Abstract
The innovation intermediation (II) literature can be enriched by the professional service firm (PSF) literature when it comes to understanding the determinants of performance for different types of consultants that fulfil an II function in this era of digital transformation. The present study (1) contrasts two classic types of private-sector consultancy that have been shown to act as IIs amidst digital transformation (technology consultants vs. management consultants), and (2) shows how both II and the PSF literature point to three factors: the consultant's client focus, the level of innovativeness within the consultant's own firm, and extent to which the consultant's own firm can learn. Analysis of the effects of these factors is based on a dataset of 122 observations at PSF practice level divided between technology consultants and management consultants. We find for technology consultants innovativeness and learning are beneficial for performance, while for management consultants these factors do not matter and that client focus is key. We discuss implications for II research and practice.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
