The meaning of service – part 2

The ongoing discussion about the meaning of service….

Contributors: Stuart Rance, Andreas Weick, Paul Huppertz, Peter Bergmann,  Mathias Traugott, Michael Geyer,  Peter Brooks, Christian Nissan, Charles Betz,  Majid Iqbal

 

POST_2_1: By Paul Huppertz

The definitions below evoke the following questions:

How and/or by means of which criteria is a required and/or desired service type practically

  • identified?
  • specified?
  • priced?
  • catalogued?
  • offered?
  • contracted?
  • realised?
  • verified?
  • billed?

Furthermore

  • Who will commission service providing from whom by means of which  documents?
  • Which roles are involved in a service engagement?
  • How is ensured that each explicitly triggered, singular & unique service is seamlessly & reliably rendered?
  • Which service acts are performed in which combination & sequence?
  • Which outcome is achieved by means of such service acts?

Paul Huppertz

 

POST_2_2: By Paul Huppertz

A tool, more precisely: a physical good is a set of functions. These functions have been implemented into the tool so that they are immanent. A tool user can actuate these functions whenever he needs to and/or wants to without the maker of the tool being present or involved.

 

In contrast, service-specific benefits must be effectuated from scratch by the accountable service provider whenever an authorized service consumer explicitly triggers a service. Thus, service consumer and service provider are simultaneously involved in the course of each singular & unique service transaction. This is marked as “inseparability of service” in the acronym IHIP.

Paul Huppertz

 

POST_2_3: By Peter Brooks

On 17 December 2014 at 22:10, Majid Iqbal <mxiqbal@dhashc.com> wrote:
> My belief is that, based on the fundamentals of economics, there are only
> two kinds of products: goods and services.
>
> Therefore the term “production” applies to services, and the distinction
> between “products and services” is archaic and poorly founded. Services are
> products with a special form factor. Service management is product
> management, in the same way as botany and zoology are biology.
>
> If we can rid ourselves with the deeply ingrained habit of saying “products
> and services”, there is a whole new level of clarity and depth of
> understanding on how and why services are the preferred form factor in which
> we package and deliver value; or purchase and consume it.
>
I agree.

It’s a little like wave – particle duality. You can define goods so
that they’re very clearly not services, and visa-versa, but you find
it difficult to do it.

That’s because, in the real world, it’s very difficult to think of any
example of goods that are sold with absolutely no element of service
involved – or, contrariwise, of services that involve absolutely no
element of being ‘goods’.

It’s a false and misleading dichotomy – even if you do manage to find
something that is a ‘pure’ service or good, that misses the point.

Services is the more complete view, so to say that goods are a subset
of services and get on with defining services makes perfect sense.

Peter Brooks

 

POST_2_4: By Paul Huppertz

The proposed definition of the term ‘service’ is based on

 

 

The service terminology has been compiled in a glossary where further terms & definitions can be found (in German)

  1. Glossar Service-Terminologie

http://de.slideshare.net/PaulGHz/servicialisierung-glossar-serviceterminologie-v070000

Paul Huppertz

 

 

POST_2_5: By Peter Brooks

I agree with the general tenor of the discussion – very strongly!

I think it would be a mistake, though, to dodge the term ‘service’ altogether. Yes, a service is made up of these components, and it might be more even than that (or less), but we’d be doing a disservice (please excuse the pun) not to provide some definition of ‘service’.
Would it, perhaps, help, just at this stage, to have another looks at the diagram:
It is an accident of design – all I did was to take the Archi diagram and work it so that the connections all were clear and the crossing of lines was minimised. It is, though, the ASM we agreed at in Birmingham, along with the agreed changes. I think it’s instructive that the diagram shows ‘Service’ at the right hand side, with all the rest contributing to it.
I’d only just noticed this now – I was absorbed with Archi and making the lines work – but I think it is saying something significant. It’s an odd thing, for me, but the diagram says more to me now, after that quite mechanical re-ordering, than it did before. I think that isn’t a coincidence – the structure follows directly from the discussions, even though it wasn’t evident at the time.
Do you agree?
Might it make sense to talk in terms of the diagram and how it relates to our views, rather than talk of the minutiae?

Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.brooks@gmail.com>

 

POST_2_6: By Charles Betz

My primary concern is practical. What is a definition of “service” that I can operationalize across a large team of analysts and architects in an enterprise? Such that if a list or report is generated of examples purporting to fit the definition, the result is unambiguous and consistent? Every item clearly of a like type?
If services fundamentally are “acts” it becomes very difficult to do this. In an IT context, such “acts” are (in my reading) equivalent to transactions, which at their individual level are as numerous and transient as breaths. But I think you are probably leading us more to a discussion at the type level, which would necessarily be more about system and offering, or generalizations of expectation and outcome – i.e., reasonably persistent abstractions suitable for analysis.
One issue is that organizations big enough to care about this already have practices in enterprise architecture, which uses the concepts of capability, process, and function, and has seen “service” more as part of the SOA discussion. The latest manifestation of this being so-called “micro-services,” very topical of late.
“Charles T. Betz (char@erp4it.com)” <char@erp4it.com>

 

POST_2_7: By Christian Nissan

Hi Charlie,
I had decided not to contribute to this thread as I am actually too busy. But now I can’t resist the temptation anymore 🙂
I like your practical approach and I think you touch upon the use of the term service in daily language. We use it for a service offer, for a specific service experience in time and space as well as for the quality of that experience: “Uber has two services, rideshare as well as private car” (i.e. service as an entity); “I used the Uber service to drive me to airport the other day” (i.e. service as an act) “Uber provides a good service” (i.e. service as a quality attribute). As you state, the architect or analyst may mostly be interested in the service entity.
I still think, that the thinking that Spohrer, Vargo and Lusch put forward naturally reflects daily experience. A service provider (a service system in their terminology) is a dynamic configuration of resources (operand as well as operant) that has the capability to offer a service. You can call this a ‘service offer’ or a ‘service potential’. That is the service entity your architects and analysts are talking about.
When the service provider applies this configuration of resources for the benefit of the service consumer (another service system) in a value co-creating act, the potential service becomes real in time and space. I.e. the service act is not the service in itself, but the application of the capabilities of the service systems in the service act is the service. That is why we have chosen in TSF to define the service as a composite term or a subject area as you call it.
I agree with Steven, that all definitions should be tested against a list of concepts that are normally considered as services as well as a list of concepts, that are normally not considered as services. I use this list myself for the first purpose:
1. A haircut
2. A hotel stay
3. A flight
4. An insurance service
5. A payroll service
6. Software as a service
7. A workstation management service
8. A SOA service/web service – eg. a web-service providing a name from a social security number
9. A church service
10. Prostitution
I think the definitions by Spohrer, Vargo, Lusch et. al. passes this test 🙂
With regards to your other issue, both ‘micro-services’ and ‘macro-services’ are instances of generic services to me. It comes from the fact, that a service system may not only apply its resources in a service act but may also draw on other services. Whether these services are part of its resources or not is a discussion in itself, but in the end not really important. The important thing is, that the world consists of a dynamic and emerging network of services that are drawn upon in other service acts between service systems.
Best regards,

Christian F. Nissen

 

CFN People A/S

Linde allé 1

DK-2600 Glostrup

 

Phone:    +45 40 19 41 45

e-mail:    cfn@cfnpeople.com

Web:       www.cfnpeople.com

 

(FSM, CGEIT, CISM, ITIL Master, TIPA Lead Assessor, ISO/IEC 20000 Consultant, TOGAF 9 Certified, COBIT 5 Certified, PRINCE2 Foundation, Certified Board member, Graduate Diploma in Business Administration (HD(O)), Datanom, Gold medal from the University of Copenhagen)

 

POST_2_8: By Paul Huppertz

Quite the contrary: Generally, there are several profound differences between manufacturing goods and rendering services. These differences are independent of the numbers:

 

Firstly,

  • the preconditions & the boundary conditions,
  • the locations & the environments,
  • the roles & the responsibilities
  • the activators & the addressees
  • the methods & the means
  • the processes & the results

of making goods (= production) are fundamentally different from these of rendering services (= servuction).

