I was recently asked about what I thought some of the top readings for service design are – here are my picks:

From: https://service-science.info/archives/2210

Shostack, Lynn (1984), “Designing Services that Deliver,” Harvard Business Review, 62 (January-February), 133-39.

Normann, Richard and Rafael Ramirez (1993). “From Value Chain to Value Constellation: Designing Interactive Strategy,” Harvard Business Review, (July–August) 65–77.

Leonard, Dorothy and Jeffrey F. Rayport (1997), “Spark Innovation through Empathic Design,” Harvard Business Review, 75 (November/December), 102-13.

From: https://service-science.info/archives/2708

Patrício, L., Fisk, R. P., & e Cunha, J. F. (2008). Designing Multi-Interface Service Experiences The Service Experience Blueprint. Journal of Service Research, 10(4), 318-334.

Spohrer, J., & Kwan, S. K. (2009). Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Design (SSMED): An Emerging Discipline-Outline & References. International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector (IJISSS), 1(3), 1-31.

Glushko, R. J. (2008). Designing a service science discipline with discipline. IBM systems journal, 47(1), 15-27.

Sakao, T., Shimomura, Y., Sundin, E., & Comstock, M. (2009). Modeling design objects in CAD system for Service/Product Engineering. Computer-Aided Design, 41(3), 197-213.

Kuniavsky, M. (2010). Smart Things: Ubiquitous Computing User Experience Design: Ubiquitous Computing User Experience Design. Morgan Kaufmann.

Weigand, H., Johannesson, P., Andersson, B., & Bergholtz, M. (2009). Value-based service modeling and design: Toward a unified view of services. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering (pp. 410-424). Springer Berlin/Heidelberg.

Hsu, C. (2009). Service science: design for scaling and transformation. Service Science, World Scientific, Singapore.

Glushko, R. J., & Tabas, L. (2009). Designing service systems by bridging the “front stage” and “back stage”. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 7(4), 407-427.

Glushko, R. J. (2010). Seven contexts for service system design. Handbook of service science, 219-249.

Hara, T., Arai, T., & Shimomura, Y. (2009). A CAD system for service innovation: integrated representation of function, service activity, and product behaviour. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(4), 367-388.

Davis, M. M., Spohrer, J. C., & Maglio, P. P. (2011). Guest editorial: How technology is changing the design and delivery of services. Operations Management Research, 4(1), 1-5.

Kannan, P. K., & Proença, J. F. (2010). Design of service systems under variability: research issues. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 8(1), 1-11.

Wittern, E., & Zirpins, C. (2011). On the use of feature models for service design: the case of value representation. In Towards a Service-Based Internet. ServiceWave 2010 Workshops (pp. 110-118). Springer Berlin/Heidelberg.

Yass, A. A., Yaseen, N. M., Zaidan, B. B., Zaidan, A. A., & Jalab, H. A. (2010). SSME architecture design in reserving parking problems in Malaysia. Afr. J. Bus. Manage, 4(18), 3911-3923.

Edvardsson, B., Ng, G., Min, C. Z., Firth, R., & Yi, D. (2011). Does service-dominant design result in a better service system?. Journal of Service Management, 22(4), 540-556.

Tan, Y. H., Hofman, W., Gordijn, J., & Hulstijn, J. (2011). A Framework for the Design of Service Systems. Service Systems Implementation, 51-74.

Mogre, R., Gadh, R., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2009). Using Survey Data to Design a RFID Centric Service System for Hospitals. Service Science, 1(3), 189-206.

Voss, C., & Hsuan, J. (2011). Service Science: The Opportunity to Re-think What We Know About Service Design. The Science of Service Systems, 231-244.

Alter, S. (2011). Metamodel for service design and service innovation: Integrating service activities, service systems, and value constellations. ICIS 2011 Proceedings.

Tung, W. F., Yuan, S. T., & Tsai, J. R. (2009). A custom collaboration service system for idea management of mobile phone design. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 19(5), 494-509.

