Group items tagged

The original pointer to this report summary is from Jim Spohrer at http://forums.thesrii.org/srii/blog/article?blog.id=main_blog&message.id=191#M191 .

Key messages * There are three primary stakeholder groups that can guide the development of services science: academia, government and industry. Only by investing and working together in a coordinated manner can the maximum promise of services science be realised. * The global recession should sharpen government and industry's focus on services science as they seek solutions to invigorate the western economy, to make business more competitive and to learn from this latest setback. * Services science has the potential to establish a new industry of professionals (compare engineers, lawyers and computer scientists) whose expertise can be drawn upon to benefit the broader services-led economy. * The degree of human intervention required during the lifetime of an IT services contract is too high and is consequently both too expensive to be efficient and too error-prone to be effective. These shortcomings are directly related to the absence of scientific rigour in the design and delivery of these services. * IT is integral to services science, since modern service systems often have IT enablement heavily involved in service delivery. * IT service providers have the potential to benefit from services science by making their offerings more meaningful and resilient in a market that will increasingly demand more efficient service delivery. * Innovation in services delivery is at the heart of the vision for services science. The end goal should be a virtuous circle of innovation that can encourage new business opportunities and, in turn, create further innovation in the delivery of services. * Collaboration, investment and sharing of knowledge are vital to progressing services science research and development. * Significant challenges still need to be overcome to drive adoption of services science, not least of which is the complexity of aligning academic, business and governmental interests at a given moment in time. * Gove

The Royal Society has recently published the findings of a major study on the role of science in services sector innovation. Entitled Hidden Wealth: the contribution of science to service sector innovation , the report highlights the wider significance of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) to the services sector, which makes up around three quarters of the UK economy. Hidden Wealth concludes that STEM is deeply embedded within the UK service sectors and has an extensive impact on service innovation processes, which is often hidden. Although STEM is important in services sector innovation now, it is also likely to play an important part in the future of services, as many services are on the cusp of a transition to more personalised and interconnected systems, which will require significant advances in STEM.

This report from the Royal Society was cited by Irving Wladawsky-Berger at http://blog.irvingwb.com/blog/2009/08/hidden-wealth-science-technology-and-services-innovation-in-the-21st-century.html .

Excerpt: 6.6.6 A systems-based approach to understanding services. One solution may lie in the wider adoption of systems-based approaches to understanding services. A more systematic approach to studying services should result in better design, management and understanding of services and, at the same time, provide a suitable context in which to integrate disciplines such as social sciences, management science, economics and STEM. These sorts of educational programmes may particularly benefit firms who do not require graduates with deep knowledge in one of the existing disciplines. [p. 61] However, we note that when this has been attempted in the past, as with systems science and complexity theory -- both of which have existed for several decades and have been widely applied in scientific, engineering and social science contexts -- the tendency has been for people to organise themselves into disciplinary silos, with the result that the desired new interdisciplinary approaches have struggled to impose themselves. [pp. 61-62] The emerging Service Science, Manufacturing and Engineering (SSME) or 'Service Science' concept is also intended to join up a broad range of disciplines, but is specifically concerned with ensuring that graduates are better equipped for the workplace. Service Science may ultimately help the development of multi-disciplinary capabilities but in this regard SSME programmes seem to have been slow to emerge and only partially successful to date. A more profitable approach to redesigning academic curricula and delivery (at least as far as services are concerned) may be to focus in on service design, which seeks to understand the delivery of services from a user perspective and to develop better solutions (see Box 4.3 on page 40). Developments such as the Masters course in Service Design, Management and Innovation offered by the University of Manchester Centre for Service Research might provide good models for new courses, and should be closely mon

At one time, the belief was that services-ranging from healthcare to retail, from banking to education-were the exclusive domain of local providers and were therefore impervious to foreign competition. Because they required direct interaction with customers, service providers needed to be located where their customers were (Bryson et al. 2004). This belief-along with many others associated with service activities requiring direct customer interactions-is no longer true because information technology has fundamentally changed the way many services are now designed and delivered (Karmarkar 2004). In this editorial, we introduce a framework for service managers that shows how advances in technology are continuing to change the way service providers and their customers interact; how both providers and customers access resources and unlock their capabilities in the co-creation of value. We also identify some major challenges confronting today's service managers who are competing in a rapidly changing global knowledge economy. Their success in addressing these challenges requires increasingly sophisticated management techniques that continue to focus on creating value for both direct and indirect customer-provider interactions.

SERVICE SCIENCE: RESEARCH AND INNOVATIONS IN THE SERVICE ECONOMY 2011, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-8270-4

SERVICE SCIENCE: RESEARCH AND INNOVATIONS IN THE SERVICE ECONOMY 2010, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1628-0

daviding says: I was thinking about (output) coproduction and (value) cocreation, and came across these proceedings, which includes a short article by Rafael Ramirez and Ulf Mannervick on "Designing value-creating systems".

