Service sciencemanagement engineering and design (ssmed) an e

San Jose State University
SJSU ScholarWorks
Faculty Publications Management Information Systems
1-1-2009
Service science,management, engineering, and
design (SSMED): an emerging discipline -- outline
and references
J. Spohrer
IBM Research
Stephen K. Kwan
San Jose State University, stephen.kwan@sjsu.edu
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/mis_pub
Part of the Management Information Systems Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Management Information Systems at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@sjsu.edu.
Recommended Citation
J. Spohrer and Stephen K. Kwan. "Service science,management, engineering, and design (SSMED): an emerging discipline -- outline
and references" International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector (2009): 1-31. doi:10.4018/jisss.2009070101

July-september 2009, Vol. 1, No. 3
InternatIonal Journal of
InformatIon SyStemS In the
ServIce Sector
table of Contents
Research Articles
1 1 Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Design (SSMED):
An Emerging Discipline - Outline & References
Jim Spohrer, IBM Research, USA

Stephen K. Kwan, San José State University, USA

32 Using Usage Control to Access XML Databases
Lili Sun, University of Southern Queensland, Australia

Yan Li, University of Southern Queensland, Australia

Special Section Articles
45 Creativity & Innovation:
Imperatives for Global Business and Development
Soo Kim, Montclair State University, USA
47 1Old and New Paradigms for IT Services Offshoring
Paolo Popoli, Parthenope University of Naples, Italy

Arturo Popoli, Accenture, Italy

65 Online Services Delivered by NTO Portals:
A Cross-Country Examination
Marco Papa, University of Bari, Italy

Marina Avgeri, Monte dei Paschi di Siena Bank, Italy

International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector, 1(3), 1-31, July-September 2009 1
Service Science,

Management, Engineering, and

Design (SSMED):

An Emerging Discipline -

Outline & References1

Jim Spohrer, IBM Research, USA

Stephen K. Kwan, San José State University, USA

ABSTRACT
The growth of the global service economy has led to a dramatic increase in our daily interactions with
highly specialized service systems. Service (or value-cocreation) interactions are both frequent and
diverse, and may include retail, financial, healthcare, education, on-line, communications, technical sup-
port, entertainment, transportation, legal, professional, government, or many other types of specialized
interactions. And yet surprisingly few students graduating from universities have studied anything about
service or service systems. Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Design (SSMED), or service
science for short, is an emerging discipline aimed at understanding service and innovating service systems.
This article sketches an outline and provides an extensive, yet preliminary, set of references to provoke
discussions about the interdisciplinary nature of SSMED. One difficult challenge remaining is to integrate
multiple disciplines to create a new and unique service science. [Article copies are available for purchase
from InfoSci-on-Demand.com]
Keywords: LiteratureReview;ServiceEconomy;ServiceScienceManagementEngineeringandDesign;
SSMED
THEORETICAL AND
PRACTICAL FOUNDATIONS
The emerging discipline of Service Sci-
ence, Management, Engineering, and Design
(SSMED) or service science, for short, is
outlined in this article (IBM Research 2004;
Chesbrough, 2005; Horn, 2005; Chesbrough
& Spohrer, 2006; Hidaka, 2006; Monahan,
Pym,Taylor,Tofts,&Yearworth2006;Spohrer,
Maglio, Bailey, & Gruhl, 2007; IfM & IBM,
2008; Spohrer & Maglio, 2008). This section
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global
is prohibited.

