Some Key Words and Concepts

“service science” speak to “hot topic business” speak

service science is to the 21st Century -> as computer science was to 20th Century
   http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/
 http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/servicescience/

big adjective: service -> smarter or social

big phrase: service ecology  -> Smarter Planet, Social Business

big phrase: service systems -> Smarter Systems

big phrase: holistic service systems -> Smarter Cities, Smarter Regions

big phrase: nested, networked holistic service systems -> Smarter System of Systems

big change: information associated with service systems -> Big Data & Analytics, DEEP QA

big change: technology associated with service systems -> Cloud Computing and HPC (High Performance Computing)

big change: augmented people associated with service systems -> Social Business, Smart Phones/Mobile

big change: organizations responsibility associated with service systems -> CyberSecurity

big phrase: value propositions -> business models

big word: governance -> smarter government, open data, transparent government, Chesbrough’s “Open Services Innovation”

big words: entities, interactions, outcomes -> instrumented, interconnected, intelligent

big phrase: global service delivery center -> Globally Integrated Enterprise

big phrases:  service system learning, run-transform-innovation -> doing more with less, Run-Transform-Innovate, Moore’s “Escaping the Pull of the Past”

big change: defining service systems as dynamic configuration of shared resources -> future is about better access to anything, anytime, anywhere (Internet of Things)

big concept: modeling service systems, CAD for service systems -> Component Business Modeling with KPIs

big concept: service dominant logic or service logic or value co-creation logic -> win-win mindset

big concept: T-shaped professionals -> future innovators can work on teams that are multiple disciplines, industry sectors, cultures (global) doing collaborative innovation

big concept: T-shaped adaptive innovator -> IBM Global Entrepreneur Program and Smart Camps

Building More Sustainable Regions: Value Co-Creation Logic (AKA Service Logic)

Today, two types of regional studies are very important to work towards for building more sustainable regions.

(1) Material Flow Analysis
http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Future/Material_Flow_Analysis_york.pdf

(2) University Economic Impact
http://community.harvard.edu/economic_impact

To become more sustainable, regions need to work towards circular economies – guided by above studies.

What is a circular economy?  Watch this video…

The logic of leasing over ownership , to improve recycling and value co-creation, is of course well illustrated in Rolls Royce’s “Power By The Hour” concept:
http://www.mcasolutions.com/pdf/KnowledgeWharton02-07.pdf

Regions can be viewed as five levels of nested complex systems – universities in cities in states in nations in continents.

To be more sustainable, each level must strengthen local jobs/talent and minimize costly material flows.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/15/magazine/art-of-economic-complexity.html

The regional logic must shift to rethinking “agriculture and manufacturing as a type of local recycling service” – this is a service logic or value-cocreation logic.
http://sdlogic.net/

So a fun design for a sustainability summit might include speakers on four key topics:
(1) regional studies on: material flow analysis
(2) regional studies on: university-as-driver-of-regional-economic-impact-and-talent
(3) policy advocates for balancing circular  and import-export regional economies
(4) policy advocates for balancing winner-take-all and improve-weakest-link regional economies

This last item above is needed to accelerate learning between interconnected regions and improve four key measures of regions:
innovativeness
equity (competitive parity)
sustainability
resilience

What are examples of improve-weakest-link policy in the real world today?

(a) Works Pretty Well: NFL Draft
The weakest team each year gets best college player.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444734804578062802698020758.html
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/nfl-salaries-by-team.html

(b) Almost Works, But Not Quite: European Union
The richest, most productive nations, give favorable loans to the weakest, least productive nations.
http://www.businessinsider.com/video-george-soros-speech-italy-euro-crisis-2012-8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union

The planet is slowly evolving to interconnect – at all scales – sustainability regions into a nested, networked set of holistic service systems, that accelerate learning (innovativeness), while improving equity (competitive parity) with a focus on long-term sustainability and resilience of regions.
See this paper: http://servsci.journal.informs.org/content/4/2/147.abstract

