Today I was at the Global 1000 Startup Showcase in Menlo Park, CA.

There was a good discussion about industry models of working with universities and startup companies from Huawei, Tyco, Dell, Microsoft, Intel, and IBM.

The win-win-win – where big company, startup company, and customers all benefit – was highlighted.

I mentioned the following IBM programs and learned a lot about the programs from other large industry players represented on the panel.

IBM Smart Camps – global events and IBM mentors

IBM Global Entrepreneur Program – access to platform and tools

IBM Partnerworld – programs for partners

IBM Supplier Connect – small and medium companies selling to global 1000

IBM Acquisitions – about one a month for the last ten years

IBM University Programs – 6 R’s (research, readiness, recruiting, revenue, responsibilities, and regions)

Two key challenges: (1) working with universities to create more T-shaped graduates with depth and breadth across disciplines, sectors, cultures, and (2) simplifying complex integration of multiple companies’ offerings.

ISSIP (International Society of Service Innovation Professionals) exists to promote T-shaped innovators professional development, across disciplines, sectors, and cultures.  ISSIP is also promoting mentorships between industry and academics – perhaps a 10x increase in mentorships could lead to a 2x increase in internships.  If you have an interest in T-shapes, mentorships, and the the transformation of universities to align with regional economic development groups, please feel free to contact me at spohrer@us.ibm.com.

In preparation for the NSF Smart Service Systems Virtual Forum, here are some questions and responses:

1.       What do we mean by smart service systems?

Smart service systems benefit customers and providers.

Service providers try to compete for customers by (1) improving existing offerings to customers, (2) innovating new types of offerings, (3) evolving their portfolio of offerings, (4) changing their relationships to suppliers and others in the ecosystem.

“Smart” refers to improvement in key performance indicators over time (e.g., productivity indicators, quality indicators, compliance indicators, sustainability indicators, resilience indicators, etc.).  “Smart” often implies increasing system capabilities over time, that overcome system constraints.  An important constraint in many service systems is the trade-off between productivity and quality…. often the way to break out of that constraint requires new technology, information systems, and customer skills for self-service… for example, a bank’s ATM (automatic teller machines) systems introduced in the 1970’s improved both productivity and quality indicators for customer to withdrawn their money day or night. However, it required customers learning new skills.  Retail store self-service check-out systems require even more skills for self-service.

“Service” refers to the application of knowledge (e.g., technology, organizational forms, business models, etc.) for mutual benefits, between a provider entity and customer entity (and often including other stakeholder entities, such as government agencies concerned with regulator compliance, investors concerned with return on investment, etc.).  Within the service science community “service” is synonymous with “value co-creation between entities” and includes many forms of cooperation, coordination, and even mutually beneficial forms of competition.

Most service phenomena derives from division of labor between entities (service for service exchange), creating mutual dependencies between entities in vast networks of interaction and exchange.   Entities apply knowledge, including technological tools, forms of organizations, to create mutual benefits that improve productivity (provider concern) and quality (customer concern) and other measures.

“Service systems” (in general) refer to dynamic configurations of resources (people, technology, information, organizations) interconnected by value propositions internally and externally to other service systems. A bus stop may have structure for passengers to wait for the bus and stay dry, often they are in disrepair – however, many cities lease access to that resource to advertising agencies – and get a new revenue stream to support public transportation, as well maintenance service.   Adding display screens for ads, makes them “smart” in some ways, and may require cameras for extra security.

“Service systems” (specifically) have been evolved and designed for all aspects of business and society – transportation, water & waste, agriculture and manufacturing (servitization, such as Rolls-Royce “Power-by-the-hour”), energy and electricity (“smart grids), ICT, building, retail & hospitality, finance & banking, healthcare, education, government.   Types of service system entities – entities with rights and responsibility to offer service to others include – people, businesses, universities, hospitals, cities, states, nations, etc.  A better taxonomy of service system entities and understanding of the distribution of types of service systems in different societies is much needed.

“Service innovations” scale the benefits of new knowledge, globally and rapidly.