In particular, whilst the fabricant determines at which point in time are fabricated how many copies of a type of physical good, the authorized consumers determine at which points in time services of a certain service type must be instantaneously effectuated & reliably rendered to each of them who explicitly triggers one. In other words:

  • The service consumers are the single & sole activators of any service rendering.
  • An authorized service consumer explicitly triggers a singular service of a certain type when the status of his physical or logical service object must be changed in order that he can efficiently execute his upcoming activity creating value in so doing, either in business or in privateness.

 

Secondly, whilst a fabricant hands over the output of a fabrication, i.e. a physical good, to a buyer, each triggering service consumer hands over his physical or logical service object to the servuction environment and/or to the custody & control of the accountable service provider in order that the latter effectuates the service-specific benefit to his service object for purposefully changing its status so that its final status satisfies the current exigencies & expectations of the triggering service consumer. Not before the status of his service object has been changed, the triggering service consumer can efficiently execute his upcoming activity.

 

Thirdly, with his explicit service trigger the service consumer configures the triggered service by making pre-settings and/or input requirement for the rendering of this singular service. For instance, for each explicitly triggering e-mailing service, the sender (= service consumer) of the e-mail (= service object) will wright a certain text, select certain addresses, attach certain files, set the level of priority or confidentiality. All these configuration details make each triggered e-mailing service unique.

Thus, each explicitly triggered service of the same type is different from any other service of this type in several details. For instance, each taxi service, more precisely car-based people transporting service is different from any other because

  • the passenger is different
  • the passenger’s luggage is different
  • the date and/or weekday is different
  • the starting point is different
  • the starting time is different
  • the route is different and the traffic on the route, too
  • the taxi driver will be different in most of the cases
  • the taxi car will be different in most of the cases
  • the destination will be different in most the cases.

In other words: If 50 taxi services are rendered within one hour by one taxi service provider, each & every taxi service will be singular & unique, unrepeatable & irreversible.

Furthermore, there is only a certain time slot within which the explicitly triggered service can be conveniently rendered to the triggering service. For instance, when a taxi passenger wants to catch a flight, he must arrive at a certain point in time at the airport. If the taxi service is rendered too late and/or too slow because of traffic jam the passenger arrives too late at the airport so that he can’t catch his flight; in other word: he cannot efficiently execute his upcoming activity, in this case: flying to his destination.

 

Finally, the triggering service consumer definitively can check if the status has been reliably rendered by means of the final status of his service object, either at once & directly or later & indirectly. Mainly, this depends on the type of service object

  • if life & limb of the triggering service consumer is the service object, he will immediately experience & verify the respective change
  • if goods & chattels of the triggering consumer are the service objet(s), he will check the respective status when he gets it back, e.g. car from the garage
  • if rights & claims of the triggering service consumer are the service object, he will check the respective documents or statements
  • if data & documents of the triggering service consumer are the service object, he will check if they have been processed and/or changed according to his input requirements

Whilst the changed status of the service object is the service output that can be impartially verified by all parties involved, the service experience of the triggering service consumer only can be perceived by himself. This is about his feelings & perceptions in the course of service rendering as well as about his rating & his individual satisfaction. The service provider only can stimulate and/or moderate this, but never determine it. This significant difference between the impartial service output and the subjective service experience has been carved out & explained by Robert Johnston & Graham Clark in their book ‘Service Operations Management: Improving Service Delivery’.

http://www.amazon.com/Service-Operations-Management-Improving-Delivery/dp/0273740482/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1418971739&sr=8-1&keywords=service+operations+management+improving+service+delivery

 

 

POST_2_9: By Paul Huppertz

“The journey to & through the feral Servicetan begins in the quagmire of the term ‘service’.”