Regions that export natural resources, and then buy back finished products paying a 10x mark up on those goods, are not well-positioned for long-term sustainability.  Regions that export their trash and then buyback products paying a 10x mark up on those goods, are not well-positioned for long-term sustainability.   The export of natural resources and trash, incur energy costs – but more importantly in the long run, they deprive regions of needed knowledge of processes, and the talent/job/future innovations that depend on local knowledge of those processes.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/15/magazine/art-of-economic-complexity.html

Throughout most of human history, nearly all regions were very sustainable, with minimal human-driven material flows into and out of regions.  In the last two hundred years, the pendulum has swung away from local sustainability towards import-export economies in part driven by specialization (Adam Smith) and comparative advantage (Ricardo), as well as lower transportation and communication costs, but now there is evidence that the pendulum may be swinging back – restoring regions local productive capacities.
http://wadhwa.com/2012/07/23/forbes-the-end-of-chinese-manufacturing-and-rebirth-of-u-s-industry/

Regions that recycle material resources (local processes) and improve human capital (local talent) are well-positioned to link with other like-minded regions to accelerate improvements in measures of  innovativeness, equity (competitive parity), sustainability, and resilience.  Local material and energy supply chains and global information and talent supply chains are evolving globally.

 

Talk: Creating Service Inventories for Competitive Advantage (Davis & Field)

Almaden Visitor Talk: Service Science Series

In conjunction with ISSIP.org (contact: info@issip.org)

Talk: Creating Service Inventories for Competitive Advantage
Speakers:   Mark Davis (Bentley), Joy Field (Boston College)
Date: November 20, 2012
Location: IBM Almaden Research Center, 650 HarryRoad, San Jose, CA, 95120
Time: 11:00am-12:00pm, Room J2-109
Host: Jim Spohrer  Director, IBM University Programs Worldwide
Contact spohrer@us.ibm.com to attend (space limited).

Abstract

Technology has dramatically affected today’s competitive environment for businesses in general, and for services in particular. Service organizations in virtually every industry now have access to basically the same external resources. Even economies of scale, which were once seen as a significant competitive advantage, are now being democratized by advances in information technology. As a result, emerging service organizations can compete on a regular basis with larger well established firms. In such a competitive environment, service firms must look internally to how they design their service delivery processes to develop a truly sustainable competitive advantage in the market place. One element in the design of the service delivery process that appears to offer such opportunities for developing a competitive advantage is the creation of service inventories in the service delivery process.

The simultaneity of production and consumption during the service delivery process coupled with the perishability of the provider’s capacity (both of which are due to the customer’s interaction with the service process) lead to the natural conclusion that services cannot be inventoried.  Prior to the introduction of the concept of service inventory by Chopra and Lariviere (2005), this basic tenet of services remained unchallenged. Although service inventories can be either physical or digital, we focus primarily on the creation of digital service inventories.

Our objective in developing this framework is to explicitly acknowledge the increasing role of technology and how it can provide service firms with a competitive advantage in the design of their service delivery processes with specific emphasis on the creation of service inventory. The shifting of the boundary towards the customer provides increasing opportunities for creating service inventories. This synergistic effect of both increasing the level of customer interaction during the value co-creation process and creating service inventories can provide firms with a sustainable competitive advantage.

Speaker Bios

Mark M. Davis is Professor of Operations Management at Bentley College in Waltham, MA.   He received a BSEE from Tufts University, and an MBA and DBA from Boston University. He worked as a manufacturing engineer for the General Electric Company and is a graduate of its Manufacturing Management Program. He was also a programs manager for the U.S. Army Natick Research Laboratories, where he focused on the design of military foodservice systems.   In addition to publishing numerous articles, Dr. Davis is also the co-author of two textbooks: Operations Management: Integrating Manufacturing and Services, (McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2005, 5th edition, with Janelle Heineke), and Managing Services: Using Technology to Create Value (McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2003, with Janelle Heineke).  Dr. Davis is a Past President of the Decision Sciences Institute (DSI). He also served as Program Chair for the 2003 DSI Annual Meeting, Secretary and as a member of the DSI Board of Directors, and is a Past President of the Northeast Decision Sciences Institute. In 2000, he was named a Fellow in the Decision Sciences Institute. In 1998, Dr. Davis received Bentley College’s Scholar of the Year Award. He was appointed to the 1996 Board of Examiners for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Dr. Davis won the Innovative Education Award for Best Paper (with Jane Tchaicha) at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Northeast Decision Sciences Institute. Dr. Davis currently serves on the editorial review board of The Journal of Service Management and on the Board of Overseers for Mass Excellence.   As a visiting professor, Dr. Davis has taught courses/workshops in service operations/management at Cornell University’s School of Hotel Administration in Ithaca, New York; Instituto de Empresa in Madrid, Spain; Groupe HEC in Paris, France; Keio University in Tokyo, Japan; Al Akhawayn University in Casablanca, Morocco, and Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia.

