Field Of Service Science Research Articles

Improving Indonesia’s Cross-Border Marketplace Business Through The Value Co-Creation Process

Service science has become a significant talking point in business nowadays. As a value-based service science, the value co-creation paradigm focuses on collaborating between ecosystem actors to generate a new value that enhances the current system. By implementing value co-creation, providers can gain a better understanding of customer needs and expectations, as well as the value generated by the service. This study aims to review the newly implemented system of cross-border marketplace business in Indonesia using the value co-creation concept. The business ecosystem of the new marketplace system comprises sellers, buyers/customers, marketplace companies, courier service companies, national banks, and customs. The new system extends the concept of delivery duty paid (DDP) term from the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) to collect import duties and taxes on the purchase of goods abroad. To gain comprehensive knowledge about the system, a key informant from customs was interviewed. This study gives a thorough understanding of how value co-creation may be applied in public service and proposes a new model that benefits all actors in the ecosystem. This study makes a sustainable strategy recommendation to policymakers and service providers for increasing value in order to improve the new system's engagement experience, as well as an alternative decision support method for government and service providers to improve the new cross-border marketplace system. The study is novel in that it connects e-commerce to the body of knowledge in the field of service science, a combination that is rarely discussed, especially in Indonesia.

Modeling Value Cocreation Processes and Outcomes in Knowledge-Intensive Business Services Engagements

Knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) are a distinct category of business-to-business services, with unique implications for current understandings of value within the field of service science. KIBS engagements often involve multiple stakeholders with sometimes differing assessments of value. Moreover, stakeholders’ assessment of value is not based solely on an engagement’s deliverables; it also takes into account the collaborative process of producing these deliverables and the indirect outcomes resulting from the integration of deliverables and process results as new resources in line with each stakeholder’s interests. Supporting the design of KIBS engagements thus needs to enable a multistakeholder and multilevel measurement of value. This article identifies requirements for modeling KIBS engagements in a manner that addresses their specific characteristics and can support their design; requirements were derived from a multiple-case study of value cocreation in this domain. The article also presents value cocreation modeling (VCM), a technique developed to fulfill these requirements. In VCM, indicators help measure and evaluate elements that support each stakeholder’s value assessment at the process, deliverable, and outcome levels. VCM can be used as a conceptual tool by KIBS professionals to establish and monitor KIBS engagements and take corrective actions as needed for successful outcomes.

The evolution of the S-D logic approach and its impact on service science

The S-D Logic approach has developed into a solid theoretical framework influencing the field of service science and marketing since its introduction by Vargo and Lusch in 2004. Many research papers were published, forums and conferences were founded and a vivid discussion took place over S-D Logic. However, S-D Logic still has not been established as a holistic theory. Thus, the aim of this paper is to analyze the evolution of the S-D Logic approach and its influence on marketing theory and service science, as well as its critical factors based on qualitative literature analysis and conceptual research. As an outcome, the paper provides a timeline featuring landmark publications, and important milestones of the SD Logic approach associated with real world implications.