[Servísophos]

 

In other words:

Most of the confusion & many misconceptions as well as dissatisfying & inefficient service providing (management) is caused by inadequate and/or misleading interpretations of the term ‘service’ and its meaning:

  • “Service = IT system(s)”, in the long version: “Service: One or more IT systems which/that enable a business process.” verbally reads the respective paraphrase in Appendix A.2 of the glossaries of the ITIL V2 books ‘Service Delivery’, ‘ICT Infrastructure Management (ICTIM)’, ‘Application Management’ and ‘Planning to Implement Service Management’.
  • Service: A means of delivering value to customers by facilitating outcomes customers want to achieve without the ownership of specific costs and risks” reads the respective paraphrase in the glossary of ITIL (V3 Edition) 2011. in this case, the “means” are the IT systems, as clearly phrased in ITIL V2.
  • “Service: A type of economic activity that is intangible, is not stored and does not result in ownership.”
  • “Services: Intangible products such as accounting, banking, cleaning, consultancy, education, insurance, expertise, medical treatment or transportation.”
  • “Service: The action of helping or doing work for someone.”
  • Services are guaranteed sets of outcomes and experiences, delivered across particular places, times, and platforms, by the processing or rendering of customer assets; or the provisioning of valued resources.”

 

As long as there is no consensus and no common understanding of the term ‘service’ and its meaning, dissatisfaction & complaints, confusion and inefficiency will stay in all areas. Astonishingly, this is the case although service providing is as aged as human culture. Whilst in nature it is all about functions and/or functional interdependencies, human beings are capable to prepare & perform service rendering, in other words: purposefully effectuating benefits for a beneficiary. In combination with the roots of the word ‘service’ – it derives from the Latin word ‘servire’ – ‘to attend some, to minister to someone, to be a slave’ – , this leads to the crisp & clear definition: “A service is a set of benefits.”. Allowing for the inevitable & unalterable service characteristics, mainly intangibility & immateriality, insubstantiality & perishability, the clear & complete, consistent & coherent definition of the term ‘service’ reads:

 

A service is a set of one-time consumable and perishable benefits.

 

  1. slide deck of the lecture ‘Service – Word & Term’

http://de.slideshare.net/PaulGHz/issip-service-word-and-term-20140827-v010000

 

From this definition can be derived and explained:

  • There must be a beneficiary, and that’s the service consumer.
  • A beneficiary must signal that he needs and/or wants being served, and he does it by explicitly triggering a service of the required service type.
  • The benefits must be effectuated for the triggering service consumer to a certain object, and that’s the service object.
  • Such a service object must be handed over, and that’s by an authorized service consumer with his explicit service trigger.
  • The benefits must be effectuated to the service object of the service consumer, and that’s by purposefully changing the status of the service object.
  • The triggering service consumer needs to and/or wants to benefit from service rendering, and that’s from the changed status of his service object.
  • The triggering service consumer had a reason for explicitly triggering a service, and that’s about efficiently executing one of his upcoming activities. Based on the conveniently changed status of his service object, he can do this.
  • One must clearly distinguish between
    • service output = changed status of the service object handed over by the service consumer with his service trigger
    • service outcome = service consumer can efficiently execute his upcoming activity creating value in so doing, either in business or in privateness
  • There are 4 main roles in the generic & complete service providing model (= servuction model)
    • service consumer who explicitly triggers & simultaneously consumes singular services for efficiently executing one of his upcoming activities
    • servuction customer who commissions service providing for service consumers in his realm & pays services consumed by these service consumers
    • service provider (organisation) that offers service rendering & ensures that each explicitly triggered service is reliably rendered to the triggering service consumer
    • service feeder (organisation) that effectuates & feeds certain service contributions

 

Analysing the paraphrases above brings to light:

 

All the methods & measures are based on the service terminology with conclusive & mutually consistent definitions of service terms & their synonyms.