2 International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector, 1(3), 1-31, July-September 2009
provides some of the key theoretical and prac-
tical foundations of service science. What is
truly new and unique about service science?
Haven’t people been doing service research for
over thirty years? What’s changed? The next
section provides the primary connections to
existing disciplines. How does service science
relate to existing academic disciplines? Does
every service scientist need to know about all
these disciplines?
Howisservicesciencechangingandbeing
changed by these disciplines? The last section
provides the primary connections to existing
professions. How does service science relate
to existing professions? Which professions
are likely to benefit from the rise of service
science?
Concepts and Questions
Why now? The International Labor Organiza-
tionreleasedareport2
inJanuary2007thatstated
there are, for the first time in human history,
more service jobs (40%) than agricultural jobs
(39.6%) and nearly doubles those of manufac-
turing jobs (20.4%). Nowadays most people
survive (and some thrive) even though they do
not create new physical things, such as food or
tangible products, in their jobs. Over the past
thirty years, a growing number of academics
andpractitionershavebeguntostudy“service”
as a distinct phenomenon, with its own body of
knowledge and rules of practice.The growth of
service value in society is undeniable.
However, aside from the statistics is there
really anything new in this “growth of service”
phenomenon, and is there anything worthy of
a new science? And what is service? From
von Mises (1998), we see that service relates
to increasing value from more and more so-
phisticated forms of cooperation, or what we
term value-cocreation mechanisms. Many
have begun to observe that over time, service-
for-service exchanges not only dominate in an
economy, but become more specialized and
knowledge-intensive, and further increase the
value creation density of societies (Normann
2001). The growth of service also means inter-
acting more with strangers (Seabright 2005);
even though we know the role someone is
playing in a service system, we do not always
know the person. So what is going on? What
is behind the growth of service? Ludwig von
Mises (1998) wrote, near the middle of the last
century, about the fundamental understanding
of value and cooperation: “Within society,
cooperation substitutes interpersonal or social
exchange for autistic exchange. Man gives
to other men in order to receive from them.
Mutuality emerges. Man serves in order to be
served. (Pg. 194)”
Morerecently,Vargo&Lusch(2004,2006,
and 2008) in their Service-Dominant Logic
define service as the application of competence
(e.g.,knowledge,resources,etc.)forthebenefit
ofanotherentity.Theypointoutthatmostpeople
today use a Product-Dominant Logic that has
arisen from two centuries of measuring value
as increases in physical output. For example,
bushels of wheat or palettes of consumer goods
are physical output. This focus on the physical
products is quite understandable, in part, given
thatmanufacturingproductionefficiencieshave
lead to enormous improvements in material
wealth (Beinhocker, 2006). However, now
with the rise of the internet and low-cost global
communications, information and knowledge
as a contributor in value-cocreation is becom-
ing more quantifiable. Foray (2004) points out
that information is easy to copy (known digital
encodinginmachines),whileknowledgeishard
to copy (unknown neural encoding in people).
The growth of service is truly tiedto the growth
of information and knowledge.
What’s new? While division-of-labor and
cooperation are not new thoughts, the growth
of service provides a new lens through which
to see the world. The growth of service, seen as
the evolution of value-cocreation mechanisms
betweenservicesystementities,becomesaway
to view human history and understand future
change. Perhaps it is even true, as some writers
suggest that people in modern societies are get-
ting better at playing win-win games (Wright
2000). People are starting to understand that
value-cocreation is the best game in town.
is prohibited.

Service is in fact becoming the lens
through which many disparate areas of study
can be viewed within a common framework.
For example, the increased focus on service in
recent years is in large part due to the grow-
ing dominance of service activities in national
economic accounts of jobs, GDP, exports,
and productivity (Triplett & Bosworth 2004;
Lewis 2004; Herzenberg, Alic, & Wial 2000).
In everyday business and government, service
is most strongly associated with the growth
of high-value, knowledge-intensive types of
customer-provider interactions, between enti-
ties such as people, organizations, agencies,
machines, or infrastructure, in which taxes,
advertising fees, subscription fees, usage fees,
annual enrollment fees, or the scarce resource
of human attention are typically exchanged for
the actions, experiences, assurances, or access
privilegesofserviceproviders.Incomputersci-
ence, service refers to computational resources
(as in web service or grid service) that can be
discovered, accessed, and applied using stan-
dard protocols (Spohrer,Anderson, Pass,Ager,
& Gruhl, 2008). In the public sector and social
sciences, service is often associated with intan-
giblevaluefromselflessactsofloyalty,courage,
or ethical/religious convictions about what is
right and good in human society. For example,
the removal of unfreedoms (i.e., unhealthy, un-
educated, unprotected, uninformed, etc.) from
the billions of underserved people around the
world is one view on the importance of service
activities that connect economic, political, and
social thinkers (Sen, 1998; Lewis, 2004).Also,
one-time service encounters are very different
from long-term or life-time service relation-
ships (Gutek, 1995), and the application of
knowledge-based assets is very different from
the application of physical assets (Boisot,
2002). Manufacturing businesses are increas-
ingly driven to understand service innovation,
as they seek to transform themselves to higher
levels of value-cocreation with their customers
and other stakeholders (IfM & IBM, 2008).All
these views contribute to an increasing need to
understand the phenomenon of service as the
evolution of and the design of value-cocreation
mechanisms between entities – the business of
society is becoming value-cocreation.
Basic Concepts. If we are to understand
human history as the evolution and design of
value-cocreation mechanisms between enti-
ties, then where should we begin? Let’s start
by understanding the following ten basic con-
cepts:resources,servicesystementities,access
rights, value-proposition-based interactions
(a more traditional, business-oriented name
for value-cocreation mechanism), governance
mechanisms, service system networks, service
system ecology, stakeholders, measures, and
outcomes.
Resources: “Things come and go, and
we name them in order to communicate about
them.” Every nameable physical and non-
physical thing is a resource. For example, an
instance of an apple is a physical resource, and
the concept of a right triangle is a non-phys-
ical resource. As von Mises (1998) observed:
“Thinking man sees the serviceableness of
things, i.e., their ability to minister to his ends,
and acting man makes them means.” (Pg. 92);
Legal man attributes rights to certain types
of physical and non-physical resources. For
example, adult people are physical resources
with rights, and businesses, that have properly
incorporated,paidtheirtaxesontime,andfulfill
other obligations, are non-physical resources
with rights. Businesses may own physical
resources or contract for physical resources,
but as a type of resource they are themselves
not physical, but instead a conceptual-legal
construct. So in the end, all resources fall into
one of four types: physical-with-rights, not-
physical-with-rights, physical-with-no-rights,
andnot-physical-with-rights.Inmodernsociety,
physicists are the professional authorities who
tell us which resources are or are not physical.
Judges are the professional authorities who tell
us which resources have or do not have rights
withintheirjurisdictions.Physicistsandjudges
are types of authority stakeholders (a concept
introduced below). As we will see later, com-
munitiesofauthoritystakeholdersestablishand
uphold the rules of the game.Thus, the concept
is prohibited.