2.       What are the major hurdles to introduce new knowledge and innovations (e.g., technologies, organizational forms, methods of interaction, etc.)  developed in academic institutions into commercial smart service systems?

Apple’s innovations have often been based on customer experience and ease-of-use.  Interaction design and new business model design are aspect of smart service system design.

The lack of ability for academics to interact with real customers and evolve new knowledge and innovations limits their commercialization efforts (e.g., lean startups are often better than licensing efforts for bringing difficult-to-scale new knowledge to market).  Facebook interacted with students as customers.  Google interacted with faculty and students as customers.   SPSS interacted with faculty and students as customers.  Tools that are accessible on-line provide a platform for academics to reach more customers.  Amazon, Google, Apple, IBM/Softlayer, HP, Cisco, and many others are providing academics access to Cloud based capabilities that allow new modes of customer-provider and customer-customer, etc. interactions.  The internet, the internet-of-things, and other platforms can improve academics ability to interact with customers.

a.       Resources – Kickstarter and other crowd-funding sites offer ways for customers to invest in the innovations they want to see become real
b.       Technology – Real tools and real data often limit academics abilities to take on real challenges
c.       Policy – Privacy and protection of data is a very real concern these days, especially as cyber-security is increasingly necessary to stop criminals
d.       Business Models – lean startups pivot their business models and business concepts quickly based on experiments with real customers
e.       Industry Mentorships for students in course – learning to apply knowledge to take on real-world challenges is key

University four missions:
Learning – teaching: knowledge transfer
Discovery – research: knowledge creation
Engagement – entrepreneurship: knowledge application
Wholeness – citizenship: knowledge integration

3.       Why are behavioral and cognitive considerations essential to further adapt technologies to be used in service systems?

Behavioral and cognitive scientists can help help understand both customers and other people inside service systems, how they interact, what incentives are required to change behaviors, etc.

a.       What is the role of service science in this process?

Service science is sometimes described in the literature as the short version of service science, management, engineering, design, arts, and pubic policy (SSME+DAPP) – with the clear indication that it is an emerging transdiscipline, that borrows from many existing disciplines, but does not replace any of them.

The emerging service science community links academics, industry, and government to build the body of knowledge about the nested, networked service systems in which we all live and work.  The service science community has many members who aspire to be better boundary-spanners, better T-shapes to work collaboratively on innovation teams.  ISSIP.org is an umbrella professional association working on that goal.

4.       What are the characteristics of successful industry-academe partnerships in service systems innovation?

One measure of success: how many mentorships are created to allow students to engage with industry mentors working on real-world challenges, where the application of knowledge that faculty have inspired the students to learn about is encouraged.  Because real-world challenges do not respect discipline boundaries, and require engineers, managers, social scientists, and arts and humanities working together to engage a customer with a prototype solution – these teams are more likely to create viable service system innovations.

Industry and government provides platforms, tools, data, challenges and the academy provides multidisciplinary student teams and faculty guides to create viable solutions to challenges that can be tried out in the real-world with real-customers either as startups (some based on industry provided platforms) or as compelling proof-of-concepts that build the personal brands of students and prepare them to be T-shaped adaptive innovators, ready to hit-the-ground running in industry jobs.

5.       What is your take on the new BIC solicitation?  What do you expect will come up from this?

Fabulous solicitation.  Will impact both human capital and close knowledge gaps.

Human capital:  I expect students working on new startup ideas will come out of this, leveraging some existing industry platforms and creating some new platforms.   Better prepared students and graduates – more T-shaped adaptive innovators who can be better prepared to be in both start-ups or other industry positions on leading edge service offerings.

Knowledge gaps:  Many knowledge gaps exist related to understanding service systems, and how to scale the benefits of new knowledge, globally and rapidly – new technologies, new organizational forms, new business models, new skills in people, etc.

Just learned of this interesting global student challenge lead by UC San Diego Rady School of Management:

“The project is made possible by a $1.7 million Ideas to Innovation Challenge grant from the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC).