Joy M. Field is an Associate Professor of Operations Management in the Carroll School of Management at Boston College. She received an MBA, MS in statistics, and PhD in operations management from the University of Minnesota. Her research and consulting focuses on designing and managing the service co-creation process to improve its efficiency and effectiveness, with an emphasis on the role of the customer co-producer. Her work has been published in leading journals such as Academy of Management Journal, Decisions Sciences, Journal of Operations Management, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Production and Operations Management, and Strategic Management Journal. In addition to journal publications, she is the author of the book, Designing Service Processes to Unlock Value, published by Business Expert Press.  She serves as an associate editor for Decision Sciences and Journal of Operations Management.  Prior to her career in academia, she was an industrial engineer and financial analyst for Unisys.

Talk: Creating Service Inventories for Competitive Advantage
Speakers:   Mark Davis (Bentley), Joy Field (Boston College)
Date: November 20, 2012
Location: IBM Almaden Research Center, 650 HarryRoad, San Jose, CA, 95120
Time: 11:00am-12:00pm, Room J2-109
Host: Jim Spohrer  Director, IBM University Programs Worldwide
Contact spohrer@us.ibm.com to attend (space limited).

In conjunction with ISSIP.org (contact: info@issip.org)
Almaden Visitor Talk: Service Science Series

CFP: The Naples Forum on Service (Deadline: Dec 15th)

For more information see the website.
http://sdlogic.net/uploads/2/7/3/5/2735531/call_for_papers_-_2013_naples_forum_on_service.pdf

HOSTED BY
The University of Salerno and The University of Naples “Federico II”

CHAIRPERSONS
Evert GUMMESSON, Professor, Stockholm University, Sweden
Cristina MELE, Associate Professor, University of Naples “Federico II”, Italy
Francesco POLESE, Associate Professor, University of Salerno, Italy

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS
Evert GUMMESSON, Stockholm University, Sweden.
Robert LUSCH, University of Arizona, USA and Stephen VARGO, University of Hawaii, USA.
Jim SPOHRER, IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, USA.

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
The Scientific Committee members will act as advisors to the Chairs and support the scientific level of the Forum.
Important tasks for the members are the participation in the review process of submitted abstracts and the selection of the
Best Paper Awards. The Scientific Committee members will serve as discussants during sessions.
President: Paolo Stampacchia, University of Naples “Federico II”, Italy
Claudio Baccarani, University of Verona, Italy
David Ballantyne, University of Otago, New Zealand
Ralph Badinelli, University of Virginia Tech, USA
Sergio Barile, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Italy
Rod Brodie, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Antonella Carù, University of Milan “Bocconi”, Italy
Daniele Dalli, University of Pisa, Italy
Renato Fiocca, University Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy
Gaetano Golinelli, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Italy
Michael Kleinaltenkamp, University of Berlin, Germany
Helge Löbler, University of Leipzig, Germany
Robert Lusch, University of Arizona, USA
Paul Maglio, IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, USA
Irene Ng, WMG – University of Warwick, UK
Jaqueline Pels, University of Torquato de Tella, Argentina
Enzo Rullani, Venice International University, Italy
Jim Spohrer, IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, USA
Kaj Storbacka, Hanken School of Economics, Finland
Annalisa Tunisini, University of Urbino, Italy
Stephen Vargo, University of Hawaii, USA

