pdf. Akaka, M. A., Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2013). The Complexity of Context : A Service Marketing. Journal of International Marketing, 21, 1-20. URL: https://doi.org/10.1509/jim.13.0032. doi:10.1509/jim.13.0032.

Figure

  Figure B.18: P1 Force Atlas 2 authors X themes network.

Table 1 :

 1 Top ten English peer-reviewed journals of the P1 corpus(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)

	Journals

sively on technological innovation. In this model, TICS enables service innovation when the service sectors adopt it. The data corpus used in this research show that this model was criticised in the P2 period for being based only on the technological characteristics of innovation, thus underestimating non-technological innovations.

Table 2

 2

	presents an overview of the top ten journals
	composing the P2 corpus. Total P2 corpus consists of
	57 peer-reviewed English journal articles representing the
	intellectual structure of service innovation, service log-
	ics and service system research. Part of P2 corpus is
	available in the following WoS categories: Management,
	Business, Engineering, Industrial, Operations Research,
	Planning Development, Engineering, Multidisciplinary, In-
	formation Science Library Science, Political Science, and

Public Administration. According to the P2 corpus, the five most cited articles are:

[START_REF] Vargo | Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing[END_REF][START_REF] Gallouj | Innovation in Services[END_REF]

,

[START_REF] Atuahene-Gima | Market orientation and innovation[END_REF]

,

[START_REF] Sundbo | Management of Innovation in Services[END_REF] Evangelista &[START_REF] Evangelista | Innovation in the Service Sector: Results from the Italian Statistical Survey[END_REF]

.

shows that there are few papers about service logics and service systems, except for

[START_REF] Vargo | Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing[END_REF]

's article about a new dominant-logic for marketing, Lee (2003)'s paper about smart product and service systems for e-business transformation, Tukker (2004)'s study regarding product-service systems sustainability, and Mont (2002)'s research to clarify the concept of product-service systems. Factor analysis with MDS has reduced these 41 constructs into 12 factors representing the latent intellectual structure of P2 dataset (Figure 7a and 7b). Complete FA P2 matrix Table .3 is available in appendices. The twelve representing factors are detailed in the following paragraphs.

Table 2 :

 2 Top ten English peer-reviewed journals of the P2 corpus(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)

	Journals

Table 3 :

 3 Top thirty English peer-reviewed journals of the P3 corpus(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)

	Journals

Table . 1

 . : Query research criteria in Scopus and Web of Science databases

  (ARTICLE OR EDITORIAL MATERIAL OR REVIEW) AND LANGUAGES: (ENGLISH) AND DOCUMENT TYPES: (ARTICLE OR REVIEW) Indexes=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI Timespan=1986-2015

	Cumulative Variance Cumulative Variance 9,098	16,261	22,642	28,45	34,069	24,406 39,233	44,368	42,819 49,341	55,558 53,62	65,875 57,69	61,5	64,961
	Variance	Variance	9,098	7,162	6,38	5,808	5,618	24,406 5,164	5,135	18,413 4,972	12,738 4,278	4,07	10,316	3,81	3,46
	Factor/themes Factor/themes	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4	Factor 5	Factor 1 Factor 6 Factor 7	Factor 2 Factor 8	Factor 3 Factor 9	Factor 4 Factor 10 Factor 11
		Institutional						0,719	-0,641	-0,141	-0,205
		National government					0,719	-0,641	-0,141	-0,205
		National systems of innovation				0,719	-0,641	-0,141	-0,205
		Technology policy					0,719	-0,641	-0,141	-0,205
		Adoption and diffusion					0,148	0,497	0,364	0,017
		Service innovation					0,133	0,641	-0,198	-0,424
		Service sector/Service industries				0,091	0,294	0,581	0,055
		Innovation in services					0,081	0,261	0,48	0,702
		Absorptive capacity/ACAP					0,048	0,101	-0,204	0,592
		Technological innovation					0,043	0,16	-0,052	0,093
		Generation of new types of services				0,033	-0,003	0,908	-0,118
		Schumpeterian						0,033	-0,003	0,908	-0,118
		Information Technology					0	-0,024	0,006	0,934
		Product-service innovation					-0,008	0,141	-0,259	-0,118
		Reverse product cycle theory				-0,008	-0,09	0,717	0,481
		Consumer/customer/user					-0,149	0,106	0,667	-0,132
		Service logic						-0,333	-0,119	0,008	-0,334
		Complex service systems					-0,663	-0,502	-0,159	-0,113
		Quality of service					-0,663	-0,502	-0,159	-0,113
		Service system						-0,738	-0,461	-0,113	-0,332

Table .

 .

										4: P3 Factors/themes (2006-2015)
	Service science (SSMED)	-0,04	0,083 -0,083	-0,061	0,015 -0,005	-0,056	-0,018	0,054 -0,084	-0,046	0,026 0,056 0,07	0,022 0,597 0,013 0,021 -0,074	-0,029	0,163 0,071 -0,119
	Open innovation Smart City/smart	-0,041 -0,042	-0,01	-0,09	-0,13	-0,139	0,031 0,072 -0,023	0,118 0,106 0,043 0,213 -0,06	0,025 -0,04	-0,198	0,03	0,364 -0,059	-0,091	-0,069	-0,072	-0,063
	city services

(a) P1 FactorsXAuthors (b) P1 FactorsXThemes/Theories Figure6: P1 intellectual structure themes and theories over time(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995) with latent service logics and service system research.

