Science of Service Systems

daviding says: Categorizing problems as P-type, N-type and NP-type (i.e. NP-hard) provides a way for appreciating why managers avoid taking on some challenges. It's better to succeed on an easy problem, than fail on a hard one. (There's a easier-reading version of this article in Rotman Magazine Winter 2009 that seems to have been evolved for publication into Harvard Business Review in January 2009).

[from the introduction] We develop a model of cognitive choices managers implicitly make among and within problem complexity classes and argue that strategic managers use problem statements from one complexity class with greater regularity than those from other complexity classes to make sense of their predicaments (i.e. to transform 'situations' or 'raw feels' into 'problems' or 'puzzles'). We examine the marginal value to strategic managers of greater 'logical complexity' - parametrized by the marginal value of greater precision of an answer and the computational sophistication of competitors schema - to come up with a computationally precise formulation of 'ecological rationality'.

daviding says: This article published in the Rotman Magazine on "Wicked Problems" is available on the Ideo web site. Designing a system for scale is a practical and interesting challenge.

Growing Influential Networks Following are three approaches that specifically deal with the idea of humanizing big problems to influence people to change and grow influential networks. 1. Human-Centered Systems: Design for People, Not the System 2. Sticky Systems: Design for Scale 3. Reciprocal Systems: Connect by Sharing The Five Principles of Systems at Scale 1. Ask how the system feels, not just how it works. 2. Recognize that a good system is often the best influencer. 3. Let the user close the loop. 4. Go micro with the human factors. 5. Start with hope, and take the long view.

daviding says: If the foundation of the system is in entropy rather than equilibrium, we'll need to figure out how exchange-based societies work, and the function of money (as information, in a general theory of systems).

The specific purpose of this paper is to trace the development of entropy-related thought from its thermodynamic origins through its organizational and economic applications to its relationship to money information. That trace reveals that existing entropy measures are of states or changes in states that are caused by energy processes. We propose that entropy may as well be conceived as entropic process. The social emergent specific exchange value provides a metric by which entropic process may be quantified. The analysis connects the traditional state-oriented entropy measures to measures of entropic process in social systems. In doing so, the character of exchange-based societies and the function of money information within them are elaborated.

daviding says: This is the first of three articles in the June 2007 issue of SPAR. As an alternative to coming from a western perspective -- not to say that there aren't differences from the Anglo-American approach in Europe! -- these three chapters would provide significant fodder for discussion on core concepts in systems theory.

This paper compares some key concepts from Buddhism with ideas from different traditions of systems thinking. There appear to be many similarities, suggesting that there is significant potential for dialogue and mutual learning. The similarities also indicate that it may be possible to develop a Buddhist systems methodology to help guide exploration and change within Buddhist organisations.

daviding says: I was struck by a quotation by Khistry in the first pargraph of this article. In fact, Churchman (1968) reveals toward the end of one of his most popular books: "Indeed, if I were to think of one theme that has been in the back of my mind as I wrote these chapters, it is the shame of deception" (p. 228). Churchman concludes: "The ultimate meaning of the systems approach, therefore, lies in the creation of a theory of deception and a fuller understanding of the ways in which the human being can be deceived about his world and in an interaction between these different viewpoints" (pp. 229-230).

This paper critically examines some important topics of systemic thinking to understand how our perception of problems can be enhanced and how the chances of deception can be mitigated while dealing with real-world problems. To achieve this objective, an attempt is first made to scrutinize some of the key issues of systemic thinking by looking through the lens of Churchman's aphorisms at: (1) the illusion of completeness and closure, (2) the meaning of holism, and (3) the concept of `Interbeing'. A preliminary `agenda for action' is then laid out suggesting ways for increasing our perception and for minimizing the chances of being deceived in dealing with systems problems in practice.

daviding says: This is the first version of a quantitative study that could become an annual study. Note the 25 metrics in nine categories over three sets of main indicators (foundations, flows of resources, impacts).

... today we're publishing as The 2009 Shift Index, a new set of economic indicators built for the digital world. Because it focuses on longer-term, "secular" changes to the business environment, the Shift Index is designed as a complement to the overwhelmingly short-term, cyclical measures that comprise most of today's economic indices. The full report and findings are available here. And a summary version of the framework, index, and findings is now out in the July/August Harvard Business Review. In the months and years to come, this inaugural index, which focuses exclusively on the U.S. economy, will be regularly updated to track changes over time and expand the ability to compare performance trends across industries, countries, and firms. The Shift Index tracks 25 metrics in nine categories across three sets of main indicators: Foundations, which set the stage for major change; Flows of resources, such as knowledge, which allow businesses to enhance productivity; and Impacts, which help gauge progress at an economy-wide level. Together these indicators represent phases of transformation in the Big Shift taking place in the global business environment. What do the findings show? The 2009 Shift Index reveals a disquieting performance paradox in the US corporate sector. On the one hand, labor productivity has nearly doubled since 1965. During those same years, however, US companies' Return on Assets (ROA) progressively dropped 75 percent from their 1965 level.

daviding says: There's a philosophical shift to move from information held in private within government departments to free-flowing content.