“This visionary project could drastically, and positively, alter the MBA experience in terms of how students gain information, how they interact with each other and how they develop skills,” said Rady School Dean Robert Sullivan.

Alex Howland, Project Manager of VirBELA, explained that the project’s inaugural program will be a cross-university MBA business simulation competition. This will be the first business competition to take place in the virtual world and unlike many traditional competitions, the teams will be comprised of MBA students from multiple universities around the globe.

“The goal of this competition will be to develop global competencies by giving students experience working across time zones and with different cultures,” Howland said.

The business simulation is “green” focused and teams will work together to design their product, figure out where to invest and how to incorporate green technology. Because the competition is taking place in the virtual world, researchers will have the opportunity to observe how the teams interact. “We will research how people collaborate in the business competition and facilitate discussions with participants about those collaborations providing direct feedback to students about their teamwork skills,” Howland said.”

More information at:

http://virbela.com/launch.html 

http://rady.ucsd.edu/news/newsletter/2012/fall/virbela/

Please feel free to distribute this to anyone you think may be interested.

The Business School at the University of Hull (UK) is making a major investment in systems thinking and logistics, two of the research areas where we already have a strong international reputation and see scope for continued growth and development. There are two professorships, one senior lectureship and one lectureship available.

The Professor of Systems Thinking will join both the Management Systems Subject Group and the Centre for Systems Studies. The latter has 22 staff members and 38 PhD students, making it one of the largest systems thinking research groups in the Western world. We have a strong and well established international reputation in the systems community, and a growing national and international reputation in operational research and other management research communities. The new Professor will take forward and enhance this reputation.

We are also advertising Senior Lecturer and Lecturer positions. Ideally, one of these will be filled by a systems thinker and the other by a logistics specialist.

In addition, we are recruiting a Professor of Logistics & Supply Chain Management to join our internationally renowned Logistics Institute and play a leading role in taking forward our supply chain research.

I would like to encourage applications for these positions, which have a deadline of 20 September 2013. Links to them can be found below.

Professor of Systems Thinking (BS0009)
https://jobs.hull.ac.uk/Vacancy.aspx?ref=BS0009

Professor of Logistics & Supply Chain Management (BS0010)
https://jobs.hull.ac.uk/Vacancy.aspx?ref=BS0010

Senior Lecturer in Management Systems (BS0011)
https://jobs.hull.ac.uk/Vacancy.aspx?ref=BS0011

Lecturer in Management Systems (BS0012)
https://jobs.hull.ac.uk/Vacancy.aspx?ref=BS0012

Best wishes,
Gerald Midgley

………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Professor Gerald Midgley
Director, Centre for Systems Studies
Associate Dean for Research and Enterprise

g.r.midgley@hull.ac.uk
T +44 (0)1482 463316

Hull University Business School
University of Hull
Hull, HU6 7RX, UK
www.hull.ac.uk/hubs
………………………………………………………………………………………………..

**************************************************
To view the terms under which this email is
distributed, please go to
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/legal/disclaimer.aspx
**************************************************

Smart service systems are proliferating in business and society.

Recently, I invited about 70 researchers with publications (see https://service-science.info/archives/3166) related to service science, management, engineering, design, arts, public policy,  etc. to share their perspectives and examples of smart service systems on the new LinkedIn Group (see https://service-science.info/archives/3121) started by NSF (National Science Foundations of the US).

I asked each of them to consider contributing an example of a smart service system of their choice, ideally one that exists in the literature or press publications.

So here is my version of the above request – with general framing, examples of smart service systems, and references to the literature:

First, what types of entities organize service systems?

Service systems are organized by entities that can be small or large, local or global, but all service systems begin with an entity capable of provisioning service offerings to others.

Global business social media platforms, like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, are exemplars of service systems organized by business entities.  These business entities offer customers a service system platform that allows customers or members of the communities to post content for sharing with others.

Other business entities, including banks, insurance companies, IT and business process outsourcing companies, hotels, restaurants, provide service offerings to customers.   Even manufacturers and agricultural conglomerates offer upstream and downstream service offerings to their customers (e.g., from financing to maintenance, from provenancing to recycling).