Multisilta, J. (2009). A service science perspective on the design of social media activities. International Journal of Web Engineering and Technology, 5(3), 327-342.

Choi, G. H., & Choi, G. S. (2009, June). Design of Service System Framework for Web-Based Monitoring and Control of Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) in Subway Stations. In New Trends in Information and Service Science, 2009. NISS’09. International Conference on (pp. 659-663). IEEE.

Carrubbo, L. (2010). Service Science, Management, Engineering and Design and Its Suggestions for Destination Management. Proceedings of 13th Convegno TOULON.

Tung, W. F., Yuan, S. T., Wu, Y. C., & Hung, P. (2012). Collaborative service system design for music content creation. Information Systems Frontiers, 1-12.

Fei, Z., Xu, H., Weisheng, X., & Qidi, W. (2009, September). Analysis and Design of Web-Based Intelligence Mining Service System. In Management and Service Science, 2009. MASS’09. International Conference on (pp. 1-4). IEEE.

Lessard, L., & Yu, E. (2012). Service systems design: An intentional agent perspective. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries.

Forlizzi, J., Zimmerman, J., & Dow, S. (2011, June). Families and services: understanding opportunities for co-production of value in service design. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (p. 66). ACM.

Tung, W. F., Yuan, S. T., & Chi, H. S. (2009, August). iInteriorDesign: a collaborative service system approach towards constructive value co-creation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Electronic Commerce (pp. 29-37). ACM.

interesting read for ISSIP SIG and COI leaders found by Butch Casanova, ISSIP Texas

NYTimes.com: How Amazon’s Long Game Yielded a Retail Juggernaut

from article…
Of course, many other retailers could build services like Prime; in fact, many are. But it could take them years to catch up.
“The thing about retail is, the consumer has near-perfect information,” said Paul Vogel, an analyst at Barclays. “So what’s the differentiator at this point? It’s selection. It’s service. It’s convenience. It’s how easy it is to use their interface. And Amazon’s got all this stuff already. How do you compete with that? I don’t know, man. It’s really hard.”

also consider distribution as a service – Kivuto – http://kivuto.com/

what service innovation could disrupt Amazon?

perhaps a cognitive service that optimized your budget for buying what you want, when you want it, within your budget…

URLs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/19/technology/how-amazons-long-game-yielded-a-retail-juggernaut.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

http://kivuto.com/

Human-Side of Service Engineering

Also, please consider joining many ISSIP colleagues at these ISSIP co-sponsored conferences:

HICSS Systems Sciences – Hawaii, Jan. 5-8 – http://www.hicss.org/

T Summit – 21st Century Skills – National Academy of Science building Washington DC, March 21-22 – http://tsummit.org

AHFE HSSE Human-Side of Service Engineering, Disney World – Orlando FL July 27-31 – http://www.ahfe2016.org/board.html#hsse

Still time to submit a presentation proposal to HSSE – join us at Disney World!

Human-Side of Service Engineering

Position in Service Science, Management, and Engineering (SSME)

The Dean of the Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University, invites applications for one position of Associate Professor or Assistant Professor for SSME at the Department of Computer Systems and Communications.

Job description:

• Key role in leading SSME courses; details about SSME study field on ssme.fi.muni.cz/en.
• Expected to strengthen and expand the SSME study field and its theoretical grounds.
• Identify, propose, and lead R&D projects in SSME, including international ones.
• PhD supervision and consultancy.
• Managing existing industrial cooperation in the area and incubate new ones.

Requirements:

• Depending on the respective position category: either a PhD or habilitation (“venia docendi” or equivalent) in Informatics or related discipline.
• Particularly for the Assistant Prof. position: prerequisites for quick progress for a higher qualification degree (habilitation) expected.
• Keen teaching interest in SSME issues, namely ICT services orchestration; acquainted with ITIL, SOA and new trends.
• Teaching capabilities in project and knowledge management, interests in fundamental and applied development in these areas.
• Abilities for PhD supervision, experience with supervision strongly preferred.
• Experience from projects/work with/in industry; experience with research project leadership is high benefit.
• Dynamic, flexible personality, able to work well in interdisciplinary teams.
• Further skills (qualification) in related areas (economics, management, human resources) are seen as an advantage.
• Languages – fluent English (both spoken and written), other language(s) welcome.
• Experience from other countries than Czech & Slovak Republics (at least half a year).