  1. Glossar Service-Terminologie

http://de.slideshare.net/PaulGHz/servicialisierung-glossar-serviceterminologie-v070000

 

POST_2_10: By Paul Huppertz

Some contribution to  the essential debate

  • A service is a set of one-time consumable & perishable benefits.
  • On the explicit service trigger of an authorized service consumer the service-specific benefits are effectuated to the physical or logical service object handed over by the service consumer with his service trigger to the servuction environment and/or to the custody & control of the accountable service provider. The service-specific benefits are effectuated to the service-object by executing  service-relevant functions of service-relevant systems (= servuction automats) and/or by service actors performing service-relevant activities according to the implicit or explicit screenplay of the respective service type.
  • In the course of the respective singular & unique service transaction the status of the service object is purposefully changed so that its final status satisfies the current exigencies & expectations of the triggering service consumer. Based on the changed status of his service object, the triggering service consumer can efficiently execute his upcoming activity creating value in so doing, either in business or in privateness.
  • The changed status of the service object is the service output.
  • The fact that the service consumer can efficiently execute his upcoming activity is the service outcome.

POST_2_11: By Paul Huppertz

This evokes the following questions:

 

  • What is a “service act” in view of the fact that any & every service as such is intangible & immaterial, insubstantial & perishable?

 

  • What is a “service offering” in view of the fact that any & every service as such is intangible & immaterial, insubstantial & perishable?
  • What is the difference between a “service offering” and a service providing offering (= servuction offering) for a business process relevant and/or required service type that has been
    • clearly & precisely identified from the perspective & perception of addressed and/or (already) authorized service consumers in the realms of commissioning servuction customers and
    • completely & concisely specified according to the exigencies & expectations of addressed and/or (already) authorized service consumers as well as in their terms & wording?

 

 

  • What is the difference between „service outcomes“ and the outcome that a triggering service consumer can efficiently execute his upcoming activity by simultaneously consuming the singular & unique service that has been instantaneously effectuated exclusively for him & reliably rendered explicitly to him on his explicit service trigger?

 

POST_2_12: By Stuart Rance

Peter,

 

I don’t think we have “dodged” the definition of service at all. Our current definition reads…

 

A SERVICE is an aggregation of a service engagement with one or more service acts between two or more service systems creating service outcomes

 

Regards,

 

StuartR

 

POST_2_13 By Peter Huppertz

Any practical approach necessitates an appropriate perception of the terminology, foundations of acting, required outputs & outcomes.

 

  • The clear & complete, conclusive & consistent definition “A service is a set of one-time consumable & perishable benefits.” might be easy enough & catchy enough, explainable & convincing.

 

  • Only a few people must be able to prudently prepare & providently perform service providing management (= servuction management). Most people will manage service-relevant technical & organisational systems In accordance with the service screenplays of the business process relevant and/or required service types. There are some new roles required like service explorer, service catalogue manager, servuction composer, servuction orchestrator, servuction contractor, servuction conductor, servuction controller, … based on the illuminative & path-breaking thougt
    • “Production, c’est faire des choses. Servuction, c’est rendre des services.”
    • “Production is making goods. Servuction is rendering services.”
    • “Produktion ist Fertigen von Sachgütern. Servuktion ist Erbringen von Services.”
    • [Pierre Eiglier & Eric Langeard]
    • article ‘Le service et sa servuction’ from Pierre Eiglier, IAE (Institut d’Administration des Entreprises, Marseille & Aix-en-Provence)
    • http://de.slideshare.net/PaulGHz/artikel-le-service-et-sa-servuction-von-pierre-eiglier

 

  • A service has no architecture as any service as such is intangible & immaterial, insubstantial & perishable. Architects must learn to design appropriate service-relevant systems in appropriate servuction environments based on the requirements derived from the service concepts for the business process relevant and/or required service types.