THE 3 PILLARS OF THE NAPLES FORUM
The Naples Forum on Service is here for the third time. The first two on Capri (in 2009 and 2011) each had 150
participants from 25 countries. This was more than we had expected and as many as we could manage and still keep a
close and intimate atmosphere. For the 2013 Forum we change to the neighboring island of Ischia, a charming venue
with hot springs and spas. When the ideas of the Naples Forum started to brew we thought of an interactive conference
focused on the future of service and marketing, a conference that should make a difference and contribute to a revival of
our disciplines. In the development of service research we have discerned three paradigms (for a brief article on the
paradigms, see Gummesson, 2012).
Paradigm 1 (pre-1970s) where service was not at all on the agenda in marketing and management research and
education.
Paradigm 2 (1970s-2000s) when service research grew exponentially with seminal contributions from Northern
Europe, France, UK, USA and other countries with goods/services differences in the center but lacking syntheses
and unifying theory.
Paradigm 3 (2000s-) when service research moved its focus from differences to commonalities and
interdependencies between goods and services. It also moved from the supplier value chain to the value network of
all stakeholders (“balanced centricity”) and service (in the singular) became the output irrespective of input. The
roles of suppliers and customers have also changed through the recognition of cocreation of value with resource
integration with customer-to-customer interaction (C2C) or more broadly as actor-to-actor interaction (A2A). In the
core of Paradigm 3 is the recognition of complexity. Service systems are enormously complex – it is not sufficient to
study the relationship between just a few variables. The new millennium brought with it openings to address
complexity and take a more systemic view. Service-Dominant (S-D) Logic contributed a tentative higher level
service theory of the best contributions of the past and showed directions for the future. Service Science started from
practitioner experiences and challenges our way of designing and implementing service systems. Network Theory
and Systems Theory have been deployed to address complexity with applications like Many-to-Many-Marketing and
the Viable Systems Approach (VSA). These developments form the 3 Pillars of the Naples Forum. With them it is
motivated to label our current economy a Service Economy.
The transition to Paradigm 3 is developing – but it takes decades. Service research got under way 40 years ago and
it is only now that we are beginning to sense the full picture of our economies as complex networks of service systems
with a mission to enhance value for consumers, citizens, businesses and society as a whole. The following sections offer
brief reviews of the characteristics of the 3 Pillars.
Service Dominant (S-D) Logic
S-D logic is a synthesis of the best from Paradigm 2 leaving unproductive approaches and myths behind. Paradigm
2 took its vantage point in “differences” between goods and services – without ever being able to define goods and
services and pinpoint their generic properties. It had long been observed, among others by members of the Nordic
School, that goods and services always appear in symbiosis. The emphasis on differences led to the idea that the
service sector is growing and that all new jobs come from services. But the “service sector” cannot be defined. It is just
a listing of market offerings as alleged services (restaurants, airlines, health care etc.) and worse: the service sector has
become a dump for everything that does not qualify as goods. Further, when companies outsource internal functions or
divide their operations in profit centers and make them separate companies, much of what was included under goods
manufacturing is now transferred into the service sector – but the same operations are performed as before. No wonder
that the service sector is growing in official statistics! The division in sectors is seller and production centric whereas
marketing for 50 years has preached that we should be customer oriented. S-D logic shows that it is more realistic to see
service as value-creating activities with many contributing stakeholders; it is not just a dyadic supplier-customer
relationship.
Paradigm 2 fulfilled a mission of breaking the deadlock of Paradigm 1 and Paradigm 3 had not been possible