Applicants should submit:

• CV;
• degree documents;
• summary of work experience;
• publication activities and involvement in research grants;
• cover letter explaining your interest in the position and the SSME area;
• title and abstract of a lecture that can be presented as a part of the application process;
• names and contacts of three professional and language referees.

Applications should be sent to:

Email:              pers@fi.muni.cz

Address:          Faculty of Informatics MU, Personnel Department
Botanická 68a
602 00 Brno
Czech Republic

Pat Langley gave an outstanding CSIG presentation that provided the foundations of cognitive systems….

in Prof. Langley’s talk he referenced this paper:

Published originally in the November 2002 edition of Computing Research News, Vol. 14/No. 5, pp. 1, 8.]
DARPA’s New Cognitive Systems Vision
By Ron Brachman and Zachary Lemnios
The impact of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) on computing over the past 40 years has been profound. Led by the visionary J.C.R. Licklider and his innovative successors in the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), DARPA initiated work that ultimately put personal computers on millions of desktops and made the global Internet a reality. In fact, the original IPTO, which lasted from 1962 to 1985, was in large part responsible for establishing Computer Science as a field.
DARPA has recently re-energized IPTO (now the Information Processing Technology Office), and has rededicated its attention to modern Computer Science by looking both to its roots and to a dramatic vision of the future. Licklider imagined computers and humans working closely together in a form of symbiosis. The new, 21st century IPTO wants to realize this vision by giving computing systems unprecedented abilities to reason, to learn, to explain, and to reflect, in order to finally create systems able to cope robustly with unforeseen circumstances. IPTO’s goal is to create a new generation of cognitive systems.
Mired in Moore’s Law?
One benefit of such cognitive systems would be their help in extracting us from a corner into which our success seems to have painted us. The research that has helped the industry follow Moore’s “Law” has created processors that are remarkably fast and small, and data storage capabilities that are vast and cheap. Unfortunately, these incredible developments have cut two ways. While today’s computers are more powerful than ever, we have been lured by processing power and inexpensive memory into creating systems that are enormously large and complex. Many of today’s systems are virtually impossible for humans to understand, use, or maintain.
Beyond the resulting maintenance problem, with the total lifetime cost of systems now heavily dominated by after-production costs, this complexity has also led to serious vulnerabilities. More complexity means greater opportunity for intruders. More elements mean more ways that things can go wrong; systems crash and software rots. And the training burden and level of expertise required to cope with systems both keep growing. In order to make our systems more reliable, more secure, and more understandable, and to continue making substantial contributions to society, we need to do something dramatically different.
The Promise of Cognitive Systems
IPTO is attacking this problem by driving a fundamental change in computing systems. By giving systems more cognitive capabilities, we believe we can make them more responsible for their own behavior and maintenance.
Ideally, in the next generation, a computer system will be cognizant of its role in a larger organization or team (and of the overarching goals of that team), capable of acting autonomously, and able to interact rationally with other systems and humans in real time. It will also be able to take care of itself in a self-aware and knowledgeable way. Ultimately, these new capabilities will be the basis for artificial systems that can respond as robustly to surprise as natural systems can.
A cognitive computer system should be able to learn from its experience, as well as by being advised. It should be able to explain what it was doing and why it was doing it, and to recover from mental blind alleys. It should be able to reflect on what goes wrong when an anomaly occurs, and anticipate such occurrences in the future. It should be able to reconfigure itself in response to environmental changes. And it should be able to be configured, maintained, and operated by non-experts. All of these potential improvements in system capability should help us make a serious dent in the maintenance and complexity problems we are facing.
In a nutshell, we want to transform computational systems from those that are simply reactive to those that are truly cognitive. Our ultimate goal is to create systems that know what they’re doing.
Where We’re Going