ofresourceandthefourlogicaltypesissocially
constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1967).
Different types of resources are governed
by different types of laws (Maglio, Kreulen,
Srinivasan, & Spohrer, 2006). Physical re-
sources are governed by the laws of nature.
Conceptual or information resources are gov-
erned by the laws of logic-and-mathematics.
Both physical and conceptual resources, in a
modernhumanculture,aregovernedbyhuman
law (e.g., property rights). This notion of four
typesofresourcesisoneofthefirstfundamental
insights from service science, and is part of the
service systems worldview.
Latour(2007)in“ReassemblingtheSocial:
An Introduction to Actor Network Theory”
provides the term ‘actant’ to describe what we
have termed ‘resources’ in this article. Vargo
& Lusch (2004) make the distinction between
operant (actor) and operand (object) resources,
and note that all resources, depending on the
context and event, may be of either category
(e.g., when considering people, the surgeon
may be operant and the patient on the table
operand).
Service system entities. “Together we can
change the world to our mutual benefit.” Ser-
vicesystementitiesaredynamicconfigurations
of resources, including at least one resource
with rights (and responsibilities, as these
come in pairs for legal man), including some
type of access rights to all the resources in
the configuration, either directly or indirectly
through relationships with other service sys-
tem entities. Recall, within a jurisdiction, an
authority stakeholder is required to determine
which resources have rights and the nature of
the rights. Some dynamic configurations of
resources are service system entities (a busi-
ness or a city, including the people that make
themup),andotherconfigurationsofresources
are not service system entities (an automobile,
without a resource with rights, such as the
owner person or driver person included). The
most common types of service system entities
are people and organizations. New types of
servicesystementitiesareconstantlyemerging
and disappearing. Recently, open-source and
on-line communities have emerged as service
systems entities.The conceptof service system
entity is evolving rapidly (Spohrer, Maglio,
Bailey,&Gruhl,2007;Spohrer,Vargo,Maglio,
& Caswell, 2008).
Access rights. “By what authority, do you
use that resource?” Service system entities
have four main types of access rights to the
resources within their configuration: owned
outright, leased/contracted, shared access,
and privileged access. Shared access resources
includeresourcessuchasair,roads,naturallan-
guage,andinternetwebsites.Privilegedaccess
resources include resources such as thoughts,
individual histories, and family relationships.
Value-proposition-basedinteractions.“I’ll
dothis,ifyou’lldothat.”Servicesystementities
interact (normatively) via value propositions.
Normative behavior is behavior that “ought to
happen according to an ideal model of one or
more stakeholders,” but in fact may not always
occur. Interactions via value propositions are
intended to cocreate-value for both interacting
entities. Both interacting entities must agree,
explicitly or tacitly, to the value proposition.
A value proposition communicates a mutually
agreeable plan to collaborate and cocreate-
value,mostoftenbyreconfiguringresourcesor
access rights to resources. A value proposition
is a value-cocreation mechanism (Anderson,
Narus,&Rossu,2006;Lovelock&Gummesson
2004; Kim & Mauborgne, 2005; Slywotzky,
Wise, & Weber, 2003; Afuah, 2004; Gummes-
son 2007; Normann 2001). For example, an
installment payment plan can allow customers
to pay over time for items they get to use in
advanceofcompletingpayment,whileincreas-
ing short-term sales for the provider. The value
proposition creates a win-win relationship.
Governance mechanisms. “Here’s what
will happen if things go wrong.” Service sys-
tem entities may not realize the value expected
from a previously (mutually) agreed to value
proposition.Ifvalueisnotrealizedasexpected,
thismayresultinadisputebetweentheentities.
Governancemechanismsreducetheuncertainty
in these situations by prescribing a mutually
agreedtoprocessforresolvingthedispute.Gov-
is prohibited.