Editorial Column—An Open Letter to Reviewers

This year, January–October 2013, Service Science received 60 original submissions and 21 revised submissions. Since taking on the editor-in-chief role, I have relied on a great many others, volunteers who have given their time and expertise to help evaluate these submissions. Of course, I am talking about the reviewers and the editorial board. Writing a review is a commitment, and sometimes it is a chore. But a good review makes my job easier, and overall, I have been fortunate to receive good reviews from good reviewers. This year, we received reports from more than 150 reviewers. Now, it is time to take stock and acknowledge all who have helped. Those who reviewed for Service Science in 2013 are listed in this issue, along with the current advisory and editorial boards. I thank them all sincerely. The Service Science website1 offers some advice for writing a good review, including “be constructive” and “be specific” (for additional advice, see also Roedigger 2007). There is nothing wrong with such advice—it is good advice—but it is generic and would hold true for any review and any journal. But I guess I like to think that Service Science is not just any journal. It does not aim mainly to reflect new extensions to an existing body of knowledge but to define a new body of knowledge and a new discipline (Maglio 2013, Qiu 2012). There is no single method or set of methods that all papers in Service Science must follow. There is no single theory or model that should underlie all work. Service Science aims to represent the cutting edge of service research. And so I think I owe it to reviewers to provide some specific guidance, including how to think about and evaluate our particular brand of interdisciplinary work. Here goes. As a field, service science aims to understand, improve, and innovate complex service systems, which may require methods and theories from disciplines including, but not limited to, operations, industrial engineering, marketing, computer science, psychology, information systems, and design (Ostrom et al. 2010, Spohrer and Maglio 2010). As a journal, Service Science documents empirical, modeling, and theoretical studies of complex service systems, relying on approaches from many different disciplines (see Maglio 2013, Qiu 2012). Two of my favorite articles from Service Science concern simulation and modeling but take very broad perspectives, incorporating findings from multiple disciplines: Park et al. (2012) and Qiu (2009). The article by Robin Qiu was selected by the editorial board to receive the 2013 Best Article Award for Service Science, which was presented by the INFORMS Service Science Section at the annual meeting in Minneapolis this year. It is clear that interdisciplinary work is valued. Yet combining multiple disciplines in a single journal—in a single paper, even—makes judging quality hard. It makes reviewing hard. Reviewers should be both constructive and critical, telling authors and editors mainly what is good about a paper and what could be improved. For interdisciplinary papers, reviewers should focus on the parts they can evaluate rather than on the parts they cannot. Because articles need not follow a set pattern, and many methods may be appropriate, reviewers should not focus on their favorite method or their favorite theory and evaluate the whole paper from a single viewpoint. Reviewers should consider what they do not know to be possibly interesting, rather than probably wrong. The field of service science is young. The journal Service Science exists to cultivate the field, to help it grow and thrive. What we publish ought to be correct, empirically grounded, and innovative, and it should lead the way to a new discipline. To do this, we have to look for reasons to publish papers, rather than reasons not to publish papers. We have to nurture good ideas and interesting work. We have to take calculated risks. We have to be open to new approaches and new combinations of old ones. We have to look past our individual biases and toward a future in which Service Science the journal has defined service science the field.

Service industries at a crossroads: some fragile assumptions and future challenges

Service research has been slowly evolving for more than 40 years. At the start of the twenty-first century some of the assumptions about the behaviour of services have become more fragile in the context of increased global economic dependencies and whether it is now realistic to treat them as a discrete set of activities. The embedding of services into seamless production chains characteristic of a ‘manuservice’ economy points to new challenges for a research agenda that is less focused on services per se. The components of a possible research agenda are many and varied, reflecting different disciplinary priorities or the rise of the new field of service science. Those outlined in this paper are offered from the perspective of an economic geographer.

Modeling of Service Systems

An important aspect in the field of service science is service modeling; however, no comprehensive modeling approach exists. In this regard, the authors analyze literature of service science and look at existing modeling approaches. Based on this analysis they identify concepts necessary for modeling services. This paper specifies a semi-formalized meta-model comprising the concepts found and for having a more applicable meta-model, the authors transfer it into a technical space. Additionally a concrete syntax and implemented an editor, which supports service modeling, is specified. Overall, this work comprises existing approaches and presents a well-structured formalized meta-model for the domain of service modeling. This meta-model may be used as a starting point for further research within the area of service modeling.

Special Issue on Service Technology for Health and Well-Being

Thanks to the growing awareness that human health is inextricably linked to the health of our planet and environmental change, it is difficult to envisage an integrated scientific approach to sustainable development that does not include human health issues. In parallel with science for health and well-being (SHWB), which is recognized today as a major challenge, the field of service science, management and engineering (SSME) has emerged as a potential solution. How can robotics and mechatronics, both used in SHWB and SSME, contribute to solving human health issues? This special issue focuses on service technology for health and well-being. It starts with studies on on-demand bus services for alternative transportation systems and home healthcare service for disease prevention based on ICT. Devices and systems then introduced include stand-up support devices, gait rehabilitation, omnidirectional wheelchairs and wheelchair design simulators, musculoskeletal simulators for rehabilitation, force display communication analysis systems, and evaluation method of driver's temporary arousal level. These technologies for health and welfare services are the core of sustainable development. We thank the authors for their invaluable contributions and the reviewers for their time and effort in making this special issue possible. We also thank the JRM Editorial Board for the opportunity to take part in this work.