Besides businesses, government and societal entities provision service offerings for their citizens and beneficiaries.

For example, Rio De Janeiro’s Smarter Cities Intelligent Operations Center is an example of a candidate smart service system for smarter urban service and operations (Naphade et al, 2011).

Even buildings as service systems are getting smarter with better air quality for inhabitants, better energy efficiency, better earthquake safety, and better faster construction mechanisms that are continuously improved  (Kibert 2012).

A taxonomy of smart service systems, like a taxonomy of service systems, must begin with an organizing framework for business and societal entities that provision service to customers and citizens, as well as other beneficiaries and stakeholders.

And remember,  wherever there is an instance of “service failure,” there is also the possibility of smarter service systems that avoid or mitigate service failures.

For citations see:

Service Science Researchers and Smart Service Systems: https://service-science.info/archives/3166

For additional references see:

The Well-Read Service Scientist: https://service-science.info/archives/2708

Service-related HBR Articles:  https://service-science.info/archives/2210

Early SSMED Reading List:  http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/ssme/refmenu.asp

Insights into smart service systems can be found in the following references, many by service science researchers. (Service science is short for service science, management, engineering, design, arts, public policy, etc.):

Akella, R., Xu, Z., Barajas, J., & Caballero, K. (2009, August). Knowledge sciences in services automation: integration models and perspectives for service centers. In Automation Science and Engineering, 2009. CASE 2009. IEEE International Conference on (pp. 71-78). IEEE.

Alter, S. (2008). Service system fundamentals: Work system, value chain, and life cycle. IBM Systems Journal, 47(1), 71-85.

Apte, U. M., Cavaliere, R. A., & Kulkarni, S. S. (2010). Analysis and Improvement of Information‐Intensive Services: Evidence from Insurance Claims Handling Operations. Production and Operations Management, 19(6), 665-678.

Baba, M. L. (1999). Dangerous liaisons: Trust, distrust, and information technology in American work organizations. Human Organization, 58(3), 331-346.

Basole, R. C., & Rouse, W. B. (2008). Complexity of service value networks: conceptualization and empirical investigation. IBM systems journal, 47(1), 53-70.

Berg, D and N G Einspruch, “Some Characteristics of Human Resources in the Service Sector””, in , Service Science, 1, pp. 107-114, 2009

Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., & Meuter, M. L. (2000). Technology infusion in service encounters. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 28(1), 138-149.

Bohmann, T., Junginger, M., & Krcmar, H. (2003, January). Modular service architectures: a concept and method for engineering it services. In System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 10-pp). IEEE.

Bolton, R. N., Kannan, P. K., & Bramlett, M. D. (2000). Implications of loyalty program membership and service experiences for customer retention and value. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 28(1), 95-108.

Bowen, D. E., & Lawler, E. E. (1994). The empowerment of service workers. Training and Development Sourcebook, 413.

Cardoso, J., Sheth, A., Miller, J., Arnold, J., & Kochut, K. (2004). Quality of service for workflows and web service processes. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 1(3), 281-308.

Chang, C. M. (2010). Service Systems Management and Engineering: Creating Strategic Differentiation and Operational Excellence. Wiley.

Chase, R. B., & Apte, U. M. (2007). A history of research in service operations: What’s the< i> big idea</i>?. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 375-386.

Chesbrough, H., & Spohrer, J. (2006). A research manifesto for services science. Communications of the ACM, 49(7), 35-40.

Cohen, M., Kamesam, P. V., Kleindorfer, P., Lee, H., & Tekerian, A. (1990). Optimizer: IBM’s multi-echelon inventory system for managing service logistics. Interfaces, 20(1), 65-82.

Daim, T. U., & Oliver, T. (2008). Implementing technology roadmap process in the energy services sector: A case study of a government agency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(5), 687-720.

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.

Demirkan, H., & Goul, M. (2006). AMCIS 2006 panel summary: Towards the service oriented enterprise vision: Bridging industry and academics. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 18(1), 26.