without it. So it is not a matter of criticizing the past but to see a potential for future development. Bob Lusch and Steve
Vargo who designed S-D logic keep developing it and treat it as an open code where everyone is welcome to make
constructive contributions.
S-D logic summarizes its message in ten foundational premises. In brief, these premises put the following to the
fore. The most critical changes include moving from goods/services differences to goods/service interdependencies. The
word service is given a new meaning, going from an undefined input to the value of the output and value-in-use or in a
more generalized way to value-in-context. Service is the fundamental basis of exchange and goods are merely
distribution mechanisms of service. Both businesses and customers are operant (active) resources as opposed to the
mainstream marketing and economics idea that suppliers do things to customers who are just reactive or passive
(operand resources). A supplier can only offer a value proposition on the market; the value actualization rest with users
in an idiosyncratic and contextual way. The network aspect is implicit through the statement that all social and
economic actors are cocreators and resource integrators, implying that value creation takes place through interaction in
complex networks and systems.
Service Science
IBM is a century old corporation in computer technology and consulting. It is one of the most successful businesses
in the world and with a staff of over 400,000 one of the largest. It has always invested in long term basic research –
IBM employees have won five Nobel Prizes – and hold more patents than any other US company. Led by Dr. Jim
Spohrer the Service Science program started in the early 2000s challenging the service systems that constitute today’s
economies: Are the systems efficient and innovative enough? They found they are not. Today the Service Science
program cooperates with over 500 institutions of higher learning worldwide to stimulate research and education. Being
closer to universities of technology and computer science, IBM was initially unfamiliar with the service research
tradition at business schools. S-D logic provided IBM service systems thinking with a theory. Practice and academia
met – and it was love at first sight!
Service Science is a call for academia, industry, and governments to become more systemic about service
performance and innovation. Further, it is a proposed academic discipline and research area that would complement –
rather than replace – the many disciplines that contribute to knowledge about service. The ultimate goal of Service
Science is to apply scientific knowledge to the design and improvements of service systems for business and societal
purposes. The concern is that we do not master seamless and reliable service systems at a time when systems are
becoming increasingly complex and global, making us increasingly vulnerable to systems sluggishness and failure.
Every service system is both a provider and client of service that is connected by value propositions in value-creating
networks.
Service Science is a multidisciplinary open source program based on computer science, industrial engineering,
organizational theory, business strategy and more, including the humanities. In terms of science it investigates what
service systems are and how they evolve, and the roles of people, knowledge, shared information and technology, as
well as the relevance of customers inside production processes; in terms of management it investigates how to improve
and evaluate quality and productivity; and in terms of engineering it develops new designs of service systems with
better technologies and software.
In their effort “Create a smarter planet” Service Science identifies universities and cities as hubs. Both universities
and cities are tightly coupled holistic service systems. If we live in a city we are constantly dependent of systems of
transportation, water supplies, food procurement, energy distribution, building and construction, retailing, finance,
health care, education and many more. Some of these are in chronic crisis like city transportation with traffic jams and
health care with soaring costs. On a global scale the current financial crisis has shown that finance is an uncontrollable
hodgepodge of activities and unrelated subsystems that have run out of control.