ernance mechanisms are also known as dispute
resolution or conflict resolution mechanisms
(Williamson,1999;Adams,2000;March1991;
Omerod, 2005; Bernstein, 1998).
Service system networks. “Here’s how
we can all link up.” Service systems entities
interact with other service system entities
(normatively) via value propositions. Over
time, for a population of entities, the patterns
of interaction can be viewed as networks with
direct and indirect connectivity strengths. A
service system network is an abstraction that
only emerges when one assumes a particular
analysis overlay on the history of interactions
amongst service system entities.
Service system ecology. “Populations of
entities, changing the ways they interact.” Dif-
ferent types of service systems entities exist
in populations, and the universe of all service
systementitiesformstheservicesystemecology
or service world (Bryson, Daniels, and Warf,
2004). Theecologyischaracterizedbothbythe
diversity of types of service system entities and
their relative numbers, as well as the dynamics
resulting from value-cocreation mechanisms
and governance mechanisms.
Stakeholders. “When it comes to value,
perspective really matters.” The four primary
types of stakeholders are customer, provider,
authority, and competitor. Reasoning about
multiple stakeholders and their perspectives
on resource access is necessary to design new
andimprovedvalue-cocreationmechanismsand
governance mechanisms, as well as to design
new and improved types of service system
entities. In addition to the four fundamental
stakeholder perspectives (customer, provider,
authority, competition), other stakeholder
perspectives include employee, partner, entre-
preneur,criminal,victim,underserved,citizen,
manager, children, aged, and many others.
Designing business and societal systems that
address more than the four fundamental stake-
holderperspectivesissometimesconsideredto
be the difference between having a society that
ismerely‘prosperous’andhavingasocietythat
is truly ‘great’ (Collins, 2005).
Measures. “Without standardized mea-
sures, it is hard to agree and harder to trust.”
The four primarytypes of measures are quality,
productivity, compliance, and sustainable in-
novation. Each of these corresponds to a stake-
holderperspective:customersevaluatequality,
providers evaluate productivity, authorities
evaluate compliance, and, in a very real sense,
competitors evaluate sustainable innovation.
With regard to sustainable innovation, von
Mises (1998) states: “Competitors aim at ex-
cellence and preeminence in accomplishments
within a system of mutual cooperation” (Pp.
116-117). The ongoing challenge that service
system entities (e.g., people) perceive is ‘self
competition’ to sustain a balance between too
much challenge (anxiety and risk of failure,
if skills are lacking) and too little challenge
(boredom and risk of meaningless success). A
dynamicbalancebetweenanxietyandboredom
helpstoensureasensethatchangehasmeaning
and value (Csiksezntmihalyi, 1990).
Outcomes. “How did we do? Can this
become a new routine or long-term relation-
ship?” In a two player game, there are four
possible outcomes: win-win, lose-lose, win-
lose, and lose-win. Win-win corresponds to
value-cocreation, and the other three are likely
to lead to disputes. However, only four out-
comes, relative to real world complexity, is too
impoverished to be of much use. To create a
morerealisticmodelwedevelopedISPARwith
tenpossibleoutcomes(Spohrer,Vargo,Maglio,
& Caswell, 2008). ISPAR (Interact-Service-
Propose-Agree-Realize) includes outcomes in
which: (1) value is realized, (2) the proposal
(value proposition) is not understood, (3) the
proposalisnotagreedto,(4)valueisnotrealized
and disputes do not arise, (5) value-cocreation
disputes are resolved in a manner that is OK for
all stakeholders, (6) value-cocreation disputes
are resolved in manner that is not OK for all
stakeholder (7) an interaction is not a service
interaction and is welcomed, (8) an unwel-
comed non-service interaction is not criminal,
(9) an unwelcomed non-service interaction is
criminalandjusticeresults,(10)anunwelcome
non-service interaction is criminal and justice
is prohibited.