 

  • Services are no acts, but sets of one-time consumable & perishable benefits. Each explicitly triggered service must be effectuated & rendered according to the service concept for the respective service type, more precisely: according to the servuction composing. Thus, service rendering is very similar to conducting, i.e. servuction conducting. That’s fundamentally different form system management, more precisely: from managing service-relevant systems, either technical or organisational. In other words: An IT system management department must evolve into the truly & truthfully accountable ICTility service provider of its enterprise by
    • taking center stage the ICTility service consumers (= employees in the business units)
    • clearly & precisely identifying business process relevant ICTility service types from the perspective & perception of addressed ICTility service consumers
    • completely & concisely specifying the identified ICTility service types according to the exigencies & expectations of addressed ICTility service consumers
    • think & act as composer & conductor of service providing for business process relevant ICTility service types

 

 

POST_2_14 By Mathias Traugott

Dear all

Since years I use this simple definition – and it works through all businesses, including my own:

A service is a set of benefits.

Merry Christmas & happy new year.

Mathias

_____________________________________

Mathias Traugott

CEO

 

IT unlimited Schweiz AG

Bleichemattstrasse 42

CH-5000 Aarau

 

Fon +41 43 277 09 00

Fax +41 43 277 09 01

Mobile  +41 79 459 90 51

eMail: mathias.traugott@itunlimited.ch

www.itunlimited.ch

 

 

POST_2_15: By Peter Bergmann

Thanks Mathias – that’s is also the definition that I using successfully last years.

Have a good Christmas Time for all. And a happy new year.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / best Regards / Distinti Saluti

Peter  Bergmann

 

POST_2_16 By Paul Huppertz

The paraphrase below evokes the question how a term can be defined by using the term itself, and that 4 times?

This is a logical deadlock and doesn’t help in any way, in particular not as a foundation for any method or measure of service providing management.

 

Nobody would define a physical good by means of the physical good itself:

A table is a an aggregation of a table agreement with one or more table acts between two or more table systems creating table outcomes. ?-| &-|

Even describing in detail how a table is made by which party with which tools is no definition of a table itself. Instead, the function of a table is its essence and the foundation for defining the term ‘table’.

 

Please forgive me, but this reveals that neither the essence of services is considered or understood nor the service characteristics are appropriately allowed for.

It is no doubt that services are rather tricky phenomena, but this intricacy cannot be resolved my means of a self-referencing definition.

 

As another option we should try to falsify the following paraphrase and learn from this:

“A service is a set of one-time consumable and perishable benefits.”

 

  1. How can be demonstrably falsified that benefits are the essence any service?

 

  1. How can be demonstrably falsified that service-specific benefits are perishable?

 

  1. How can be demonstrably falsified that service-specific benefits are consumed once by the service consumer?

Paul

Paul G Huppertz <Paul.G.Huppertz@servicevolution.com>

 

POST_2_17: By Andreas Weick

To my mind there are several issues due to those terms:

 

A SERVICE is an aggregation of a service engagement with one or more service acts between two or more service systems creating service outcomes

This term describes more or less the act of accomplishing the benefits including the participants but not the “Service” itself

 

A set of benefits

A tool used by myself provides me a set of benefits, but does this really mean the tool “delivers a service” to me?

 

Kind regards

Andreas

Andreas WEICK <andreas.weick@steria-mummert.de>

 

POST_2_18: By Stuart Rance

Andreas,

 

It may help if people consider the set of related definitions together…

 

A SERVICE OFFER is a proposal from a service provider (service system) to a service consumer (service system) for a potential future service engagement
EXAMPLE Outside the airport is a sign saying “TAXI” that tells you, that one or more taxi companies offer transportation services from here. In the windows of the taxis in line you can see the standard rates that you would have to pay.

A SERVICE ENGAGEMENT (collaboration) is a formal or informal specification of agreed expectations, rights, obligations and interfaces of two or more service systems
EXAMPLE You enter the front taxi in the line and ask if the driver accepts credit cards. The driver confirms that he accepts credit cards so you tell him where you want to go and he confirms that he knows where that is.

A SERVICE ACT (the “moment of truth”) is an interaction that achieves value co-creation between service systems
EXAMPLE The driver takes you to your destination, you talk together on the way, you ask him to turn the air-conditioning down a bit and he draws your attention to a few tourist attractions along the route. At the destination you pay by credit card, get the receipt and give a good tip because you were pleased with the service.