Network and Systems Theory
The words complexity, networks and systems pinpoint the same phenomena. Complexity is derived from the Latin
verb complecti, meaning “to twine together” and the noun complexus means “network”. The word “system” is derived
from the Greek systema, meaning “a whole composed of many parts”. So the meanings of the three words overlap and
expose their interdependency. From these words different traditions have sprung up. Network theory and systems theory
offer both a way of thinking in relationships and interaction and techniques to address complexity and context. These
are part of complexity theory where many others, for example, chaos theory, fractal geometry and autopoiesis (selforganizing
systems) belong. Complexity theory exists both in social sciences, natural sciences and technology but is not
utilized efficiently by management disciplines. They can be used with different degrees of sophistication: 1. as a basis
for verbal discussions and texts; 2. as graphics, from hand-made sketches to computer generated diagrams; and 3. as
mathematical applications and computer simulations.
Dyadic relationships have been emphasized since the 1970s, especially in the B2B (business-to-business) studies
by the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) Group, and in Paradigm 2 the service encounter – the interaction
between a service provider and a consumer – was a central concept. In the 1990s, Relationship Marketing and Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) helped raise the interest in relational approaches to marketing, service and
management in general. However, too many saw relationships as a tool to “manage the customer”, i.e. a mere addition
to the marketing mix and the 4Ps from Paradigm 1. The understanding that the dyadic relationship was too limited and
did not uncover real world complexity slowly raised the interest in networks and systems thinking. It is also an integral
part of both S-D logic and Service Science.
Network theory has primarily offered a systemic approach for B2B but has equal potential for B2C/C2B (businessto-
consumer/consumer-to-business). Many-to-Many Marketing is a general approach that describes, analyzes and
utilizes the network properties of marketing and recognizes that both suppliers and customers operate in complex
network contexts. Every function of a firm – operations management, human resources, logistics, finance, etc. –
represents a perspective on management. Therefore it is, for example, more relevant to talk about marketing-oriented
management rather than marketing management. The Viable System Approach (VSA) is a systems theory-based
application for management. It postulates that every business is a system, nested in a relational context where it is
looking for competitive profiles (viability) through interaction with other actors/stakeholders. Its theory proposes a new
representation of the behavioral approach to business and relational interactions with its context. In practice it shows in
the development and implementation of business models.
Developing Paradigm 3 through Naples Forum Publications
The Naples Forum is an effort to stimulate Paradigm 3 research, communicate it and speed up its progress. Within
the 3 Pillars lots of activities including extensive publishing takes place. Lusch and Vargo have been involved in over
50 articles and 20 book chapters, edited several Special Issues of journals, and spoken continuously at conferences,
universities and business firms around the world. Jim Spohrer and his colleagues, together with Forum participants
publish continuously on Service Science, including three recent books. Network and systems theory is increasingly
integrated with the two other pillars and is the lead theme for several authors, not least from Italian researchers, the
Nordic School and the IMP Group.
The Forum supports the efforts of the participants to publish by co-authoring with other participants and adopt
presented papers to articles in journals of their own choice and in special Forum issues. As a result of the 2009 Forum
three Special Issues with a total of 21 articles were published. The 2011 Forum spawned 19 articles in four Special
Issues of the Journal of Service Management, Service Science, Journal of Business, Market Management and Mercati e
Competitività. We are currently negotiating with journals for publication of the 2013 Forum articles.
PROGRAM
The Forum starts on Tuesday, June 18, 2013, with registration and a reception at 18:00. On Wednesday, June 19, the
Forum opens at 9:00 and ends on Friday, June 21, at 16:00. For details and continuous updates, see
www.naplesforumonservice.it
VENUE
L’Albergo della Regina Isabella, Piazza Santa Restituta, 1, Lacco Ameno – Ischia (Na), Italy.
CALL FOR PAPERS
We invite papers dealing with themes within one or several of the 3 Forum Pillars: S-D logic, service science, and
network/systems theory. We especially encourage submissions with an integrative perspective. The papers could be
theoretical and/or empirical and be based on qualitative and/or quantitative research. In order to submit a proposal
directions are given within the www.naplesforumonservice.it web page. Topics could include (but are not restricted to)
the following:
– Business models to manage networks and service systems
– Complexity theory and service research
– Customer centricity vs. a multi-party stakeholder orientation (balanced centricity)
– Experience, value-in-use and value-in-context
– ICT for service
– Integration and management of resources and capabilities
– Many-to-many marketing and markets as networks
– Markets and marketing
– Methodological challenges and issues in service research
– Networks, interaction and relationships
– Practice-theory in service research
– Service design
– Service innovation
– Service processes and engineering
– Service science projects in research and/or education
– Service systems and system thinking
– The development of Service-Dominant Logic
– The role of institutional logics in service research
– The Viable Systems Approach (VSA)
– Value co-creation and the changing role of suppliers and customers
– Value propositions
– Web 2.0 or Web 3.0, the semantic web

