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

This just in from Juan Figueroa (NSF):

The Engineering Directorate at the National Science Foundation (NSF) is inviting professionals like you to join and participate in the newly created NSF Industry and Academe: Enabling Smart Services Systems LinkedIn Forum/Group.

We would like to know about your thoughts on what kind of technologies would enable smart service systems of the future. We hope that you will utilize this forum to connect with colleagues in other disciplines for potential collaborative opportunities.

Please visit the following link so you can sign up to the Forum/Group.

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/NSF-Industry-Academe-Enabling-Smart-5109582/about

About the NSF Industry and Academe: Enabling Smart Services Systems Group

Best regards

Juan E. Figueroa

CALL FOR PAPERS
SIG SVC 2013 Workshop

Workshop Theme:
Delivering and Managing Services in “Systems of Service Systems”

Sunday, December 15, 2013, 8:30-5:00 PM
Milano, Italy

Download the Call for Papers here (pdf)

The world as we know it today is characterized by complicated, sometimes complex social-technical service systems which surround us at every moment. We are integrated in communication networks, computer-mediated social networks, integrated billing and payment system, multi-modal transport systems, smart power grids and many more systems and infrastructures, which aim at effortless support of our modern life. The same interlaced network of integrated service systems can be found in commercial environments, where enterprise resource planning systems, supply chain management system, financial transaction systems and many more have to work together in an interactive, automated or semi-automated way. These systems have grown over several decades now, but they are dynamic and constantly changing. Maturing systems are decommissioned, new systems are added, older systems are revitalized, additional functionalities are added to existing systems; all of which has created a compli­cated network of heterogeneous “service system of service systems” of different age, quality, reliability, and performance, which may develop their own dynamics.

In a technology-driven society, such an environment is becoming more complex as existing service systems are increasingly interconnected. While individuals are paying with their smart phones, watching Internet-TV, or calling friends via voice-over-IP, companies use integrated service systems for business intelligence or orchestrate complicated service sourcing networks with their vendors. Thus, understanding “service systems of service systems” is becoming increasingly crucial for prudent management of emerging service systems risks. Since new, interconnected service systems have been introduced at an amazing rate in the last decade, society somewhat diverted attention away from evaluating and assessing the resulting impact on service systems stability. In recent years, organizations implemented service-oriented architectures (SOA) and Web 2.0 services (such as SOAP, REST, or AJAX) to facilitate end users to create and customize situational service applications which allow to co-create innovative services. ‘Situational’ in this regard stands for ‘created on demand’ or ‘contextually customized’ to address immediate needs. In so doing, organizations bring the service-oriented SOA-concept to the employees. This democratization of service creation generates innovation potential but increases the need for a more holistic perspective for planning, management, and orchestration of service systems of service systems.

While we have accepted and enjoyed the advents of interconnected information systems, we have not rigorously enough asked ourselves if we have answers to solve the accompanying spill-over or second-order effects or more unwelcome consequences. What can fail in service systems of service systems? Can we measure and predict the likelihood that service systems failure will take place? How can we deal with the consequences and impact such a failure will have on individual, organizational and social well­being? Why is it so difficult to manage service systems of service systems and what need to be done to improve it? Is there a way to predict the impact of today’s service system adoption decisions on future digital options?

The Special Interest Group on Services (SIG SERV) will again host a pre-ICIS workshop for IS research­ers interested in information systems and service science. You are invited to contribute research-in-progress (7 pages) and full research papers (14 pages) to the workshop according to the following dead­lines:

Key Dates for SIGSVC Workshop

• Submissions due to Easy Chair before September 2^nd, 2013
• Author notification: October 15^th, 2013
• Camera ready papers due: November 15^th, 2013
• Social event / Dinner: December 14^th, 2013
• Workshop: December 15^th , 2013

This year’s Workshop will make awards for the best workshop paper, the best reviewer, and for the best theme paper. While papers adhering to the theme are encouraged, research in other service science domains will also be considered. Potential topics areas include (but are not exclusive to):

• Theories, challenges and impacts of service-orientation
• Digital innovation in information services (data centers, e-publishing, social media)
• Services innovation & management
• User driven innovation in services
• Servitizing and managing servitized IT organizations
• Service ecosystems, service architecture, service modularity
• Services governance and organizational transformation, measurement, and service offshoring
• Alignment of IT services, IT organizations and business impacts and value
• Service business models: issues of excellence and productivity
• Commoditization of hardware, software, business processes (e.g. out-tasking, ITIL, SCORE)
• Customer Integration in service design, delivery and operation
• Risk management or legal aspects of services
• Service design and engineering approaches, methods and practices
• Service systems, components, platforms, technologies, security, and architectures
• Service provisioning, Cloud services
• Theories and approaches for integrating and/or sourcing services computing and automated BPM
• Theories and approaches to services design & engineering and modeling & simulation
• Service typologies and their implications for management, IT support and IT-based innovation
• Pedagogy and teaching of services-related topics
• Other services-related topics

Keynote Speaker
Prof. John Leslie King, University of Michigan

Workshop Organizing Committee
General Chair: Roman Beck (Germany)
Local Organizing Chair: Ada Scupola (Denmark)

Workshop Program Committee

Registration

• Registration with ICIS registration:
• Early registration (before November 1^st): 130 USD
• Late registration (after November 1^st): 150 USD
• Student registration: 110 USD
• No social event (optional): minus 40 USD

Registration fees include a membership of the SIG SVC for the year 2014 (10 USD).
One cannot register without the SIG SVC 2014 membership registration.

