On Service Systems: a Systems Approach

On Service Systems: a Systems Approach
ISSIP, June 18, 2014
Dr. Manuel Mora (UAA, Mexico)
Information Systems
Universidad Autonoma de Aguascalientes, Mexico
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
1 / 25
1. Foundations of Systems.
1.1 Origin of the Systems
Approach.
1.2 Concept of System.
1.3 General Typology of
Systems.
2. Foundations of Services.
2.1 Services: their
economical relevance.
2.2 Concept of Service
(Classic View).
2.3 Concept of Service
(Modern View).
3. On Service Systems and
SSME.
3.1 Service Systems.
3.2 SSME.
4. Conclusions and Q&A.
Dr. Manuel Mora T.
Information Systems
Department,
Autonomous University
of Aguascalientes,
Mexico
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
On Service
System: a
Systems
Approach
Themes
( 20 minutes)
SpeakerTheme

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
2 / 25
OUTLINE
 1. Foundations of Systems.
 1.1 Origin of the Systems Approach.
 1.2 Typology of Systems.
 1.3 Concept of System.
 2. Foundations of Services.
 2.1 Services: their economical relevance.
 2.2 Concept of Service (Classic View).
 2.3 Concept of Service (Modern View).
 3. On Service Systems and SSME
 3.1 Service Systems.
 3.2 SSME.
 4. Conclusions and Q&A.

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
3 / 25
Source: Ackoff (1971)
Source: von Bertalanffy (1972)
 1.1 Origin of the System Approach.

Introduction to SSME,
Autonomous University of Aguascalientes, Mexico.
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
4 / 44
 1.2 The Concept of System.
A system is a natural or
artificial whole contained
in an environment, and
comprised of another two
or more entities (called
subsystems), which
pursue their own functions
and interact among them
for pursuing the system’s
purpose, and that has
unique properties (called
emergent ones) no owned
by any subset of its
subsystems.
System
B
System
C
Emergent properties
Sub-System
A.1
Sub-System
A.2
Sub-System
A.x
System’s Environment
Supra-System of A

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
5 / 25
SYSTEM’S ARCHITECTURE
A.1 PURPOSE AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES (why)
A.2 FUNCTIONS (what)
A.3 SUB-SYSTEMS AND I-O INTERRELATIONSHIPS (how)
A.4 EMERGENT PROPERTIES
SYSTEM CORE HIERARCHY
ENVIRONMENT
SUPRA-SYSTEM
SYSTEM
SUB-SYSTEM
COMPONENT
System
B
System
C
Emergent properties
Sub-System
A.1
Sub-System
A.2
Sub-System
A.x
System’s Environment
Supra-System of A

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
6 / 25
E1: EFFICIENCY= f( outputs, inputs )
E2: EFFICACY = f( real outputs, planned
outputs)
E3: EFFECTIVENESS =f( outcomes)
(effects on the supra-system)
E4: AESTHETICS = f( cognitive needs,
psychological needs)
E5: ETHICS = f( compliance to highest
non-negotiable human values)
CORE SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE
METRICS
(Checkland, 2000)

mmora@correo.uaa.mx
7 / 44
Based on: Checkland (1983)
World
Systems of Type 1: (Natural
World)
Systems of Type 2 (Artificial World )
Systems of Type 3 (Social and HAS)
• These systems are
designed by nature
according to meta-
natural/physical laws.
• These systems are
designed by human beings
according to physical laws.
• These systems are socially
inter-built by human
individuals and groups
according to socio-political
mechanisms and
structures.

mmora@correo.uaa.mx
8 / 44
OUTLINE
 3.2 SSME.

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
9 / 25
IfM and IBM. (2008). Succeeding through service innovation: A service perspective for education, research, business and
government. Cambridge, United Kingdom: University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing.

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
10 / 25
A traditional view of Services considers them as people-intensive (not
capital & technological based) activities, thus …
… their quality levels vary with emotional states of employees (e.g. discretionary
service (Levitt, 1972, p.44) or customer power, rather than with the quality of
manufacturing process, machines and materials.
… these do not demand strong financial investments for technology, training and
methods, except by asking to employees that they be responsible of improving
them.
… high-status employees serves in “ritualistic mode” (Levitt (*), 1972, p. 43
(middle and low level) by “obligation” (we need to obey).
… these cannot be designed and improved, except by the human-based
component (via motivational issues).
(*) T. Levitt. Emeritus Professor of Harvard Business School, University of Harvard, USA.

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
11 / 25
Services (modern view by visionaries) are:
 Acts that … “provides added value in forms (like as CONVENIENCE,
AMUSEMENT, TIMELINESS, COMFORT, or HEALTH) that are essentially
INTANGIBLE concerns of its purchaser” (Quinn, 1992)
 … “the application of competences for the benefit of another, meaning that
service is a kind of action, performance, or promise that’s exchanged for value
between provider and client.” (Spohrer et al., 2007).
 … integrated activities that deliver value and that must be considered with the
same objectivity view as a manufacturing process. It implies that the
SERVICES must be: planned, designed, monitored, quality-based controlled,
evaluated, and improved (based on Levitt, 1972).

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
12 / 25
Services are (an innovative and challenger definition !) :
a 3-dimensional concept perceived as: CURRENT INTERACTIONS, END
ATTRIBUTES CHANGES, and POST-OUTCOMES in customer and supplier
sub-systems.
SOURCE: Mora, Rainsinghani, O’Connor & Gelman (2009)

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
13 / 25
OUTLINE
 3.2 SSME.