Demirkan, H., Kauffman, R. J., Vayghan, J. A., Fill, H. G., Karagiannis, D., & Maglio, P. P. (2009). Service-oriented technology and management: Perspectives on research and practice for the coming decade. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(4), 356-376.

Feldman, T., & Friedman, D. (2010). Human and artificial agents in a crash-prone financial market. Computational Economics, 36(3), 201-229.

Fisk, R. P., Brown, S. W., & Bitner, M. J. (1993). Tracking the evolution of the services marketing literature. Journal of Retailing, 69(1), 61-103.

Fitzsimmons, J. A., & Fitzsimmons, M. J. (2001). Service Management: Operations, Strategy, Information Technology with Student CD. McGraw-Hill.

Foley, H. C. (2008). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom (hardcover). Pergamon-Elsevier Science.

Ford, R. C., & Bowen, D. E. (2008). A service-dominant logic for management education: It’s time. Academy of management learning & education, 7(2), 224-243.

Freund, L. E., & Spohrer, J. C. (2013). The human side of service engineering. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 23(1), 2-10.

Froehle, C. M., Roth, A. V., Chase, R. B., & Voss, C. A. (2000). Antecedents of new service development effectiveness an exploratory examination of strategic operations choices. Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 3-17.

Gallego, G., & Stefanescu, C. (2010). Service engineering: The future of service feature design and pricing. Working Paper.

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

Gorman, M. E. (2008). Service science, management and engineering: A way of managing sociotechnical systems. In Service Science, Management and Engineering Education for the 21st Century (pp. 77-82). Springer US.

Graves, S. C., Kletter, D. B., & Hetzel, W. B. (1998). A dynamic model for requirements planning with application to supply chain optimization. Operations Research, 46(3-Supplement-3), S35-S49.

Grasso, D., & Martinelli, D. (2010). Holistic engineering. In Holistic Engineering Education (pp. 11-15). Springer New York.

Gremler, D. D., & Brown, S. W. (1996). Service loyalty: its nature, importance, and implications. Advancing service quality: A global perspective, 171-80.

Grove, S. J., & Fisk, R. P. (1997). The impact of other customers on service experiences: a critical incident examination of “getting along”. Journal of Retailing, 73(1), 63-85.

Hefley, B., & Murphy, W. (2008). Service Science, Management and Engineering Education for the 21st Century. Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy. Springer.

Heineke, J., & Davis, M. M. (2007). The emergence of service operations management as an academic discipline. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 364-374.

Holmlid, S., & Evenson, S. (2008). Bringing service design to service sciences, management and engineering. In Service Science, Management and Engineering Education for the 21st Century (pp. 341-345). Springer US.

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

Kandampully, J. (2002). Innovation as the core competency of a service organisation: the role of technology, knowledge and networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 5(1), 18-26.

Karmarkar, U. (2004). Will you survive the services revolution?. Harvard Business Review, 100-107.

Karwowski, W., & Salvendy, G. (2010). Introduction to service engineering. Wiley.

Khalil, T. M. (2009). Management of technology. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

Kocaoglu, D. F. (1994). Technology management: Educational trends. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 41(4), 347-349.

Kibert, C. J. (2012). Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery. Wiley. (See also related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwvmru5JmXk ).

King, J. L., & Lyytinen, K. (Eds.). (2006). Information systems: The state of the field. Wiley. com.

Larson, R. C. (1975). Approximating the performance of urban emergency service systems. Operations Research, 23(5), 845-868.

Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O’Brien, M. (2007). Competing through service: Insights from service-dominant logic. Journal of retailing, 83(1), 5-18.

Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 18-20.

Mendelson, H., & Ziegler, J. (1999). Survival of the smartest: managing information for rapid action and world-class performance. Wiley.

Menor, L. J., Tatikonda, M. V., & Sampson, S. E. (2002). New service development: areas for exploitation and exploration. Journal of Operations Management, 20(2), 135-157.

Merugu, D., Prabhakar, B. S., & Rama, N. S. (2009, July). An incentive mechanism for decongesting the roads: A pilot program in bangalore. In Proc. of ACM NetEcon Workshop.

