Emerging Digital Frontiers for Service Innovation

This paper examines emerging digital frontiers for service innovation that a panel discussed at a workshop on this topic held at the 48th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). The speakers and participants agreed that that service systems are fundamental for service innovation and value creation. In this context, service systems are related to cognitive systems, smart service systems, and cyber-physical systems and depend on the interconnectedness among system components. The speakers and participants regarded humans as the central entity in all service systems. In addition, data, they saw personal data in particular as key to service systems. They also identified several challenges in the areas of cognitive systems, smart service systems, cyber-physical systems, and human-centered service systems. We hope this workshop report helps in some small way to cultivate the emerging service science discipline and to nurture fruitful discussions on service innovation

Decisional Conflict and User Acceptance of Multicriteria Decision-Making Aids *

Despite the development of increasingly sophisticated and refined multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, an examination of the experimental evidence indicates that users most often prefer relatively unsophisticated methods. In this paper, we synthesize theories and empirical findings from the psychology of judgment and choice to provide a new theoretical explanation for such user preferences. Our argument centers on the assertion that the MCDM method preferred by decision makers is a function of the degree to which the method tends to introduce decisional conflict. The model we develop relates response mode, decision strategy, and the salience of decisional conflict to user preferences among decision aids. We then show that the model is consistent with empirical results in MCDM studies. Next, the role of decisional conflict in problem formulation aids is briefly discussed. Finally, we outline future research needed to thoroughly test the theoretical mechanisms we have proposed.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73461/1/j.1540-5915.1991.tb00371.x.pd

S-D logic research directions and opportunities : the perspective of systems, complexity and engineering

The need for a systems approach to modeling and understanding service is now well established, (Barile 2009; Barile and Polese 2009; Golinelli 2010; Ng et.al., 2011a). Following the construction of Maglio et al (2009) we view a service-system as a network of agents and interactions that integrate resources for value cocreation. The context of value creation is intrinsic to the system design.and the adaptive, interactive actions of agents classifies the network as an ecosystem (Lusch et al, 2010). To date, several disciplines have broached the systems view of service and the engineering of service systems. Operations research applied to services began with a rather simplistic, macro view of resource integration in the form of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), introduced by Charnes, Cooper and Rhodes in 1978 (Charnes, Cooper et al. 1994, Banker, Charnes et al. 1984). Micro models of service systems have tended to study the systems’ IT components (Hsu 2009; Qiu 2009). Engineering, which has always been associated with “assembling pieces that work in specific ways” (Ottino, 2004) and “a process of precise composition to achieve a predictable purpose and function” (Fromm, 2010 p. 2) has contributed to greater scalability and purposeful control in service systems. However, the agents of the system usually are people whose activities may not be easily controlled by predictable processes and yet are critical aspects of the value-creating system (Ng et al, 2011b). There is need for a new combinative paradigm, such as third-generation activity theory in which two or more activity systems come into contact, to explore dialogue, exchanging perspectives of multiple actors, resulting in networks or groups of activity systems that are constantly interacting (Nardi 1996, Oliveros et al 2010, Marken 2006)