does not result. Beyond a standard two player
game, with a customer player and a provider
player, ISPAR assumes there exists both an
authorityplayeraswellasacompetitor-criminal
player. By admitting the notion of non-service
interactionsandcompetitor-criminalstakehold-
ers, ISPAR goes beyond the normative view
of service system entity interactions. Service
system entities have the competence to make
decisionsaboutrelationshipsoveralifetimeof
interaction, not only the history of past interac-
tions but also reason about the possible future
customer life time value of service interactions
(Rust, 2000).
Service systems worldview. These ten
basic concepts underlie the service systems
worldview: The view that the world is made up
of populations of service system entities that
interact(normatively)viavaluepropositionsto
cocreate-value, but often disputes arise and so
governancemechanismsareinvokedtoresolve
disputes. In the service systems worldview,
people, businesses, government agencies, na-
tions, cities, hospitals, universities, and many
other entities are instances of formal service
systems.
Formal service system entities are types
of legal entities with rights and responsibili-
ties, that can own property, and with named
identities that can create contracts with other
legal entities. Formal service system entities
are legal entities (Williamson, 1999; Roberts,
2004). Formal service systems exist within a
legal and economic framework of contracts
and expectations.
Informal service system entities include
families (though households are formal from a
tax law perspective), open source communities
(thathavenotcreatedaformalnon-profitentity
for governance or charitable giving purposes),
and many other societal or social systems that
are governed typically by unwritten cultural
and behavioral norms (social systems with
rudimentary political systems). A service
scientist seeks to understand the fossilized
value propositions that underlie these informal
routines and norms. Informal service systems
exist within a social and political framework
of promises and expectations.
Natural history of service system entities.
Servicescienceseekstocreateanunderstanding
of the formal and informal nature of service in
terms of entities, interactions, and outcomes,
and how these evolve (or are designed) over
time. An initial premise is that the entities,
which are sophisticated enough to engage in
rationallydesignedserviceinteractionsthatcan
consistently lead to win-win value cocreation
outcomes, must be able to build models of
the past (reputation, trust), present, and future
(options, risk-reward, opportunities, hopes and
aspirations) possible worlds, including models
of themselves and others, and reason about
knowledgevalue(Faginetal,2003). Thefoun-
dations for a natural history of service systems
canbefoundintheanthropologyliterature,and
the foundations for a natural history of value
propositions and governance mechanisms can
be found in the economics and law literature.
The challenge of service science, as we see
even more below, is the integration of these
and other disciplines, centered on the service
research literature.
Basic questions. A general theory of
service system entities and networks formed
through value-proposition-based interactions
has four parts, which directly lead to the four
basic types of questions that SSMED seeks to
answer:
Science (improve understanding, map
natural history, validate mechanisms, make
predictions). What are service system entities,
how have they naturally evolved to present,
and how might they evolve in the future? What
can we know about their interactions, how the
interactions are shaped (value propositions,
governance mechanisms), and the possible
outcomes of those interactions both short-term
and long-term?
Management (improve capabilities, de-
fine progress measures, optimize investment
strategy). How should one invest to create,
improve, and scale service system networks?
How do the four measures of quality, produc-
tivity, compliance, and sustainable innovation
is prohibited.

relate to numerous key performance indica-
tors (KPIs) of business and societal systems?
Is there a “Moore’s Law” of service system
investment? Can doubling information lead to
a doubling of capabilities (performance) on a
predictable basis?
Engineering (improve control, optimize
resources).Howcantheperformanceofservice
system entities and scaling of service system
networks be improved by the invention of new
technologies (and environmental infrastruc-
tures) or the reconfiguration of existing ones?
WhatisrequiredtodevelopaCAD(Computer-
Aided Design) tool for service system entity
and service system network design?
Design (improve experience, explore pos-
sibilities). How can one best improve the expe-
rience of people in service system entities and
networks? How can the experience of service
system creation, improvement, and scaling be
enhanced by better design? Can the space of
possible value propositions and governance
mechanisms be explored systematically?
Sciences of the artificial. Sciences of the
artificialaredifferentfromnaturalsciences,and
so it becomes especially important to consider
these four parts – science, management, engi-
neering, and design – as important knowledge
components.In“TheSciencesoftheArtificial”
(Simon 1996), Simon reflects “The world we
live in today is much more man-made, or ar-
tificial, world than it is a natural world… …
we must be careful about equating ‘biological’
with ‘natural.’A forest may be a phenomenon
of nature; a farm certainly is not. …A plowed
field is no more part of nature than an asphalted
street – and no less. These examples set the
terms of our problem, for those things we call
artifactsarenotapartfromnature.Theyhaveno
dispensation to ignore or violate natural law.At
the same time they are adapted to human goals
and purposes. …Natural science is knowledge
about natural objects and phenomena. We ask
whether there cannot also be ‘artificial’ sci-
ence – knowledge about artificial objects and
phenomena. Unfortunately the term ‘artificial’
has a pejorative air about it that we must dispel
before we can proceed.” (Pp. 2-3).We note that
some say ‘service’ with a pejorative air.
Service Science, Management, Engineer-
ing, and Design (SSMED) is emerging as
one of the sciences of the artificial. Service
science is knowledge about service system
entities, value-proposition-based interactions
(orvalue-cocreationmechanisms),governance
mechanisms,andtheothersevenbasicconcepts.
FollowingSimonevenfurther,onecouldargue
thatservicesystementitiesarephysicalsymbol
systems, dealing with symbols that are named
resources, and grounded in physical routines
for carrying out the symbolic manipulations
related to named resources. “A physical
symbol system is a machine that, as it moves
through time, produces an evolving collection
of symbol structures.” (ibid, Pg. 22). In our
parlance, service system entities move through
time and produce an evolving configuration of
resources that are shaped by interactions with
other service system entities. In a well working
society, the interactions are based primarily on
mutually agreed to value propositions. Service
science seeks to improve our understanding
by mapping the natural history (growth of ser-
vice), discovering the mechanisms of change,
and predicting future types of service system
entities, value-cocreation mechanisms, and
governance mechanisms.
Tools and Methods
B2C service. “When the customer is a person.”
James Teboul (2006) provides an easily acces-
sibleintroductiontoafewofthebasictoolsand
methodsthatresearchersandpractitionershave
created to both understand service and design
new service offerings. The design of business
to consumer (B2C) service offerings has espe-
ciallybenefitedfromtwobasictools,theservice
intensity matrix and service blueprinting.
The service intensity matrix can be used to
show how different businesses create different
value-cocreation mechanisms that populate all
thedesignniches,rangingfromhighlycustom-
ized and high interaction service offerings to
is prohibited.

