Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

pres FINAL ISSIP 21 January 2016 v3.0


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

pres FINAL ISSIP 21 January 2016 v3.0

  1. 1. Dr Moira Scerri 20 January 2016
  2. 2. • Doctorate • Defining new measure of productivity for service and network based firms • Measures at individual, organisation, network and economy levels • Industry experience • Over 30 years in service design, service operations management • Range of industries • Travel and tourism • Information technology • Payments • Education (Business and service delivery) A bit about me
  3. 3. Today’s program 1. Why are models important? 2. Service productivity models 1. Service Process Matrix (Schmenner 1986, 2004) 2. Service Cubicle (Agarwal & Selen 2005) 3. Service Productivity Model (Gronroos & Ojasalo 2004) 3. Limitations of existing models 4. Service Enterprise Productivity in Action (SEPIA) model • Development • Operationalisation 5. Future research
  4. 4. 1. Why are models important?
  5. 5. • There is sometimes a radical and revolutionary change in the image when knowledge “hits some sort of nucleus or supporting structure…and the whole thing changes in quite a radical way” (Boulding 1956, p. 8) • The use of models assists with understanding the world and helps predict how things may behave in the future (Simon 1957) • Enable people to communicate and work collectively and collaboratively on a problem Models are important
  6. 6. 2. Service productivity models
  7. 7. 2. Service productivity models 1. Service productivity models • Service Process Matrix (Schmenner 1986, 2004) • Service Cubicle (Agarwal & Selen 2005) • Service Productivity Model (Gronroos & Ojasalo 2004)
  8. 8. Service Process Matrix (Schmenner 1986;2004) Service Process Matrix - Schmenner (1986) • Overlay of service concepts onto Product Process Matrix Service Matrix – Schmenner (2004) • Changed dimensions on the matrix • Introduced the Theory of Swift Even Flow (the faster material or information flows through a system increases in productivity) – inclusion of the productivity diagonal Weakness • Invalid assumptions – service organisations have multiple modes of operating • Unable to accurately plot each of the organisations on the matrix
  9. 9. Service Cubicle (Agarwal & Selen 2005) Key contribution Service Cubicle - Agarwal & Selen (2005) Inclusion of technology (innovation) as an enabler and positioning of the firm within the service value network providing causality to the increase in service productivity Weakness Adopts the same weaknesses as Schmenner’s Service Process Matrix
  10. 10. Service Productivity Model (Gronroos & Ojasalo 2004) Key contribution Service Productivity Model – Gronroos & Ojasalo (2004) Includes customer inputs and technology, and incorporates different operating models Acknowledges internal and external environments Weakness Linear, does not does not address the heterogonous nature of employees,
  11. 11. 3. Limitations of existing models
  12. 12. Characteristics Service Process Matrix Service Cubicle Service Productivity Model Objective measures operationalised X X X Multiple operating environments X X X Information Communication technology X P P Multiple input – output points X P X Network as a unit of analysis X X X Impact of suppliers X X P What are the limitations?
  13. 13. 4. Service Enterprise Productivity in Action (SEPIA) Model - Development
  14. 14. Boulding’s (1956) Nine level system hierarchy Levels 1-5
  15. 15. Boulding’s (1956) Nine level system hierarchy Levels 6-9
  16. 16. Service Enterprise Productivity in Action (SEPIA) model – Operationalisation
  17. 17. • Reconceptualising productivity • Incorporates five stakeholders • Includes customer input • Include bi-directional exchanges • Positions productivity in the social domain • Convergence of resources rather than linear flow SEPIA model
  18. 18. • Customer interface • Service complexity • Customer interactions • Customer channel • Customer loyalty • Willingness to pay (proxy for value) SEPIA model
  19. 19. SEPIA model From literature Addressed by Definition of service industries includes multiple perspectives Includes customers, employees, managers, suppliers and shareholders Single direction input – transformation – output model All interactions are bi-directional, with each stakeholder exchanging inputs and outputs Employees are heterogeneous Recognition of the difference between employees and managers Firm as the unit of analysis Firms do not make decisions, people do, therefore the appropriate unit of analysis is the human level No customer input Customers and customer input are included Single firm no longer the “productive unit” Firm is positioned within a service value network, with different network configuration highlighted (NEPIA model)
  20. 20. 5. Future research
  21. 21. • Incorporate aspects of all stakeholders • Managers • Suppliers • More work on network productivity • From dyadic networks • Service triads • Other network configurations Future research
  22. 22. • Managing Service Productivity • Chapter 6 Service Enterprise Productivity In Action (SEPIA) Reference
  23. 23. Questions? Dr Moira Scerri SEPIA Consulting Telephone: +61 (0) 405 064 886 e-mail: