Short History of Engineering Management Discipline

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

Service-related LinkedIn Groups

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

 

 

Smart Service Systems: NSF Industry Academe

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

 

This group is a meeting place for academic and industrial parties with interest in platform technologies that enable smart services systems. The space should be used for discussion and networking. A virtual forum will be held in the near future to spur further discussion on the role of industry-academe partnerships in platform technologies that enable smart services systems.

Best regards

Juan E. Figueroa

CFP: SIG Service ICIS (Milano)

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 2nd, 2013
  • Author notification: October 15th, 2013
  • Camera ready papers due: November 15th, 2013
  • Social event / Dinner: December 14th, 2013
  • Workshop: December 15th , 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

Steven Alter (US) Michael Goul (US) Fu-ren Lin (TW) Virpi Tuunainen (FI)
John Beachboard (US) Bill Hefley (US) Manuel Mora (MX) Fons Wijnhoven (NL)
Rob Benyon (ZA) Christian Janiesch (DE) Akiko Orita (JP)
Tilo Böhmann (DE) Paul Kontogiorgis (US) Mary Tate (NZ)
Sue Conger (US) Stephen Kwan (US) Tuure Tuunanen (FI)

 

 

Registration

  • Registration with ICIS registration:
  • Early registration (before November 1st): 130 USD
  • Late registration (after November 1st): 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 SIG White-Papers and Practical Projects

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.

Some ISSIP Member Intro Videos

Suman Kukreti (India/USA – Hult MBA Student) 20130715 @SumanK84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12iZxUpqAlE

Wynand Goosen (South Africa/USA – Hult MBA Student) 20130715 @WSGoosen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRFeN_wJ-gk

Carolina Harumi Sugai (Brazil/USA – Hult MBA Student) 20130715 @harumisugai
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArfC8LXXjhs

Soheil Bouzari (/USA – Hult MBA Student) 20130715 @SoheilBouzari1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHD7PYM5FOI

Ana Cristina Garcia (Columbia/USA – Hult MBA Student) 20130715 @anacrisgi2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT7D_bEbQOo

Nurkhat Ibadildin (Kazakhstan/USA – Hult MBA Student) 20130715 @Nurkhatl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SR6loiZna8

Roman Osypenko (Ukraine/USA – Hult MBA Student) 20130715 @rosypenko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nRilBg6-zc

Ana Maria Rodriguez (Colombia/USA – Hult MBA Student) 20130715 @AnaRodOg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOP-Ud1MDb4

Olga Stryk (Ukraine/USA – Hult MBA Student) 20130714 @OlgaStryk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOPmi1xrFKw

Mohamed Temarz (Egypt/USA – Hult MBA Student) 20130714 @TemrazM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkpjC9Gx0FM

Anna Dimerin (Phillippines/Canada/USA – Hult MBA Student) 20130711 @AnnaDimerin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV4TdlA_Z2w

Arnold Beekes (Netherlands) 20130313 @ArnoldBeekes
http://www.issip.org/2013/03/13/1529/

Roland Padilla (Australia – U Melboune PhD Student) 20130526 @rolandpadilla
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUZ93kubVQk

Terri Griffith (USA – U Santa Clara) 20130309 @terrigriffith
http://www.issip.org/2013/03/09/professor-terri-griffith-intro-video/

Jim Spohrer (USA – IBM) 20130225 @JimSpohrer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qZPDG0Bp8

Michael Gorman (USA – U Virigina) 20130116
http://www.issip.org/2013/01/16/ways-of-encouraging-collaboration-and-co-evolution/

Charlie Bess (USA – HP) 20121031 @cebess
http://www.issip.org/2012/10/31/charlie-bess-video/

Christian Eggenberger (Switzerland – IBM) 20121029 @cornermount
http://www.issip.org/2012/10/30/christian-eggenberger-video-2/

 

Hult Students and Service Thinking Cases

Jeff Saperstein and Hunter Hastings have taught a “Service Thinking” course at Hult International Business School.

The course is based on their forthcoming book on Service Thinking.

This short video provides an overview of service thinking’s 7 principles.

The mentored student teams were challenged on using Service Thinking to understand IBM Social Business cases – both historical (“existing press releases”) and hypothetical (“look into their crystal balls – and imagine future press releases”)

Here are the historical cases:

Team 2
http://www.slideshare.net/AnaCristinaGarcia1/service-thinking-cases-consolidated-v6-24033149

Team 1:
http://www.slideshare.net/Nurkhat/ibm-project-team1

The best of the best tweeted their ISSIP intro videos (2 minutes) and hypothetical cases (5 minutes slides + audio), see links below.

The videos are part of the exercise of the students building their  social media personal brands.

The “Service Thinking” course helps the students become more T-shaped ,and add breadth to their depth. Of course, it can also help professionals who are deep in several areas become Comb-shaped.

Team1 – Suman Kukreti, Wynand Goosen, Soheil Bouzari, Nurkhat Ibadildin, Roman Osypenko.

@SumanK84 Suman Kukreti 

L Unitedhealthcare

M Completenutrition

S iCOW

Suman Kukreti A+ for these Hypothetical Cases

 

@SoheilBouzari1 Soheil Bouzari 

L Freeport-McMoRan Copper

M Accompa

S Ginzametrics

Soheil Bouzari A+ for these Hypothetical Cases

 

@rosypenko Roman Osypenko 

L Gazprom

M YuMe

S Klout.com

Roman Osypenko A+ for these Hypothetical Cases

 

@WSGoosen Wynand Goosen

L Expedia (fyi… more than this I assume http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FGkV84BXAw)

M Ab Initio

S Airbnb

Wynand Goosen A+ for these Hypothetical Cases

 

@NurkhatI Nurkhat Ibadildin

L KazMunaiGas

M Evolve Media

S Snaps!

Nurkhat Ibadildin A+ for these Hypothetical Cases

 

Team2 – Olga Stryk, Ana Cristina Garcia, Ana Maria Rodriguez, Ana Dimerin, Mohamed Temraz, Carolina Sugai.

@OlgaStryk Olga Stryk:

L Apple

M Amadeus

S Social Flow

Olga Stryk  A+ for these Hypothetical Cases

@anacrisgi2  Ana Cristina Garcia:

L Starbucks

M Stefanini

S Quasar

Ana Cristina Garcia A+ for these Hypothetical Cases

 

@AnaRodOg Ana Maria Rodriguez:

L Syngenta

M NewBay Sodtware

S Crowdtwist

Ana Maria Rodriguez A+ for these Hypothetical Cases

 

@AnnaDimerin Anna Dimerin:

L Stratasys

M Liaison Technologies

S Scanadu

Anna Dimerin A+ for these Hypothetical Cases

 

@TemrazM Mohamed Temraz:

L JP Morgan Chase

M Planet Fitness

S Digital roots

Mohamed Temraz A+ for these Hypothetical Cases

 

@harumisugai Carolina Sugai:

L Johnson & Johnson (fyi… http://erb.umich.edu/blog/2013/01/04/ibm-and-johnson-johnson-procure-it-forward-project/)

M InVue Security Product

S Squigle

Carolina Harumi Sugai A+ for these Hypothetical Cases

 

The goal is to have fun while learning Service Thinking – and if lucky have some “AHA!” moments.

Some final thoughts for students to consider, as they become more social media savvy and build their personal brand and become more expert at service thinking, more T-shaped.

“To be the best, learn from the rest…” so I urge you all to review the intro videos and hypothetical cases of the others – what can you learn and apply?

“Service thinking is a discipline, based on the principles of service science, the more you exercise the discipline, the better you will be at service thinking…” so I urge you all to get in the habit of making short five minute videos at least once a month that you post to YouTube, as well as presentations that you post to slideshare.net – and then tweet about them. If you are interested in a company, do a service thinking case study on them, either historical or hypothetical.

Finally, offer your service thinking skills to other professionals you meet via ISSIP (the International Society of Service Innovation Professionals). Work with other in ISSIP to co-create value, build each others’ personal brands, and learn to apply service thinking better. If someday a hypothetical case becomes real, you may discover your service thinking reasoning was a good predictor of future events and value co-creation opportunities.

Finally, the best way to predict the future is to inspire the next generation of students to build it better – so pass it on!