highlystandardizedandlowinteractionservice
offerings.
The service blueprint tool (see examples
from (Fitzsimmons 2008) and Bitner et al
(2007)) is used to describe and improve
customer-provider interactions in service pro-
cesses. The service blueprint is particularly
useful in helping management test out con-
cepts, identify potential failure points and/or
opportunities for innovation. Many variations
ofserviceblueprintingtoolsandmethodsexist,
including one recently developed by Womack
& Jones (2005) in their book “Lean Solutions.”
Heskett, Sasser and Schlesinger (1997) (p. 40)
provided a method of calculating value from
the perspective of the customer. The simple
formula provides a good basis for formulating
the win-win value proposition between the
customer and the service provider. Gutek and
Welsh(2000)proposedaCOPmodelofencoun-
ters and relationships.The model described the
linkages among Customer, Organization and
Providerina“ServiceTriangle”.Thetightness/
loosenessofthelinkageamongthecomponents
represents the type of and sustainability of the
service encounter and relationship. ServeLab
at Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute provides a
disciplined approach to new service product
designs (Ganz, 2006). More and more service
offerings are designed to be accessed on the
web, via mobile phones, or via self-service
kiosks.The design of these service systems has
benefited from an explosion of development
tools and methods.
B2B service. “When the customer is a
complex organization.” The design of busi-
ness to business (B2B) service offerings has a
growing number of tools and methods such as
IBM’sComponentBusinessModel(CBM)ap-
proach. TheCBMapproachprovidesabusiness
architecture view of the customer’s business
components, the key performance indicators
(KPIs) that underlie business performance in
that industry, and approaches to outsourcing
or otherwise transforming the performance
of components. Glushko & McGrath (2005)
in “Document Engineering” provide a disci-
plined approach to business process design.
Alter (2006) has developed the work system
method and customized it for the design of
service systems. Alter (2008) also developed
the Service Responsibility Table (SRT) as a
tool to bring the customer into the preliminary
stages of analyzing and transforming a work
system/service system.The advantage of using
SRT is that it is intuitive and could be used by
a customer who is not trained in heavy-duty
systems analysis and design.
DISCIPLINES AND EXPERT
THINKING
In this section, the ten academic discipline pil-
lars of service science are presented. Service
scientists may specialize in one of these ten
areas (expert thinking skills, also known as
contributory expertise), but must also be, to
some degree, well versed in all ten areas in
order to work effectively on multidisciplinary
teams of professionals (complex communica-
tionskills,alsoknownasinteractionalexpertise)
(Collins, Evans, & Gorman, 2007; Collins &
Kusch, 1999; Levy 2005). Service scientists
should be T-shaped professionals (the vertical
of the T - deep in their home discipline area
and appropriately broad to work well in teams
– the horizontal of the T). We also suggest that
T-shaped professionals can learn and adapt
more rapidly to the changing needs of busi-
ness. For this reason, we also refer to T-shaped
professionals as adaptive innovators (IfM and
IBM, 2008). In what follows, the rationale for
selecting these ten pillar disciplines will be
presented as well as some of the key concepts
from each of them. Because students start with
a great deal of commonsense and prewired
cultural knowledge about the service system
worldview, even though they do not have the
formal vocabulary, there is good reason to be-
lieve material outlined below is not too much
knowledge for students to learn (Richardson
& Boyd, 2005).
In the following subsections, we briefly
introduce the ten disciplines that can provide
an understanding of the past (a), present (b-i),
is prohibited.

