Caracterización del caso: Historia de un bonito lugar

The concept of a digital industry is difficult to define, as digital also impacts on traditional industries and new digital sectors are also developing (Tech Nation, 2015). The focus of this study is at the organisational level of small digital marketing agencies in the UK, which implies agencies with less than 39 employees. The definition of small digital marketing agencies is based on the UK classification from the Recommended Agency Register (RAR). RAR is part of The Drum, the largest marketing platform in Europe. The RAR classification is as follows:

• Small marketing agencies: up to 39 employees • Medium marketing agencies: 40 to 99 employees

The revenues of digital companies are lower than the average revenues in the rest of the UK economy (NIESR, 2013). Therefore, the definition of small and medium enterprises provided by the European Union, where small enterprises are considered to have a turnover of up to 10 million euros, was not considered appropriate for the study. The chosen RAR classification was viewed to provide a more accurate representation of the digital marketing agencies in the UK. Furthermore, the RAR register provided a listing of digital marketing agencies (finalists and award winners to the UK RAR Awards) recognised for their achievement and innovation.

Based on the Chartered Institute of Marketing the study referred to digital marketing agencies as organisations specialised in the promotion of brands and/or products and services for client organisations through different digital media. They are included in the knowledge-intensive traded services sector by the UK Government, which also include professional and business services, the information economy and traded aspects of higher and further education (Gov UK, 2012). The wide range of services offered by digital marketing agencies means that their activities spread across the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) with different classification codes. This research considered small digital marketing agencies that were classified under the following UK SIC codes:

46180 - Agents specialised in the sale of other particular products 58290 - Other software publishing

61100 – Wired telecommunications activities – Web Portals (63120)

62011 - Ready-made interactive leisure and entertainment software development 62012 - Business and domestic software development

62020 - Information technology consultancy activities 62030 - Computer facilities management activities

62090 - Other information technology and computer service activities 73110 - Advertising agencies

73120 - Media representation services 74100 - Specialised design activities

82990 - Other business support service activities not elsewhere classified 70229 - Management consultancy activities other than financial management

The study acknowledges the concept of service innovation on the basis that innovation encompasses, new products, new processes, new services, and new organisational forms; this consideration was based on the Ettlie and Reza’s (1992) definition. With regard to the innovation process, Damanpour and Wischnevsky (2006) have established a distinction between the processes of innovation generation and innovation adoption. Therefore, the study acknowledged the innovation process (also referred to as the service innovation process) as that used by small digital marketing agencies to generate innovative services. Furthermore, the study recognises that the service innovation process includes three main stages, which, according to Toivonen (2010), are part of any innovation process, namely: innovation generation (emergence of ideas), innovation development (development of ideas), and innovation implementation (implementation of ideas).

Based on the conceptual distinctions of social capital from Brunie (2009) between relational, collective and generalised social capital the study adopted a relational approach. This approach emphasised that resources were embedded in social relationships and that social relationships enabled access to resources. Social capital can be external and internal to organisations and both are valuable contributors (Coleman, 1988; Adler and Kwon, 2002; Partanen et al, 2008). The focus of the study was on social capital that was external to small digital marketing agencies. This encompassed social relationships with the task environment (inter-organisational relationships) as opposed to internal relationships (intra-organisational relationships). Guided by the framework of Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), the structural and relational components of social capital were considered, to highlight the multiple dimensions of social relationships. The structural component was considered in terms of the strength of ties between the agencies and the third parties from their task environment. The strength of ties was explored through the notion of closeness of relationships and the frequency of interaction (Hansen, 1999; Frankenberger et al., 2013). The relational component was considered in terms of the trust in the relationships, which implied the confidence between parties and reflected in behaviours (Dietz and Den Hartog, 2006).

The third cognitive component of the framework, which draws attention to the concept of shared goals, was not explored, as it is more appropriate to studies conducted in the context of networks and with a particular focus on organisational strategy (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). All the above considerations enabled the study to establish and maintain meaningful limits to the scope of social capital and to define the basis of the social capital that was explored.

The study considered knowledge as a capital, on the basis that intangible assets are relevant to organisations; this was strengthened by the argument that knowledge is one of the two components of capital, with organisations (Marshall, 1965, in Nahapiet and Ghoshal, p.245). Knowledge capital referred to the knowledge that was available to small digital marketing agencies through their relationships with the task environment, and to the knowledge available internally through skills, abilities and expertise (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Adler and Kwon, 2002; Coff, 2002; Schweisfurth and Herstatt, 2016). Knowledge capital implied resources and knowing capabilities (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). The focus of the study was on the properties of knowledge, which were established by the theoretical characteristics of tacit (know-how) and explicit (codified) knowledge, and individual and collective knowledge (Polanyi, 1966; Nonaka, 1994, and Spender and Grant, 1996).

The concept of structural capital draws particular attention to the understanding of knowledge and social relationships as a creator of organisational value (Edvinsson and Sullivan, 1996; Edvinsson and Malone, 1997; Peppard and Rylander, 2001; Matthies, 2014). The study acknowledged that structural capital is both tangible and intangible and respectively consists of practices and ICT-based systems; these are used to capture and communicate knowledge internally and with the task environment, and to establish better communication with the task environment (Edvinsson, 1997; Zangoueinezhad and Moshabaki, 2008; Gogan et al. 2015; Kianto et al., 2017).