Mission and Governance of Universities

Four top “mission elements” governing global universities:

1. Learning/Teaching – improving access and excellence (closing skill gaps)

2. Discovery/Research – improving productivity and living-lab (with their city and the world/glocal)

3. Engagement/Entrepreneurship – improving startups and regional economic development impact

4. Integration/Interdisciplinary – improving continuous improvement of holistic re-integrated general education

 

More fully discussed in the papers below…

The best US top university perspective is the following:
http://mup.asu.edu/UniversityOrganization.pdf

The summary of the paper above is that quality matters.  Both in teaching and research which are closely linked.  University mission and governance must have a continuous improvement process for both quality of teaching and research.  Ultimately, quality depends on a new business model for universities, since “paying for quality” is expensive.

The following provides a European perspective:
http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/docs/ROPS.Kruecken.EuroView.12.13.11.pdf

The summary of the paper above is that costs of administrative part of universities can balloon if not held in check by continuous improvement processes that rationalize and outsource some of these function.  Scope creep can negatively impact universities, just as it does corporations.   The university does need to create more pathways for students (as interns, as entrepreneurs, as returning alumni, etc.) and without a careful eye on costs, DIY (Do-It-Yourself) can balloon costs.  To be more global, many universities are offering business, science, and other courses in English.

A broader OECD perspective that includes for-profit university competitors is this document:
http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2013%20(eng)–FINAL%2020%20June%202013.pdf

The summary of the paper above is that there are many more ways people in OECD countries are attaining tertiary education levels.  This diversity is at once moving the needle on upskilling populations, and ensuring fewer unfilled job openings because of a skill gap, but also creating confusion among customers – who see many paths, but harder decisions as to which path is best for them (see for example, ConnectEDU, Balloon.com, etc.).  The IBM GTO on Personalized Education also describes this space.

The history of governance at universities is long – but this provides a good summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance_in_higher_education

The Yale Report of 1828 and the AAUP report of 1920 set up the “academic freedom” gold standard that allowed university faculty, especially tenured faculty, who had demonstrated their substantial contributions to deepening knowledge in their chosen area – extra degrees of freedom to challenge the status quo and create breakthrough ideas that might be unpopular at their time of creation.  This establishes a great deal of power with tenured faculty at universities.  Change may be accelerated if tenure requirements, allow for faculty that work with students to do startup companies – this broadens the aperture beyond learning/teaching, discovery/research, to include engagement/entrepreneurship and startups.

This article provides a service science perspective on universities..
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/ten-reasons-service-science-matters-universities

The summary of the above paper is that a holistic perspective matters.  Universities are not one thing – and good leaders know how to use all the stakeholder connections to advance the mission of the university.  Service science can help university leaders with the integration challenge, moving beyond interdisciplinary studies to true holistic recapitulation approaches that create T-shaped transdiciplinary graduates (see also http://www.league.org/blog/post.cfm/how-transdisciplinarity-will-help-workers-thrive-in-a-complex-world).  This topic will also be explored at the T Summit (March 24-25, 2014 at IBM Almaden).

Finally, in my travels I find these university leaders exemplars:

Purdue
http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2013/Q2/purdue-to-expand-entrepreneurship-hub,-increase-commercialization-endeavors-.html

SNHU
http://www.fastcompany.com/most-innovative-companies/2012/southern-new-hampshire-university

SJSU
http://www.informationweek.com/education/online-learning/coursera-courses-approved-for-college-cr/240148119

ETHZ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNo4CXakpJ8

UTEP
http://www.utep.edu/aboututep/visionmissionandgoals.aspx

LNU
http://lnu.se/1.84982/innovation-meeting-hopes-to-encourage-entrepreneurship?l=en

MSU
http://report.president.msu.edu/360/

Standford
http://facultyrow.com/profiles/blogs/will-stanford-and-silicon-valley-transform-education

ASU
http://csi.asu.edu/tag/inspiration/

Aalto
http://www.aalto.fi/en/about/strategy/

E-JUST
http://www.ejust.edu.eg/main/profile/vision-mission

There are many other universities that are transforming their mission while keeping all elements in balance.  It would be helpful, if more presidents/rectors/provosts recorded videos like that of ETHZ above, explaining their strategy for coming up with a mission and governance approach for the future.  And of course, in English as well as mother tongue, would help appeal to top faculty and top students globally.