and future (j) of service systems, while high-
lightingthekeytypesofresources/stakeholders
(b-e)andmeasures/accessrights(f-i)neededto
understand service systems, value-cocreation
mechanisms, and governance mechanisms.
The reader should note that the knowledge in
each of the discipline areas (clusters really) are
expansive and growing rapidly. Our aim is to
show how all ten might integrate into a service
science framework.
a. History: Economics and Law
Evolving
Evolution of trust. Service science, like biol-
ogy, must ultimately explain the origins and
evolutionary paths that lead to today’s service
system ecology. Wright (2001) in “Non-Zero”
provides an accessible version of the history
of the evolution of human cooperation and
win-winrelationshipformation.Morerecently,
Beinhocker (2006) in “Origin of Wealth”
provides an introduction to evolutionary eco-
nomics, including a summary of the works of
many scholars on the evolution of cooperation.
Seabright (2005) in “The Company of Strang-
ers” provides an exposition of the evolution of
trust in early human groups (informal service
systems),andexploresthephysicalandcultural
change in humans that bridge from nomadic
hunter-gatherers to the rise of agriculture and
early cities. In cities, division of labor reached
new heights as population density increased,
and communication and transportation costs
dropped in what Hawley (1986) called the
human ecology.
Divisionoflabor.AdamSmithwroteabout
the wealth of nations as created by division-of-
labor that can lead to an increase in productive
capacity (Smith 1776/1904). Smith also wrote
about the importance of markets (‘markets’
as the ‘the invisible hand’) for coordinating
prices based on supply and demand. Ricardo,
anotherearlypoliticaleconomist,addressedthe
issue of optimal import-export strategies for
nations to maximize individual and collective
productive capacities by appropriately divid-
ing production tasks between nations (Ricardo
1817/2004). Paradoxically, even when one
nation can do everything ‘better’ (i.e., more
productively, profitably) than another nation,
as long as ‘comparative advantages’exist (i.e.,
relative differences in productivity), then there
isoftenamathematical,andthereforeeconomic
and social, advantage to interactions and ex-
change. The implications of Ricardo’s insight
are profound and go well beyond the notion of
division of labor.
Learning curves.The evolution of service
system interactions in a population of service
systems can be seen, in part, as each service
systementity‘doingalittlebitmoreofwhatthey
do best, a little bit less of what they do worse,
and a little bit more interacting with not just
complementary service systems (‘specializa-
tion’, ‘division of labor,’ ‘opposites attract’).
Diversitycreatestheconditionsforcoevolution
and complementary improvements of service
system entities. Learning or experience curves
(Argote 2005) provide further and on-going
mathematical advantage to interactions (‘prac-
tice makes perfect’).
Value-cocreation mechanisms. Barnard
providesoneoftheearlyattemptsbyabusiness
practitioner to outline a theory of “cooperative
systems,” including a discussion of formal
and informal cooperative systems (Barnard
1938/1968). Richard Normann’s (2001) “Re-
framing Business” is a more modern treatment
ofmanyofthesameissues,morefromaservice
networks and value propositions rather than an
internal organization perspective, and outlines
a framework for ‘value creating systems’ that
are very close to our notion of service system
entities and networks. Normann identifies
three fundamental sources of value: new
technological innovation, legal and regulatory
changes, and reconfigurations of resources and
valuepropositionsfromexistingvaluecreating
systems. Alfred Chandler (1977) provides the
historical account of the rise of industrial age
business organizations (‘managers’as the ‘vis-
iblehand’).Thecreationofnewrolesinexisting
or new types of service systems often means
that individual service systems (people) must
step up to new levels of multitasking in their
is prohibited.

lives.Milgrom&Robert(1992)in“Economics,
Organization,andManagement”provideaquite
comprehensive view of the value (economic
advantage) of alternative organizational and
management forms.
Governance mechanisms. Williamson
(1999) in “The Mechanisms of Governance”
refines views on transaction costs and the new
institutional economics that provide the foun-
dations for empirical comparisons in context
of alternative governance mechanisms. Wil-
liamson’s notion of “incomplete contracting
in its entirety” speaks to rational design at-
tempts to safeguard against both opportunism
and bounded rationality when creating value
propositions (contracts) with others. In many
ways, contract diversity is to service provid-
ers as product diversity is to manufacturers.
North (2005) in “Understanding the Process of
Economic Change” writes about the success of
human attempts to gain some measure of con-
trol over the physical world with science and
engineering, and the limited success of human
attempts to control or even guide the evolution
of economic growth through the creation of in-
stitutions(combinedsocial,political,economic,
legal, linguistic systems).
Evolving perspectives on service. Bastiat
(1848; 1850), a French political economist in
the early 19th
century, provided one of the first
and most prescient analyses of value as service
instead of value in things. With the exception
of Bastiat, it is worth noting that most of the
accounts above have focused on the growth
of productive capacity through manufacturing
activities (i.e., the production of things). Colin
Clark(1957)inhisseminalwork“Conditionsof
Economic Growth” was the first to systemati-
cally document the dramatic growth of service
activities in national value creation. William
Baumol(2007)alsodrewattentiontothegrowth
of the service sector in the latter half of the 20th
century, as a drag on the productivity gains
of nations. Gadrey and Gallouj (2002) have
drawn attention to the difficulty in measuring
productivity and quality for service activities
compared to manufacturing activities that lead
to tangible output. Triplett & Bosworth (2004)
provideamodernaccountofattemptstomeasure
productivity gains in service industries, show-
ing recent periods of time in the US economy
where service productivity gains have actually
outpacedgainsinproductivityinextractiveand
manufacturingsectors. Baumol(2002)hasalso
written about the importance of R&D services
(“theleaderoftheservices”)tocounteracttheso
called Baumol’s Disease (asymptotically static
service productivity), and provide continuous
improvement and even discontinuous jumps in
service productivity.
b. Marketing: Customers and the
Quality Measure
Marketing and the customer stakeholder.
Marketing,asafunctionwithinabusinessfirm,
hastheresponsibilitytounderstandtheexisting
and(potential)futurecustomersofthatbusiness.
Analyzing the relationships and interactions
with existing customers, understanding the
quality of the customer experience, and work-
ing to communicate the appropriate image of
the provider firm to attract new customers and
improve the customer experience is part of the
marketing function of the firm.
Service is different. Service marketing is
different from product marketing according to
a leading textbook on this subject (Zeithaml,
Bitner, & Gremler, 2006). Traditional product
marketing deals with the four P’s of product,
place, promotion, and price. However, service
marketing adds three additional P’s: people,
physical evidence, and process, because in
manyserviceprovisioningsituations,theservice
employeesandcustomersinteractdirectly. The
service experience in these cases of simultane-
ous production and consumption is determined
by the people, the physical evidence where the
interactions happen, and process that guides
the customer-provider interactions. Of eleven
challenges and questions for service marketers
highlighted in this textbook (Pp. 24-25), three
mention quality: How can service quality be
definedandimproved?Howdoesthefirmcom-
municatethequalityandvaluetotheconsumer?
is prohibited.