(a) P2 FactorsXAuthors (b) P2 FactorsXThemes/TheoriesFigure 7: P2 intellectual structure themes and theories over time (1996-2005) with latent service logics and service system research.

(a) P3 FactorsXAuthors (b) P3 FactorsXThemes/Theories Figure 8: P3 intellectual structure themes and theories over time (2006-2015) with latent service logics and service system research.

Figure A.12: P1 network. Degree centrality of themes (in red) by authors (in blue).

Figure A.13: P2 network. Degree centrality of themes (in red) by authors (in blue).

Figure A.14: P3 network. Degree centrality of themes (in red) by authors (in blue).

Figure B.16: Country of authors' affiliation P2.

Figure B.17: Country of authors' affiliation P3.

Maniatopoulos, GregoryMarandi, Ebi Martin, Mike Martin, Patrick Matei, Sorin Mattelmaki, Tuuli Mattsson, Jan McCole, Patrick McHugh, Patricia McKechnie, Sally McLoughlin, Damien McLoughlin, Ian Meijerink, Jeroen Melton, Horace Menendez-Benito, H D Menéndez-Benito, H. D. Mercado, Cecilia Miceli, Lucia Miller, H. G. Min, Choo Zhi Minton, G. Miyazaki, Kumiko Moeller, Miriam Mohd Isa, S. Morgan, Felicia N Morgan, Tyler R Mueller, Benjamin Multisilta, J. Myllärniemi, V. Service innovation Yoo, Youngjin Gallouj, Faiz Bouwman, Harry Chae, Bongsug (Kevin) Choi, Jisun Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia Avellaneda, Claudia N Barile, Sergio Boland, Richard J., Jr. Carlo, Jessica Luo Chae, B. Chang, Ching-Hsun Chang, Yuan-Chieh Consoli, Davide Deokar, Amit V Djellal, Faridah El-Gayar, Omar F Goul, Michael Gruhl, Daniel Janssen, Marijn Kajikawa, Yuya Kim, Jieun Majchrzak, Ann Misuraca, Gianluca Rahman, Syed Abidur Rajagopal Ritala, Paavo Rose, Gregory M Sakata, Ichiro Saviano, Marialuisa Shih, T.-Y. Stare, Metka Taghizadeh, Seyedeh Khadijeh Walker, Richard M Wang, Zhongjie Abdous, M. Ageron, B. Ahmad, Noor Hazlina Akiyama, Masanori Alfano, G.

Kuusik, Andres Kyoya, Y. Lages, Luis Filipe Lai, Jung-Yu Lai, Kee-hung Laine, E. Lambert, D. M. Lanestedt, Gjermund Laukkanen, T. Lee, B. C. Y. Lee, Changyong Lee, E.-J. Lee, Hakyeon Lee, Hyejung Lee, Hyunju Lee, Jae-Nam Lee, Jaegul Lee, Min Kyung Lee, Wen-Yee Lempinen, Heikki Lenka, Sambit Leonardi, Paul M. Lewis, Mark O Liao, Chien Hsiang Liao, Shuling Liao, Wen-Hsuan Lim, K. H. Lim, Ming K Lin, Hong-Nan Lin, Jwu-Rong Lin, L. H. Lin, Shang-Ping Lin, Sheng-Chih Lin, Yong Little, E. Liu, Ren-Jye Lofberg, Nina Loukis, E. Love, James H Lu, I. Y. Lu, T. Luo Junwei Lyons, M. H. Lyu, C. Löbler, H. Löfberg, N. Lüthje, C. Mahr, Dominik Maniatopoulos, Gregory Marandi, Ebi Martin, Mike Martin, Patrick Martini, M. Matei, Sorin Mattelmaki, Tuuli Mattsson, Jan McCole, Patrick McHugh, Patricia McKechnie, Sally Service innovation Gallouj, Faiz Yoo, Youngjin Bouwman, Harry Chae, Bongsug (Kevin) Choi, Jisun Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia Rose, Gregory M Walker, Richard M Avellaneda, Claudia N Barile, Sergio Boland, Richard J., Jr. Carlo, Jessica Luo Chae, B. Chang, Ching-Hsun Chang, Yuan-Chieh Consoli, Davide Deokar, Amit V Djellal, Faridah Dos Santos, Brian L El-Gayar, Omar F Goul, Michael Gruhl, Daniel Janssen, Marijn Kajikawa, Yuya Kim, Jieun Majchrzak, Ann Misuraca, Gianluca Rahman, Syed Abidur Rajagopal Ritala, Paavo Sakata, Ichiro Saviano, Marialuisa Shih, T.-Y. Stare, Metka Taghizadeh, Seyedeh Khadijeh Wang, Zhongjie

P1 FREEMAN'S DEGREE CENTRALITY MEASURES:

- Blau Heterogeneity = 1.38%. Normalized (IQV) = 0.45% Note: For valued data, the normalized centrality may be larger than 100.

Also, the centralization statistic is divided by the maximum value in the input dataset.

Actor-by-centrality matrix saved as dataset P2_authors_X_authors-deg ------------------------------------ Network Centralization = 0.27% Blau Heterogeneity = 0.12%. Normalized (IQV) = 0.05% Note: For valued data, the normalized centrality may be larger than 100.

Also, the centralization statistic is divided by the maximum value in the input dataset.

Actor-by-centrality matrix saved as dataset P1_P2_P3_authors_X_authors-deg ----------------------------------------Running time: 00:00:01

Output generated: 17 nov. 16 18:07:26 UCINET 6.620 Copyright (c) 1992-2016 Analytic Technologies