Four top “mission elements” of global universities:

1. Learning/Teaching – improving access and excellence (closing skill gaps)

2. Discovery/Research – improving productivity and living-lab (with their city and the world/glocal)

3. Engagement/Entrepreneurship – improving startups and regional economic development impact

4. Integration/Interdisciplinary – improving continuous improvement of holistic re-integrated general education

Augmented Intelligence Grand Challenge

For those who want to understand augmented intelligence, here are some nice introductory pointers:

Sean Gourley TEDx Auckland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKZCa_ejbfg&feature=youtu.be

Erik Brynjolfsson TED Talk
http://www.ted.com/talks/erik_brynjolfsson_the_key_to_growth_race_em_with_em_the_machines.html 

IWB on Kelly/Hamm Age of Cognitive Computing
http://blog.irvingwb.com/blog/2013/07/the-dawn-of-a-new-era-in-computing.html

Kelly/Hamm Age of Cognitive Computing
http://cup.columbia.edu/static/cognitive

 

Engelbart had the original vision
http://www.invisiblerevolution.net/engelbart/full_62_paper_augm_hum_int.html

(Doug just passed, a great visionary and friend: http://worrydream.com/Engelbart/)

Clayton Christensen on Disruptive Innovation versus Efficiency Innovation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpkoCZ4vBSI

E O Wilson – Evolution of social intelligences
http://www.amazon.com/Social-Conquest-Earth-Edward-Wilson/dp/0871403633

Herb Simon – Software Programs as Factors of Production
http://digitalcollections.library.cmu.edu/awweb/awarchive?type=file&item=33698

Of course, what is exciting for the service scientists , those who understand AEIOU Framework (Abstract-Entity-Interaction-Universal), is to see the trend.  As we contemplate the coming age of many more service system entities with augmented intelligence…. not just individual people with augmented intelligence, but businesses with augmented intelligence, universities with augmented intelligence, cities with augmented intelligence, and nations with augmented intelligence — all social and all learning from each other at an accelerating rate.

The Contextual Enterprise and the Age of Cognitive Computing
http://www.zurich.ibm.com/pdf/isl/infoportal/Global_Technology_Outlook_2013.pdf

Nested, networked entities learning to learn – learning the rewards and risks of new knowledge, from which we derive capabilities, rights, and responsibilities – aspects of culture.

Service, in which entities interact to achieve outcomes (apply knowledge for mutual benefits, or value co-creation).

Service innovation, in which entities interact to achieve outcomes (scaling the benefits of new knowledge are, globally and rapidly).

ISSIP: T-shaped service innovators
http://www.issip.org

T-Shaped Professionals

ISSIP promotes T-shaped Service Innovation Professionals.

T-shapes have Depth and Breadth.

Here are a few other pointers that may be of interest:

Standford talks about T-shapes too…

John Hennessey, President – http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/10/06/hennessy-huang-dedicate-jen-hsun-huang-engineering-center/

Jim Plummer, Dean – http://xinkaishi.typepad.com/a_new_start/2011/03/stanford-magazine-t-shaped.html

Compliment to leaders – http://engineering.stanford.edu/news/mae-jemison-bs-77-cheme

Nancy Peterson, director of communications for the School of Engineering, echoed Plummer’s sentiments, saying the center will equip students with the tools to become not only excellent engineers, but also savvy entrepreneurs and community activists.

“We’re emphasizing both breadth in a discipline and broad skills,”she said. “As Dean Plummer says, we want to create T-shaped people, where the vertical bar is depth in a particular discipline, and the horizontal bar is breadth —things like communication, leadership, cultural awareness.”

Also, we are working on the T-SUMMIT for IBM Almaden on March 24-25, 2014…

Note also that many other universities, businesses, and even nations talk about T-shapes:

Universities – MSU
http://www.ceri.msu.edu/t-shaped-professionals/

Industry – IBM of course, but also places like SAP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZR9bt6N6pA

Nations – Singapore
http://www.slideshare.net/bcmi_admin/wccsg2012-selena

Early references are the leaders of IDEO – T-shapes or design thinking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills

Institute for the Future (IFTF) and Apollo Group
http://apolloresearchinstitute.com/sites/default/files/future-work-skills-2020-transdisciplinarity-12-22.pdf