Submission Instructions
Send your paper as an attachment in AIS Sprouts-format (sprouts.aisnet.org/sprouts-style.html) to https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sigsvc2013 before September 2nd, 2013. We invite completed research papers which must not exceed fourteen (14) single-spaced pages. The 14 pages must include all text, figures, tables, and appendices. The cover page, abstract, keywords, and references are excluded from this page count. Research-in-progress papers must not exceed 7 single-spaced pages and must include all text, figures, tables, and appendices. The cover page, abstract, keywords, and references are excluded from this page count. Both should include an abstract of up to 250 words. For panel proposals, please send in a one page proposal with at least 5 persons from different institutions stating the objective, importance, expected outcomes, key statements (per participant), and proposed way of getting the workshop participants involved.

Proceedings & Journal Fast-Tracking
The accepted papers will be published in the AIS Sprouts working paper series after the workshop. Selected full research papers will also be invited for submission to JITTA: Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (www.jitta.org) as full research papers.

ISSIP members Arnold Beekes and Haluk Demirkan recently had an email exchange on the role of ISSIP SIG Education and Research whitepapers and practical projects… inspired by their exchange, I offered the following additional thoughts…

I was re-reading your sequence of email exchanges, about purpose of white-papers and practical projects, and had a couple thoughts.

As you know Detroit just filed for bankruptcy, the largest in US history ($18B in debt, and a fraction (less than 50%) of previous population).

SIG Whitepapers are good to produce because as new members join the SIG they can come up to speed quickly.

SIG Projects are good to produce real world outcomes that demonstrate a change in the world.

Since our primary SIG is Education and Research, and our sub-SIG activity of Smarter Cities is just getting started it make sense to think about how to align them.

The original thought I had was to include Smarter City cases in the Service Science courses taught at universities.   Cities are a great source of data for urban service system innovation, and a great source of faculty/student projects with local government and industry collaborators.

So I was originally thinking about urban service innovation data sets and courses, and project work for students, faculty, local government, and industry.

How does the following sound to you:

The purpose of the sub-SIG activity of Smarter Cities, as part of the ISSIP SIG Education and Research is five-fold:

– Invite SIG new member speakers from IBM, Cisco, HP, etc. working on smarter city projects that can be cases in a service science related course

– Rough sketch a faculty lecture on Smarter Cities as part of Service Science related courses – stakeholders, trends, cases, and relationship to service science concepts and principles

– Develop a set of example student projects with their local cities, encourage local government and industry mentors who are ISSIP members

– ISSIP Student Members can build their “personal brand” by working on such Smarter Cities projects as part of their service science related courses

– Create a set of ten exemplar projects that student teams could replicate in cities around the world, with academic/industry/government ISSIP mentors

Here is a first cut list of ten student projects  including Arnold’s suggest as the 11th Grand Challenge Project

1. For cities in crisis/bust mode (e.g., “Detroit”) produce a smart phone app dashboard to monitor the city vital signs

2. For cities in growth/boom mode (e.g., formerly “Dubai”) produce a smart phone app dashboard to monitor city vital signs

3. Project to study strongest and weakest cities around the world

4. Project to study city flows: transportation & people, water/waste, materials, energy, information – from service innovation perspective (e.g., circular economy)

5. Project to study city human development: buildings & construction, hospitality & retail/entertainment & culture, business & finance, health, educaiton

6. Project to study city government: nested, networked nature of governance from individual households up to city up to nation and continental region

7. Project to create more citizen participation in local government and community activities

8. Project to identify faculty who teach urban sciences and how it relates to service science courses

9. Review and report on top industry initiatives aimed at cities – is their an analyst report that should be part of service science courses?

10. Explore SPLASH and other modeling platforms for holistic service systems, design and implement a world simulators for global cities

11. Grand challenge project:

“We could ‘build’ a new city together, or we could renovate an existing city (Detroit??),  while applying the latest and greatest of service science.”

Again, I see the purpose of the whitepaper just to document a snap-shot of some thinking that will help us recruit new members in this area, bring them up to speed rapidly, and then encouraging student-mentoring professional development relationships that can help apply service science to innovation cities as holistic service systems…

Student-mentoring for example is what I am doing now related to Service Thinking applied to IBM Social Business with Hult Students –

https://service-science.info/archives/3084

https://service-science.info/archives/3099

It would be great to have an industry mentor work with a City-Topic and set of university students to do applied projects that other ISSIP members could contribute to or replicate in other regions around the world.

Hope this set of replications is helpful and illustrates the relationship that might exist between ISSIP SIG Whitepapers and ISSIP SIG Projects (especially student-industry-mentor projects) – I am sure there is a lot more for ISSIP to learn about how to do applied projects in the best win-win-win-win-win ways…  for all stakeholders – students-faculty-industry-government-ISSIP.

The best way to predict the future is to inspire the next generation of students to build it better.