Metters, R., & Marucheck, A. (2007). Service Management—Academic Issues and Scholarly Reflections from Operations Management Researchers*. Decision Sciences, 38(2), 195-214.

Motwani, J, R Ptacek, R Fleming (2012). Lean Sigma Methods and Tools for Service Organizations: The Story of a Cruise Line Transformation. Business Expert Press. (See also related http://tinyurl.com/l5x37zz)

Naphade, M., Banavar, G., Harrison, C., Paraszczak, J., & Morris, R. (2011). Smarter cities and their innovation challenges. Computer, 44(6), 32-39. (See also related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBBGYFonXM ).

Oliva, R., & Kallenberg, R. (2003). Managing the transition from products to services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14(2), 160-172.

Ostrom, A. L., Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., Burkhard, K. A., Goul, M., Smith-Daniels, V., … & Rabinovich, E. (2010). Moving forward and making a difference: research priorities for the science of service. Journal of Service Research, 13(1), 4-36.

Pal, N., & Zimmerie, R. (2005). Service innovation: a framework for success. White Paper, eBusiness Research Center, Smeal College of Business, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1-32.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. The Journal of Marketing, 41-50.

Qiu, R. G. (2009). Computational thinking of service systems: dynamics and adaptiveness modeling. Service Science, 1(1), 42-55.

Righter, R. (2011). Stochastic comparison of discounted rewards. Journal of Applied Probability, 48(1), 293-294.

Roth, A. V., & Menor, L. J. (2003). Insights into service operations management: a research agenda. Production and Operations management, 12(2), 145-164.

Rouse, W. B., & Baba, M. L. (2006). Enterprise transformation. Communications of the ACM, 49(7), 66-72.

Rust, R. T., & Kannan, P. K. (2003). E-service: a new paradigm for business in the electronic environment. Communications of the ACM, 46(6), 36-42.

Salvendy, G. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of industrial engineering: Technology and operations management. John Wiley & Sons.

Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1985). Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks: Replication and extension. Journal of applied Psychology, 70(3), 423.

Shaw, M. J., Zhang, D., & Yue, W. T. (2012). E-Life: Web-Enabled Convergence of Commerce, Work, and Social Life.

Singh, N. (2006). Services-led industrialization in India: Assessment and lessons. asdf, 235.

Smith, J. S., Karwan, K. R., & Markland, R. E. (2007). A note on the growth of research in service operations management. Production and Operations Management, 16(6), 780-790.

Smith‐Daniels, V. L., Schweikhart, S. B., & Smith‐Daniels, D. E. (1988). Capacity Management in Health Care Services: Review and Future Research Directions*. Decision Sciences, 19(4), 889-919.

SORBY, S. A., & WARRINGTON, R. O. (2004). Service Sector Systems Engineering: The Early Stages of an Innovative Degree Program.

Sorby, S. A., Bohmann, L. J., Drummer, T. D., Frendewey, J. O., Mattila, K. G., & Sutherland, J. W. (2005). Development of a curriculum for service systems engineering using a Delphi technique. In Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.

Spaanenburg, H., Rucinski, A., Chamberlin, K., Kochanski, T., & Long, L. (2007, June). Globally-Collaborative. In Microelectronic Systems Education, 2007. MSE’07. IEEE International Conference on (pp. 109-110). IEEE.

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.

Tien, J. M., & Berg, D. (2003). A case for service systems engineering. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 12(1), 13-38.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Why “service”?. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 36(1), 25-38.

Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (1996). Services marketing. Nueva York: McGraw Hill.

PICMET 2013

Recently, I sat down with Dundar Kocaoglu and Fred Betz to ask about the origins of engineering management as an academic discipline, as well as future challenges and opportunities.  While no comprehensive history has been written, what follows is a starting point for a historian of academic disciplines to begin such a project.  Please send corrections and additions to spohrer@us.ibm.com.  These are my notes to help future historians have a good starting point.