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
14 / 25
Classic Model v.1
• THERE ARE NOT SERVICE SYSTEMS !
• Service is a residual activity with non-specified responsibilities
• Service is evaluated only by short-term expected effects
• Services are people-based discretionary received actions
• Service quality is a random variable (with high variance) !
• Service is a total provider’s responsibility (based only on people)
• Optional feedback except in complains but toward external entities
3. On Service Systems and SSME
customers
External
entities
 3.1 Service Systems (classic view)

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
15 / 25
A Service System is:
 … “is a value co-production system of people,
technology, other internal and external service
systems, and shared information, which
comprises a service provider and service clients
working together to co-produce value. The key
idea is that providers and clients work together to
create value” (derived from Spohrer et al., 2007)
 3.2 Service Systems (modern view)

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
16 / 25
Modern Model v.2
• Service is joint responsibility of facilitator and appraiser subsystems but it
can be distributed in several loads ( 80/20, 50/50, 20/80)
• Short, mid-term and long-term expected effects
• External influences can affect the system and be affected by it
• Service is a 3-dimensional concept (interactions, attributes and outcome)
Service
Facilitator
Service
Appraiser
Service System Regulator
system
Competitor
system
Partnership
system
(extended from Mora et al (2008)) service-fα*
service-f(sf1, sf2, …)
service-a(sa1, sa2, …)
service-f(f1, f2, …)
service-a(a1, a2, …)

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
17 / 25
SERVICE
FACILITATOR
SERVICE
APPRAISER
SERVICE
SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENT

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
18 / 25
SERVICE
FACILITATOR
SERVICE
APPRAISER
SERVICE
SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENT

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
19 / 25
 3.2 SSME
“SSME: Service Science, Management and Engineering
(SSME), or in short Service Science, is an emerging field. It
includes curricula, training, and research programs that are
designed to teach individuals to apply scientific, engineering,
management and design disciplines that integrate elements of
computer science, operations research, industrial engineering,
business strategy, management sciences, social and legal
sciences, and others in order to encourage innovation in how
organisations create value for customers and stakeholders that
could not be achieved through such disciplines working in
isolation.”
IfM and IBM. (2008). Succeeding through service innovation: A service perspective for education, research, business and
government. Cambridge, United Kingdom: University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing.

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
20 / 25
OUTLINE
 3.2 SSME.

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
21 / 25
Systems Approach provides a rich conceptual/theoretical
corpus of knowledge for a better understanding of any kind
of systems.
Systems is about wholes (parts + interrelationships +
environment)
5E’s Metrics can be useful to design and evaluate systems.
Systems Theory claims that “parts should work for the
system rather than work for their self-benefit”. If the system,
is well-designed and implemented, all parts will receive their
fair benefits !
System are affected by their parts and by the environment !

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
22 / 25
SERVICE is a complex concept whose meaning is differently
perceived or understood in management, systems/software,
and IT domains.
SERVICES can be considered: acts/activities + intangible
direct changes on attributes/outputs + intangible valued
outcomes
SERVICE SYSTEM can be the most important concept for IT
domain in the very near future (and for many disciplines) !

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
23 / 25
List of Main References
Ackoff, R. L. (1971). Towards a system of systems concepts. Management science, 17(11), 661-671.
Checkland, P. (2000). Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 17, S11-S58.
Checkland, P. (1983). OR and the systems movement: mappings and conflicts. Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 661-675.
IfM and IBM. (2008). Succeeding through service innovation: A service perspective for education,
research, business and government. Cambridge, United Kingdom: University of Cambridge
Institute for Manufacturing.
Levitt, T. (1972). Production-line approach to service. Harvard business review, 50(5), 41-52.
Mora, M., Raisinghani, M. S., O’Connor, R., & Gelman, O. (2009). Toward an Integrated
Conceptualization of the service and Service system Concepts: A systems approach.
International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector (IJISSS), 1(2), 36-57.
Quinn, J. B. (1992). The intelligent enterprise a new paradigm. The Executive, 6(4), 48-63.
Spohrer, J., Maglio, P., Bailey, J. & Gruhl, D.. (2007). IEEE Computer, 40(1), 71-77.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. Academy of Management
Journal, 15(4), 407-426.

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
24 / 25
Short CV of Expositor.
Manuel Mora is a full-time Professor and Researcher in the IS
Department in the Autonomous University of Aguascalientes (UAA),
Mexico. Dr. Mora holds a B.S. in Computer Systems Engineering (1984)
and M.Sc. in Computer Sciences (Artificial Intelligence area, 1989) from
Monterrey Tech (ITESM), and an Eng.D. in Engineering (Systems
Engineering area, 2003) from the National Autonomous University of
Mexico (UNAM). He has published about 80+ research papers in
international top conferences, research books, and refereed journals.
Dr. Mora is an ACM Senior Member (since 2008), of IEEE SMC Society,
of AIS, EiC of IJITSA journal, member of the Mexican Research System
(Level I), and serves in the ERB of several international journals. His
main research interests are: design and evaluation of DMSS, design
methodologies for IT services, software and systems engineering
standards, and interdisciplinary systemic research methods. Dr. Mora
has co-edited four international book on DMSS and ITSM, and several
special issues for academic journals. He can be reached at:
mmora@correo.uaa.mx.

Information Systems
mmora@correo.uaa.mx
25 / 25
Thanks! and Q&A.

On Service Systems: a Systems Approach

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to On Service Systems: a Systems Approach

Similar to On Service Systems: a Systems Approach (20)

More from International Society of Service Innovation Professionals

More from International Society of Service Innovation Professionals (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

On Service Systems: a Systems Approach