SERVICE OUTCOME is the consequences for the stakeholders involved in a specific service act between one or more service systems
EXAMPLE
For you: You get to your destination safely and in time, so you manage to close an important deal for your company. You learn about some tourist attractions that you may want to visit.
For the driver: He gets his payment and the tip. He is placed at a new location for his next passenger
For the taxi company: They get revenue, and they get an enhanced reputation (because you feel positive about this taxi company and recommend them to your friends)

A SERVICE SYSTEM (provider, consumer, integrator etc.) is a dynamic configuration of intents, capabilities and resources that can create value with other service systems through co-creation.
EXAMPLE There are three service systems in this example. Each has its own intents, resources and capabilities.
You are one service system, acting as the service consumer.
The taxi driver is another service system, acting as the service provider.
The taxi company is a third service system, acting as a service broker or service integrator.

A SERVICE is an aggregation of a service engagement with one or more service acts between two or more service systems creating service outcomes
EXAMPLE The service is the combination of the service offer, the service engagement, and the service acts between the service systems, which create the service outcomes.

 

Regards,

 

StuartR

Stuart Rance <StuartR@rances.net>

 

POST_2_19: By Peter Bergmann

Hi Andreas,

 

I aggree with your statements.

„A SERVICE is an aggregation of a service engagement with one or more service acts between two or more service systems creating service outcomes”

Is not usable and “gibberish“ – in my opinion. The Service is a set of benefits…

 

 

 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / best Regards / Distinti Saluti

 

Peter  Bergmann

Geschäftsführer

 

Tel.: +49 89 6655 0862 | Mobil: +49 171 868 48 09 | e-mail: peter.bergmann@elleta.net

 

elleta München GmbH

Alte Landstrasse 23 | 85521 Ottobrunn | Deutschland | www.elleta.net

IT-Consulting | IT-Management | IT-Business Development | Transformation-2-IT

 

Peter Bergmann <Peter.Bergmann@elleta.net>

 

POST_2_20: By Michael Geyer

Hi,

 

I am glad that the discussion has been shifting into this direction. Coming from the “sales-side of life”, I think that a customer/consumer is the main party that decides whether or not it would like to consider something as a service. Thus, I think that a service definition should be about benefits.

 

… Service

  1. Has to be a combination of intangible and/or tangible goods. It can be professional services, it can be products, but it has to be a combination.
  2. Combination itself has to provide an additional benefit to the consumer.
  3. Benefit of the combination has to be bigger than consumers strive to do it by themselves.

 

In my opinion, the 5 I’s won’t help much as characteristics for a service. In addition I think, that it may be that hard to distinguish between products and services because services could become products at a point.

 

Merry Christmas from Eckental J,

Michael

 

Michael Geyer

Head of Partner Management

 

OMNINET GmbH, D-90542 Eckental

T.: +49 (0) 91 26 25 979 152

C.: +49 (0) 171 490 46 22

E.: michael.geyer@omninet.de

2 Comments

  1. For example, the BORO method wikipedia article:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BORO_method

    A possible reformulation of BORO method:

    Given a corpora
    Given a document
    Given a concept reference (term, phrase, or other sequence-start-end-point in document)
    Does it refer to a physical thing concept? (Does it have spatial/temporal extent?)
    if not, is it a type concept? (Does it refer to a set of physical things?)
    if not, is it a tuple concept? (Does it relate things?)
    Add concept to ontology

    Ontology
    Concepts
    Physical-thing-with-spatial-temporal-extent -> instances
    Type -> instances
    Tuple -> instances
    Instances
    instances

    Should we be teaching the BORO method to Cognitive Systems students?

    Also, this is an interesting toy: http://www.20q.net/

  2. There are many approaches to coming up with the definition of a word.

    One method is to start with a set of exemplars and look for necessary and sufficient conditions.

    Another method is to use text – and create certain types of maps of the text, where words and phrases are interconnected by various relational terms.

    In nearly all cases of complex phenomena, the exploration of boundaries is difficult.

Leave a Reply