DEADLINES
Abstract submission: December 15, 2012
Notification of acceptance: January 20, 2013
Final paper submission (optional): April 30, 2013

prof. ing. Francesco Polese
Associate Professor of Business Management – DISTRA (
Dept. of Business Studies and Research)
professor of Health Management – Department of Medicine and Surgery
University of Salerno – Italy

New Books: Service Systems and Innovations in Business and Society Collection

Business Expert Press: The Service Systems and Innovations in Business and Society Collection

 

What are you reading these days related to service science, service systems, and service innovations?

 
1. Service Process Design for Value Co-Creation
Joy Field

The service process design landscape is changing, with many of the previous limitations disappearing on how and by whom services are delivered. Opportunities for new service design configurations are being enabled, to a large extent, by technology-driven service innovations, and tasks previously performed by the service provider may now be performed by either the customer or service provider. As a result, customers are taking a more active role in the service delivery process, not only through self-service but by providing information to the service provider to create a more personalized service experience.

2.   Lean Sigma Methods and Tools for Service Organizations: The Story of a Cruise Line Transformation
Jaideep Motwani, Rob Ptacek, and Richard Fleming

Both Six Sigma and Lean are widely recognized and implemented; and both have been successful in creating value within a variety of organizations, mostly in manufacturing concerns. Lean Sigma Methods and Tools for Service Organizations proposes to integrate the best practices from each of these philosophies and apply them to an organization whose overriding mission is to deliver superior service to its customers.

 

For more information:
http://www.businessexpertpress.com/taxonomy/term/61

 

 

Ten Reasons Why Service Science Matters to Universities

Read full article at EDUCAUSE.

Why do you think service science matters to universities as service systems being transformed?

Higher education is being reshaped little by little every day. Slowly but surely, from the smallest community colleges to the teaching institutions to the most prestigious research universities, a new set of key performance indicators (KPIs) is transforming what excellence means in higher education. For developed and emerging market nations globally, higher education creates both an informed citizenry and a high-skill workforce, but how that is achieved is being transformed. What is not changing is the fact that higher education opens up new opportunities in a knowledge-driven global economy. It is what parents want for their children, as well as what professionals want for themselves as lifelong learners with growing career aspirations. So how can institutions compete on the global stage of higher education? Through service science, the emerging science that studies value co-creation in complex systems and proven innovation techniques already being used in other industries.

Service science can provide perspective on the forces reshaping higher education today.1 From online service offerings to self-service technologies to global brands establishing local franchises, these basic forces are transforming whole industries and are being studied by service scientists. Higher education is not the first industry to feel the tug of these forces, nor will it be the last, with finance, health care, and government on the horizon and with retail, media, manufacturing, and agriculture industries well down the road of 21st-century transformation in the age of global sourcing, cloud computing, and the “Internet of Things.”

Ten Reasons

Service science matters to universities for many reasons, but we will elaborate on just ten here.

1. Universities are complex service systems of fundamental importance.

2. Disciplines are infusing service innovation concepts into curriculum.

3. Service science can help universities overcome discipline silos.

4. University-based startups are often new types of online service.

5. Professional associations are adding service science SIGs.

6. Cities, home to most universities, are complex service systems.

7. Service failures can be costly and can derail the careers of students.

8. Service science can help universities move up in rankings.

9. Service science can contribute to good industry-university relations and interactions.

10. Service science can help all universities improve their service excellence “game.”

Read the full article here at EDUCAUSE.

Here is a related article at Center for American Progress.

Why do you think service science matters to universities as service systems being transformed?

 

Tip: Starting a new service science related course

Interested in starting a new service science related course?

I would recommend you check out the following which Wendy Murphy (cc-ed) maintains:
https://service-science.info/university-highlights

This represents a starting point for contacting others who have made the journey…

Depending on who you are, and the way you want to approach teaching service science…
IT & CS
engineering & systems
business management & marketing & operations
social sciences
design & arts
humanities and liberal arts
etc.

We can  probably link you with specific faculty who share your passion for the study of service systems, service science, service innovation, SSME, SSME+D, etc. from a particular disciplinary perspective…

There are also many textbooks becoming available – it is crucial to build on these to avoid re-inventing the wheel or struggling too long to develop curriculum…
https://service-science.info/archives/1931

Eventually their will be MOOC versions of each of these threads, and then the iteratively learning to rapidly converge them into an integrated whole can begin…. those who register for ISSIP.org and join the ISSIP SIG Education & Research can help realize that goal over the coming years…

It is a lot of work, but it is worthwhile seeing so many faculty around the world who are integrating business, technology, social and organizational sciences, design arts and humanities, into their approach to topics such as urban planning, risk management, public policy, entrepreneurship, etc.

 

Tip: Gathering data from survey to 1-1 interviews

ISSIP.org will help university faculty and students gather research data….

The International Society of Service Innovation Professionals (http://www.issip.org)  is being established to help promote service innovation in our interconnected world.  The objectives include professional development, education, research, practice, and policy.

To help faculty/students get a good cross sampling of responses to their surveys (see Coverage Slide #12)
http://www.slideshare.net/spohrer/issip-intro-20121022-v11

We ask the faculty and students to join ISSIP.org to broaden the set of those willing to help with gathering survey data on a range of topics related to service systems, from business to governments to universities to non-profits..