Essay Archive Edited by Lucy Kimbell and Victor P. Seidel, collected in this innovative and highly illustrated volume are findings from the designing for services project. Particular focus is on the practices of an emerging discipline of service design grounded in the arts and humanities. Three case studies in which service design companies worked with science and technology-based enterprises are discussed, from a range of academic perspectives.

SERVICE SCIENCE: RESEARCH AND INNOVATIONS IN THE SERVICE ECONOMY 2011, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7904-9

daviding says: If software engineering is engineering, then we should also think about service engineering as engineering. This article also helps to draw some lines between engineering as applied science, and more theoretical forms of science, both in the domain of services systems and human systems.

Gerald Weinberg once wrote, "If software engineering truly is engineering, then it ought to be able to learn from the evolution of other engineering disciplines." Robert Glass and his colleagues provocatively evaluated how often software engineering literature does this.4 They concluded that the literature relies heavily on software anecdotes and draws very lightly from other engineering fields. Walter Tichy found that fewer than 50% of the published software engineering papers tested their hypotheses, compared to 90% in most other fields. So software engineering may suffer from our habit of paying too little attention to how other engineers do engineering. In a recent extensive study of practices engineers expect explicitly or tacitly, Riehle found six we do not do well. Predictable outcomes (principle of least surprise). [....] Design metrics, including design to tolerances. [....] Failure tolerance. [....] Separation of design from implementation. [....] Reconciliation of conflicting forces and constraints. [....] Adapting to changing environments. [....]

OMG™ and the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) today announced that they have agreed to work together on the development of OMG's new program to certify Systems Engineers and other practitioners on the OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML™) standard. SysML is a graphical modeling language used to perform Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) - that is, to specify and design complex systems that may include hardware, information, personnel, and facilities in addition to software. The program, to be called OCSMP™ (OMG-Certified Systems Modeling Professional), will be OMG's fourth certification. OMG, an international, open membership, not-for-profit industry consortium, maintains standards for interoperability, modeling, and process maturity including the Model Driven Architecture® (MDA®) and Unified Modeling Language™ (UML®); in addition, OMG certifies practitioners in many of these standards. INCOSE is a not-for-profit membership organization dedicated to advancing the state of the art and practice of systems engineering, in part through its Certified Systems Engineering Professional (CSEP) certification program.

The hard (in the sense of difficult) part of service science is the social system side. INCOSE and OMG don't really address that. They address the hard (as opposed to soft) systems aspects, with people merely as more parts of an intrinsically engineered system (weapons system, transportation system, etc.). I applaud your diligence with respect to SysML and all that, but I hope your vision of the science of service systems is big enough to include the social side as well.

We introduce the concept of structural analysis of a business enterprise. The practice of enterprise structural analysis amounts to the construction of an enterprise model using business entities defined in an enterprise ontology or enterprise architecture and creating specific views of the enterprise based on relationships among the entities. As we demonstrate through a simple yet illustrative example of a hypothetical coffee shop business, these views can provide many insights and points of analysis. Structural analysis provides an interactive, analytical environment for a user to view an enterprise from multiple perspectives, an approach not unlike On-Line Analytical Processing (OLAP) but for analyzing the qualitative or structural aspects of the enterprise.

daviding says: This article describes business entities, and works concretely through an example with activities, resources and organization in a coffee shop.

11. How is ontology different from object-oriented modeling? An ontology is different from object-oriented modeling (represented in UML) in several ways. First, the most profound difference is that the ontology technology is theoretically found on logic. While ontology allows automated reasoning or infer ence, object-oriented modeling does not. Another difference is the treatment of properties; while the ontology technology treats properties as the first-class citizen, the object-oriented modeling does not. That is, while the ontology technology allows inheritance of properties, the object-oriented modeling does not. While the ontology technology allows arbitrary user-defined relationships among classes (a type property), the object-oriented modeling limits the relationship types to the subclass-superclass hierarchical relationship. While the ontology technology allows adding properties to relationships such as symmetry, transitivity, and inversion so that they are used in reasoning, the object-oriented modeling does not. While the ontology technology allows multiple inheritances among classes and also among properties, the object-oriented modeling allows only single inheritances. Despite theses differences, object-oriented modeling and UML are accepted as a practical ontology specification, mostly because of their wide-spread use in industry and the multitude of existing models in UML. There is an on-going effort to add logic capability to object-oriented modeling, represented by OCL (Object Constraint Language).

daviding says: To improve our understanding of the science of service systems, I think that we need to get to the level of ontology vocabulary ... and probably no higher. SysML has features that UML doesn't ... which doesn't mean good or bad, just different.