New research in cognitive systems has the potential to revolutionize the way we design, deploy, and depend on computing systems. A long-term research agenda might be structured in stages. For example, we might strive first to consider software systems that were in some measure self-aware. This kind of system could help in its own debugging, and might be extensible through a high-level, goal-oriented dialogue with its programmer. Next, we could imagine building cognitive networks that are able to understand their overall goals and capable of making adaptive, effective use of limited resources. Beyond that, we are interested in building autonomous, perceiving agents, which could explain their reasoning and engage in natural dialogues with human partners that would allow them to increase their functionality and performance over time. Finally, we want to build truly intelligent, multi-component systems whose overall operation would be more efficient and more easily extensible.
The initial focus of our office will be on “assistant” or “associate” systems. The idea is to create an artificial system that could be a persistent, long-term partner for a person; this associate system would share experiences with its user and learn from those experiences. By being cognizant of the experiences of the user, the assistant system could be more effective in its communication. One can imagine an artificial executive assistant that becomes more and more personalized to its user over time, or a commander’s associate that would become a dedicated partner for a battlefield commander, helping to anticipate his or her needs and removing the burden of administrative overhead.
Our effort will of necessity be multi-disciplinary, and will need to draw on many aspects of Computer Science. Despite its high-level focus on cognition, it will need serious participation from the systems, networking, security, and software communities, among others. The notion of architecture will be important throughout this work–truly cognitive systems are likely to be complex combinations of reactive processes, more thoughtful, deliberative processes, and reflective processes that capture self-awareness and help make the system robust in the face of unforeseen circumstances. Core technology will include learning, knowledge representation, reasoning, communication, perception, and multi-agent systems.
Why Now?
Many of the goals of our Cognitive Systems initiative are familiar. What makes us think that we are in a substantially better position to accomplish them now than we were before? We see several key factors: 1) improvements in computer hardware will soon give us computational substrates with the size and power to match the computational capability of animal and perhaps human brains; 2) the “Decade of the Brain” has brought us unprecedented insights from neuroscience, giving us new models of how the human brain works; and 3) there have been numerous successful deployments of a wide variety of artificial intelligence technologies, ranging from autonomous control of deep space missions to pragmatic machine learning improvements in speech understanding and data mining applications. While none of these or other factors is individually definitive, we believe that the convergence of computing power, knowledge of the brain, and practical experience in deploying reasoning and learning technology is remarkable.
As in many research endeavors, there is significant risk in this kind of initiative, but there is also extraordinary opportunity at a time when dramatically different approaches are urgently needed.
A Challenge for Computing Researchers
Just as the original IPTO owed its success to the energetic and creative talent in the then emerging field of Computer Science, our office must rely on the brainpower and imagination of research teams across the country. While we have issued a Broad Agency Announcement (DARPA BAA 02-21) that lays out our overall vision for Cognitive Systems, that vision cannot be realized without the individual and collaborative breakthroughs that have been the hallmark of American ingenuity.
Put simply: we need your good ideas. We encourage you to use our BAA as a catalyst for breakthrough thinking that might dramatically advance the state of the art.
We also need new Program Managers to help us define the programs that will bring our vision to life (and to secure the necessary funding). We’re looking for a few passionate visionaries who want to have an impact on a national scale on our country’s security and defense.
Off and Running
The revitalized IPTO is off and running. While our plans are ambitious, we believe we have no choice but to try something dramatically different in computing, lest we become victims of the complexity we have helped create. If we succeed, computer systems will be able to do substantially more powerful things. They will become easier to build and use, and will last longer. They will become the cooperative and supportive kind of partners that our predecessors imagined, and their novel capabilities will open new possibilities for both humans and machines. We hope you will join us in making cognitive systems a reality.

Ron Brachman is Director and Zachary Lemnios is Deputy Director of IPTO at DARPA.
To learn more, contact Dr. Brachman at rbrachman@darpa.mil or Dr. Lemnios at zlemnios@darpa.mil

====

also Zach Lemnios today.