Iess2013presentation

172 views

Published on

Short paper presented at IESS 1.3 in Porto, 7-8 February 2013

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
172
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Iess2013presentation

  1. 1. FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Towards an Ontology and Modeling Approach for Service Science Geert Poels Griet Van Der Vurst Elisah LemeyFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 7 February, 2013
  2. 2. Motivation (1/2) Service Science  The ‘service system’ is the main abstraction of the service economy studied in SSMED • Focal concept = value co-creation  Interdisciplinary field searching for shared conceptualization • Theoretical framework = service-dominant logic + systems theories • Call for shared vocabularies and models (+ modeling means) (= scientific contribution intended by our research) • How can models help SSMED? (= practical relevance of our research) – Power of visualization – Power of analysisFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 2
  3. 3. Motivation (2/2) Systems modeling is research topic in IS  Large class of service systems are enterprises. Enterprises are systems.  Capitalize on enterprise modeling knowledge in IS • Business models – Conceptual Modeling, Requirements Engineering – E.g., business model canvas, goal models, value models, capability models • Enterprise (architectural) models – Enterprise Architecture/Engineering, Business Process/Workflow Modeling, Data/Database Modeling, Software Engineering/Model-driven Engineering, …Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 3
  4. 4. Purpose (1/4)  Starting point: Service System Worldview (Spohrer) Informed by SDL and systems theories• Entity • Value proposition based interaction• Resource • Governance mechanism based interaction• Access Right • Outcome• Ecology • Measure• Interaction • Stakeholder Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Department of Management Information and Operations Management 4
  5. 5. Purpose (2/4) Problem statement  How to go from an initial vocabulary to talk about service systems to a useful modeling instrument for describing and designing service systems? • theoretical basis unclear (definitions?, internal consistency?, sharedness?, ..) • merely a list of concepts – what about relationships and rules/axioms that hold for these relationships? (domain structure?)Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 5
  6. 6. Purpose (3/4) Current research Research objectives  Clarify theoretical basis of concepts  Represent concepts in a conceptual model that also identifies the domain structure  Transform conceptual model, which is basically a graphical model, into a domain ontology for service systems (with formal, precise semantics and ability to use ontological tools)  Define a meta-model of a service system modeling language based on the ontologyFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 6
  7. 7. Purpose (4/4)  Select/develop a concrete syntax (notation) for the meta- model  Develop a method (and possibly tool support) for applying the modeling language to real service system modeling situations  Explore applications for service system design, engineering, and managementFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 7
  8. 8. Method Current research Research activities/steps  Literature review of conceptual frameworks and theories in service-related disciplines (and beyond)  Conceptual design  Conceptual modeling  Ontology engineering  Meta-modeling and language development  Method engineering  Tool development  Application and evaluationFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 8
  9. 9. Theoretical analysis Service DEFINITION Dominant OF Logic CONCEPTS? System Service Theoretic Quality Model Gap Model RELEVANCE Service OF Systems CONCEPTS? Worldview Service Ontology Unified based on Service DOLCE Theory COMPLETENESS Work System OF CONCEPTS? MethodFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 9
  10. 10. Results (1/4) Clarification of theoretical grounding of service system worldview  w.r.t. relevancy • Three common foundational concepts: – service system entity – interaction – stakeholder perspectives provider and consumer • Other foundational concepts all supported by at least one theory • No foundational concepts rejected by any of the theoriesFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 10
  11. 11. Results (2/4)  w.r.t. completeness • Service system worldview allows different interpretations to co-exist – Service as co-production versus service as co-creation => implications for the nature of involvement of customer resources, the definition of focal resource and access rights – Service within the service system or between service systems => implications for the definition of entity and ecology – Service as a process, as an outcome (or even the only outcome), as a commitment => indicates the need to explicitly define service – Mutuality within the service or in the economic exchange of services => indicates the need for a service exchange modelFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 11
  12. 12. Results (3/4)  w.r.t. definitions • As Service Science studies value co-creation phenomena, our conceptual design introduced service as an eleventh foundational concept – Service is the favourable, intended outcome of interactions between service system entities. This favourable, intended outcome is mutual value co-creation. – Mutual value co-creation results from a (successful) service process, in which at least two service system entities (in the roles of consumer and provider) participate.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 12
  13. 13. Results (4/4) Conceptual model  Theoretical analysis/conceptual design identified • Relationships between foundational concepts – E.g., focal resource is a physical or non-physical resource with rights (i.e., operant resource in SDL) • Axioms/rules that apply to these relationships – E.g., at least two service system entities participate in a service (i.e., resources of both consumer and provider are involved).  Graphical representation using UML (class diagram) • Shows the structure of the service system domainFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 13
  14. 14. believe that the graphical model system conceptual model the service Service already helps in better understandingsystem worldview as it shows how different concepts (should) relate to each other.Therefore, we will explain the service system conceptualization on which theontology is based via the graphical conceptual model that we developed. Fig. 2. Service system conceptual model The diagram is overlaid with four coloured areas that further categorize the servicesystem of Economics and mainly in function of their relationship with the service process, as Faculty concepts, Business Administrationmodelled inManagement Information and Operations Management model [reference hidden for reviewers Department of our ISPAR-based service process 14- will be added in case of paper acceptance]. Core concepts are those that play a role
  15. 15. Discussion Contribution so far  Graphical conceptual model of service system worldview • Clarification of foundational concepts • Identification of domain structure Implications  Helps development of formal service system ontology and service system modelling language  Helps understanding service system worldview by adding structure to the set of foundational concepts Limitation  Remaining definitional issues need to be clarified  EvaluationFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 15
  16. 16. FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Auxiliary slides (from IESS 1.2 paper)Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 7 February, 2013
  17. 17. Service Design TheoryFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 17
  18. 18. Results (6/6) Towards a Process Model for Service Systems 11  Relationship ISPAR SHORT PAPER 7 and service system servicebelieve that the graphical model already helps in better understanding the service process worldviewsystem worldview as it shows how different concepts (should) relate to each other.Therefore, we will explain the service system conceptualization on which theontology is based via the graphical conceptual model that we developed. service Fig. 2. Service system conceptual model The diagram is overlaid with four coloured areas that further categorize the servicesystem concepts, mainly in function of their relationship with the service process, asmodelled in our ISPAR-based service process model [reference hidden for reviewers Fig. 5. EPC representation of service process model- will be added in case of paper acceptance]. Core concepts are those that play a role case of dispute between two entities, the interaction will probably be regulated In Faculty of Economics and Business Administrationthroughout the entire service process. At least two service system entities participategoverning body like a mediation service or a court case. If the service system by a Department of Management Information and Operations is service, which we define  do   not   succeed  in  resolvingdispute   provides   outcome  is   still  ‘service  not   in interactions that create outcomes. The desired outcome Management entities successfully   ended’.   Resolving   the    the  dispute,   the 18 a   return path   to   the   ‘realizeas mutual value co-creation. Co-creation means that resources from all participating
  19. 19. Future research Compare with other process models, e.g., DEMO basic transaction pattern, Open-edi Business Transaction phase specification, .. Evaluate w.r.t. problems addressed by research objectives 1 – 2  Clarity, faithfulness, completeness, .. Research objectives 3 – 7  Ontology  Modeling frameworkFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 19
  20. 20. EPC representation of service processFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 20
  21. 21. Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 21
  22. 22. Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 22
  23. 23. Demonstration: business lunchFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 23
  24. 24. Demonstration: money investmentFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 24
  25. 25. Demonstration: on-line newspaperFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDepartment of Management Information and Operations Management 25

×