As you can imagine I get many requests from faculty and students to participate in interviews for university projects…

First, I request that the faculty/student create a SurveyMonkey version of the questions they wish to ask me and others from industry.

Reminding them of how busy people from industry are, so a survey that takes 5 minutes will get twice as many people as a survey that takes 10 minutes to fill out.

I provide them with examples, in case they ask, since I have done so many – for example – here is one that I did yesterday…. this survey took me about 10 minutes to fill out.

Example of an excellent survey that took about ten minutes to fill out:

“… a global research project regarding the role of Marketing in business and gather responses from executives across functional areas, industries and geographies.  All the data will be aggregated and anonymous.   Please go to this link to answer the survey:  http://nusbschool.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_0q7obfxYyUJiArH
Thank you so much in advance for your kind support!
With warmest regards,  Jochen
  Professor Jochen WIRTZ, Ph.D
Academic Director, UCLA – NUS Executive MBA Program
NUS Business School :: National University of Singapore

At the end of the survey, there is a statement:
“If you would like to get a copy of the final report please include your email address”

I also recommend if they want to do some 1-1 telephone or Skype interviews…  that the student/faculty add…
“If you would be willing to elaborate on your responses in a telephone interview, please provide your email address, and we will contact you to set up a 30 minute call at your convenience”

I find this approach works best for everyone – and the faculty and students are usually delighted because they get more data in the end via the survey monkey and quality 1-1 interviews.

Faculty and students need data, and industry can help advance knowledge by sharing some of their time – but faculty/students need to show great respect for industry people’s time, and the above method does that well.

Good luck gathering data!!!

Future of Universities: A Service Science Perspective (Stanford Nov 13th)

Stanford Triple Helix Workshop

“The Future of Universities: A Service Science Perspective”
Tuesday, November 13th, 9:50-10:15

This talk will explore two themes for the future:  (1) The best way to predict the future is to challenge and inspire the next generation of students to build it better;  (2) The future is already here at universities, it is just not evenly distributed throughout the rest of society.  Universities are being transformed, and service science, which is the emerging study of complex service systems and value-cocreation in business and society, offers a useful perspective on the transformation underway.  Presidents, deans, faculty, students, and other stakeholders, including business, government, and social sector, are reorienting their value-propositions around four missions.  The four missions are (1) knowledge transfer (teaching), (2) knowledge creation (research), (3) knowledge application (entrepreneurship), and (4) knowledge integration (restructuring to overcome silos).  By 2030, in a world of accelerating change, universities will be the dominant loci of economic development locally and talent exchange globally.

Speaker Bio:
Jim Spohrer is Director of IBM University Programs, leading a global team of IBMers working with about five thousands universities worldwide aligning around the interconnected 6 R’s – Research, Readiness (Skills), Recruiting, Revenue, Responsibility (Volunteerism), and Regions (Entrepreneurship).  Previously, Jim was founding CTO of IBM’s Venture Capital Relations Group in IBM Corporate Strategy and founding Director of IBM’s Service Research area in IBM Research.  Jim is one of the founders of an emerging area of study known as service science, which studies the evolution of complex service systems in business and society, and their value-cocreation logic (http://www.service-science.info/archives/2233).  During the 1990’s, Jim was a Distinguished Engineer, Scientist, and Technologist (DEST) at Apple.   Jim has over 90 publications and 9 patents.  He has a BS in Physics from MIT, and a PhD in Computer Science/Artificial Intelligence from Yale.

 

CFP: Special Issue Production Planning and Control – Servitization (Deadline: Dec 15)

Call for papers for a Special Issue in Production Planning and Control

“Organisational transformation in servitization”

The Special Issue welcomes papers that offer novel research contributions in any aspect of Organisational transformation in servitization.

Submissions to this Special Issue must represent original material that have been neither submitted to, nor published in, any other journal.

IMPORTANT DATES

–        Extended abstract (2 pages): December 15th, 2012

–        Notification of acceptance for submission of full paper: March 31st, 2013

–        Submission of full paper: June, 30th 2013

–        Publication of the Special Issue (electronic version): Spring 2014

Guest Editors: Sergio Cavalieri, Paolo Gaiardelli, Veronica Martinez