Web 2.0 technologies are now being deployed in government settings. For example, public agencies have used blogs to communicate information on public hearings, wikis and RSS feeds to coordinate work, and wikis to internally share expertise, and intelligence information. The potential for Web 2.0 tools create a public sector paradox. On the one hand, they have the potential to create real transformative opportunities related to key public sector issues of transparency, accountability, communication and collaboration, and to promote deeper levels of civic engagement. On the other hand, information flow within government, across government agencies and between government and the public is often highly restricted through regulations, specific reporting structures and therefore usually delayed through the filter of the bureaucratic constraints. What the emergent application and popularity of Web 2.0 tools show is that there is an apparent need within government to create, distribute and collect information outside the given hierarchical information flow. Clearly, these most recent Internet technologies are creating dramatic changes in the way people at a peer-to-peer production level communicate and collaborate over the Internet. And these have potentially transformative implications for the way public sector organizations do work and communicate with each other and with citizens. But they also create potential difficulties and challenges that have their roots in the institutional contexts these technologies are or will be deployed within. In other words, it is not the technology that hinders us from transformation and innovation - it is the organizational and institutional hurdles that need to be overcome. This paper provides an overview of the transformative organizational, technological and informational challenges ahead.

daviding says: "A manifesto" isn't what I would usually expect from an academic institution.

The need for a fresh approach to U.S. communities is more urgent than ever because of the biggest global economic crisis since the Great Depression. Through examination of the barriers to solving urban problems (and the ways they reinforce each other), this paper offers a new approach to community transformation which calls for leaders to use technology to inform and connect people. We need to convert the social safety net into a social safety network through the creation of smarter communities that are information-rich, interconnected, and able to provide opportunities to all citizens. This process has already begun through such programs as Harlem Children's Zone, Baltimore's CitiStat, Elevate Miami, and others. And they can be replicated. But technology alone is not the answer. Realization of the vision requires leaders to invest in the tools, guide their use, and pave the way for transformation. Perhaps the urgency of the current economic crisis can provide the impetus to overcome resistance to change and turn problems into an opportunity to reduce costs, improve services to communities, and make our cities smarter.

... mainstream economic theory does not help addressing innovation policies suited to the knowledge economy as it assumes away the complexities of innovation processes. This dissertation deals with the above-mentioned topic from the viewpoint of the Lisbon goal of competitiveness in the knowledge economy. First, the author asks why the creative sector could play an important role in the knowledge economy, how this relates to the Lisbon Agenda, and whether the arguments available to date are sound. The relevant literature suggests mainly that the creative sector has a strong nexus with the economy nowadays, and that it has entered the post-Fordist cycle, i.e. human creativity, knowledge and innovation are at the basis of its competitiveness. [....] In future, the creative sector is expected to further grow in European countries, and this is related to the opportunities offered by the conjunction of the so-named "big three" - digitization, convergence and globalization. Public institutions' adaptation and response to the "big three" to foster creative firms' adaptation would unleash high growth for the creative sector. In addition, its growth could feed the ICT sector who calls for cultural content, inter alia. This may favour the ICT sector uptake, which is the key sector in the Lisbon Strategy. The author finds the main concern is about the precision of current statistics. Indeed, the present census for the creative sector only allows for indicative figures. Thus, further and sounder evidence is required. Even so, it can be concluded that the creative sector can play an important role within the knowledge-economy in Europe but this is much about prospects and it depends on the adaptation to the "big three" as fostered by the state itself. The corresponding role of the state in formulating policies to boost the creative sector is explored by analyzing a case study, i.e. the Creative Economy Programme in the UK. This has developed a whole approach

daviding says: I've only read the abstract, but my guess is that "creative sector" would somehow link to Richard Florida's "creative class". There's an interesting pointer to the "Lisbon strategy", with which I'm not familiar, and the "big three" of digitalization, convergence and globalization (of whom I'm not sure named as "the big three"

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

daviding says: The web page has a link to a PDF, in which the footnote reads: "This paper is Chapter 1 of Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems, by Jeff Conklin, Ph.D., Wiley, October 2005." If the challenge of a wicked problem wasn't enough, communicating a potential solution each new person coming to the problem creates its own issues. Dialogue mapping could provide some assistance in at least reducing the learning curve of the new participant on options, alternatives, paths and considerations already covered.

For a more detailed discussion of wicked problems, see Wicked Problems and Social Complexity, CogNexus Institute's most downloaded white paper. Problem wickedness demands tools and methods which create shared understanding and shared commitment. Following Horst Rittel's analysis, we have developed "Dialogue Mapping", based on Rittel's Issue Based Information System (IBIS), which provides an elegant way of dealing with the fragmentation around a wicked problem. Because the group or team's understanding of the wicked problem is evolving, productive movement toward a solution requires powerful mechanisms for getting everyone on the same page. There will be volumes facts, data, studies and reports about a wicked problem, but the shared commitment needed to create durable solution will not live in information or knowledge. Understanding a wicked problem is about collectively making sense of the situation and coming to shared understanding about who wants what. Dialogue Mapping is such a method, because it is an approach which is rooted in maximizing communication and coherence among diverse stakeholders. Dialogue Mapping -- the process of crafting IBIS maps interactively with a group -- is not a process in the traditional sense: it is a structural augmentation of group communication. It provides a group with an enriched Dialogue environment which both de-emphasizes personal dynamics (e.g. right/wrong or win/loose dynamics) and creates a coherent shared space for crafting and negotiating shared understanding.