In the US 1950s, more and more business and military engineers were making their way up corporate ladders.  Engineering executives asked their academic colleagues to provide rigorous research on engineering management.  Al Rubenstein and IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management was a first response.

By the 1970s, demand for engineering management increased as a result of the oil crisis, Industrial Engineers, Operations Research/Management Sciences. University of Pittsburgh was one successful program highlighted to business executives in the pages of Business Week.

In addition, a former IBMer (VP Personnel) at the NSF, Eric Block, Deputy Director, was increasing engineering efforts, and helped establish Engineering Director and Computer Science at the NSF.

By the 1980s, the NSF convened industry, government, and academia (deans of engineering and deans of business schools) to discuss engineering management in response to Japan’s success in manufacturing and product quality, and concerns over American competitiveness.   The resulting 1987 NRC document was widely distributed in academia and industry (e.g., 400 copies here distributed at IBM to executives). Richie Henrick (IBM) was the Chair of the working group, and formerly reported to Eric Block at IBM.  The representative from Boeing, Phil Condit, suggested a focus on the following: R&D Management, Entrepreneurship, National Economic Development, Corporate Strategy and Interfunctional Effectiveness for New Product Development and Talent Management.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, three communities were growing rapidly – Prof. Dundar Kocaglu (Portland State University, former of UPittsburg) PICMET (management of engineering and technology), Prof. Tarek Kahlil (U Miami and Nile University Egypt)  IAMOT (management of technology (and innovation)), and to a lesser degree engineering management as a minor in business schools and engineering schools (spurred by internet growth and the need for MBAs to understand technology as well as Engineers to understand new business models). However, teaching project management is too limited, there is organizational strategy and regional policy levels that are important in engineering management.

In spite of the growth of hundreds of degree programs worldwide, engineering management communities (e.g., PICMET, IAMOT, etc.) still struggle with balancing industry (technology), engineering, and management.  However, the opportunity clearly lies with Asian nations, which show strong interest in driving engineering management to the next level of maturity (e.g., Thailand, China, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, etc.).

Other questions:

What about accreditation? Will engineering management ever be part of ABET or the Peterson Guide?  What inroads are already present?  What about IIE (Industrial Engineering) interest in engineering management?  What role does ASEE (America Society for Engineering Education) and ASEM (American Society for Engineering Management) play?  Is there any underlying science of engineering management?  What about the role of engineering economics, humanities, arts, design, public policy, social science, economics, etc?   Is engineering management to much rules by fads and gurus?  What has been the role of the Industrial Research Institute?  Who was Richie Henrick and the other members of the NRC (1987) report – what was their roles and contributions?  Who were the major players at the early schools (e.g., Northwestern, Lehigh, UPittsbrug, UMiami, Case Western, MIT, Alabama, Texas A& M, Minnesota, University Missouri)?  What role did NRC meetign and INFORMS/TIMS meetings in mid-late 1980’s play (e.g., TIMS CoETEM Innocation and Entrepreneurship? What role did Bob Sherman, Bert Dean, Bernard Sarchet, Babcock, Geroge Keyworth (NSF), Lynn Preston(NSF), Eric Block(IBM,NSF), ALDON BEAN (NSF), Ed Roberts (MIT – Exec Education), Jim Utterback (MIT), Erich Von Hippel (MIT)? What role Institute of Radio Engineers?  What role Industrial Research Institute? Other major books, journals, publications, conferences, workshops, people, institutions, nations?  Who has kept some of the historical documents? Can some samples be photographed and put in publications, presentation and online?  What role did Industrial Engineering and Operations Research play, and graduate student research projects? What role did industry play? What role did the popular press play?  What role did the Dean at Dean of Engineering Portland State play, what was the proposal for a new graduate program, “shoot the moon”, what role did the decline of Pittsburg industry and rise of West Coast industry and Intel and Tectronics in Portland Oregon play? What role did event like oil crisis and Japanese success play? What relations of management of engineering to Financial Engineering (Wharton), Computer Science Mechanism Design (Auctions), Complexity Science (Nam Suh – complexity for design, basis technology management – design of institution), and New Institutional Economics, Service Science? What role did NSF play, and key leaders over the decades?  Who has mapped the 400+ degree programs, and the nations involved, especially Asia rising?  What were the political headaches, politics of this emerging area, with professional associations, academics schools, industry, government, etc.? What was the role of publishers Wiley, Springer, etc.? What does this tell us about why integration is hard? Why is working across boundaries so hard?   What role did government labs and the military play (e.g., Eric Block, etc. and  Los Alamos Lab – Keyworth industry connection – pushing for innovation, science, military effectiveness, industrial competitiveness)?  Would people be better off getting double degrees, one in engineering, one in business (such as an MBA), and real-world experience, and then taking engineering management as executive education? How can IAMOT and PICMET  get more industrial people involved? How can engineering management be accredited by ABET?  Where do you hire engineering management graduates in corporations – as strategy staff to executives? How can a scientific foundation be laid for engineering, management, design, arts, and public policy?  What systems are the focus of study of engineering management and at what levels of business and society?

Citations:

Betz, F. (1987). Managing technology: competing through new ventures, innovation, and corporate research (pp. 249-258). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Cleland, D. I., Kocaoglu, D. F., Brown, J., & Maisel, J. W. (1981). Engineering management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dean, W. C., Gannett, E. K., Cetron, M. J., Goldhar, J. D., Pearson, A., Martino, J. P., … & Ettlie, J. E. (1985). Reflections on Al Rubenstein. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, (4), 144-149.

Khalil, T. M. (2009). Management of technology. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

National Research Council (1987) Management of Technology: The Hidden Competitive Advantage. Task Force on Management of Technology. Chairman: Richie Henrick (IBM).  URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=kTArAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

By Jim Spohrer, PICMET Fellow (honored at PICMET 2013 in San Jose, CA)
spohrer@us.ibm.com
All errors above are my own, and I appreciate corrections being sent to me.

Link to my PICMET 2013 Keynote presentation:
http://www.slideshare.net/spohrer/picmet-20130801-v2

The National Science Foundation has a new group NSF Smart Service Systems now on LinkedIn…

…got me thinking about Service-related LinkedIn groups that have excellent discussions.

Here are some service-related LinkedIn Groups (membership numbers as of July 27, 2013):

NSF Industry-Academe Enabling Smart Service Systems group(20 members) started two days ago is about service system innovations, and linking industry, academics, and government, to help identify knowledge gaps and close them.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/NSF-Industry-Academe-Enabling-Smart-5109582

BizArchitect’s Community group (6,457 members) is about a relatively new profession.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Business-Architecture-Community-84758

The International Service Design Network group (4,789 members) is where it is at for service design discussions.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=74907

TSIA’s Technology Service Professionals Collaboration Network group (3,230 members) has great discussions about IT-service business  best practices and the TSW conference, which is excellent for networking with industry professional who care about service business transformation and maximizing revenue and profits.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Technology-Services-Professionals-Collaboration-Networking-2044178

Service Researchers group (863 members) has broad ranging discussions about service research.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Service-Researchers-2043159

Service Science group (826 members) has excellent service science discussions, a new academic trandiscipline that borrows from, but does not replace, service operations, service marketing, economics and service sector studies, information systems and work system and service-oriented architecture studies, computer science and service computing and web service studies, service systems engineering, service design, and more.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Service-Science-149276

The Cambridge Service Alliance group (484 members) has excellent “servitization” discussions.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Cambridge-Service-Alliance-3866131

SERVSIG group (429 members) has excellent service marketing discussions.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/SERVSIG-3871618

Platforms and Business Model Strategies group (238 members) has excellent discussions about what are the top platform innovations today, and how they are driving new business models.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Platform-Business-Models-Strategies-3830083

Service 2.0 group (223 members) has excellent discussions about Service 2.0 capabilities and drivers of change.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Service-20-4283924

The International Society of Service Innovation Professional group (51 members) is new too, and has excellent discussions about T-shaped service innovations and is an umbrella professional association.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/International-Society-Service-Innovation-Professionals-4720974