How can the organization ensure the delivery
of consistent quality service?
Casestudiesareacommontoolintextbooks
and business books in the service marketing,
relationship marketing, and customer lifetime
value areas (Lovelock & Gummesson 2004,
Rust et al 2000). These books provide methods
for pricing services, communicating service
valuepropositions(includingbywordofmouth
from satisfied customers), recovering from
service failure, estimating customer lifetime
value,demandforecasting,segmentingmarkets,
using CRM (customer relationships manage-
ment) technology and systems effectively in
organizations, and many other topics related to
demand innovation and revenue growth from
customers.
Measuring quality. Zeithaml, Bitner, &
Gremler (2006) advance the Customer Qual-
ity Gaps Model as a way to understand the
factors that contribute to service quality. Ben
Schneider (Schneider and Bowen 1995, Sch-
neider, &White 2003) has performed a number
of empirical studies that show service quality
levels inside the firm (as rated by employees)
are reflected outside the firm in the experience
of quality (as rated by customers). This find-
ing is often used to emphasize the importance
of business culture and cultural factors when
implementing quality improvement initiatives
(Moulton Reger 2006). Pine & Gilmore (1999)
and Chase (Chase, Jacobs, & Aquilano, 2004)
provide simple formula that help reason about
improvingqualitymeasures.Forexample,Pine
& Gilmore suggest two rules of thumb for es-
timating customer satisfaction (what customer
expecttoget–whatcustomerperceiveshegets)
and customer sacrifice (what customer wants
exactly - what customer settles for).
Quality in B2C and B2B interactions. In
B2C service interactions, quality of service is
often both a major focus of employee selec-
tion and training, as well as an ‘unconditional
guarantee’ made to customers as part of the
value proposition used to attract and retain
customers. Customer lifetime value is part of
the calculation of how “generous” failure re-
covery offers can be, and still remain profitable
over the expected lifetime of the relationship.
In B2B and IT-enabled service provisioning,
contracts may explicitly call out Service Level
Agreements (SLAs) with specific objective
measures and penalty clauses in case the SLAs
are violated.
c. Operations: Providers and the
Productivity Measure
Operations and the provider stakeholder.
A leading Operations Management textbook
(Chase, Jacobs, & Aquilano, 2004, Pp 6-7)
states: “Operations Management (OM) is de-
finedasthedesign,operation,andimprovement
of the systems that create and deliver the firm’s
primary products and services… while opera-
tions managers use decision-making tools of
OR/MS (such as critical path scheduling) and
are concerned with many of the same issues as
IE (such as factory automation), OM’s distinct
management role distinguishes it from these
other disciplines.”
Service is different. Scott Sampson’s
(2001) “Unified Theory of Services” extends
Chase’s customer-interaction model of service
productionprocessesasdistinctfromtraditional
manufacturingproductionprocesses.Sampson
is advancing a view of service operations as
a distinct scientific field (Sampson & Frohle,
2006). The vocabulary of operations and op-
erations management centers on the concept of
process. The history of operations is primarily
associated with the industrial revolution (pro-
cesses with standard parts and economics of
scale) and the rise of scientific management
(processes with routine and repetitive human
performance). More recently operations has
soughtanappropriatebalancingbetweeninvest-
ments aimed at optimizing a process (queuing
theory to eliminate waiting and inventory
bottlenecks) and those aimed at maintaining
an increasing flexibility of a process (capacity
anddemandmatching,agilityforrapidchange).
A good overview of these perspectives on op-
erations, including some basics of the human
element in processes, is provided in the book
“FactoryPhysics”byHopp&Spearman(1996).
is prohibited.

Fitzsimmons & Fitzsimmons (2007) is the
author of one of top selling service operations
textbooks, “Service Management: Operations,
Strategy, and Information Technology.” While
originally primarily focused on B2C service
activities, recent editions have expanded the
B2B and IT-delivered service sections.
Measuring productivity. Productivity,
broadly defined, is a ratio of output to input
from the provider stakeholder perspective.
Productivityisarelativemeasure,typicallyused
to compare a previous time period to a current
time period to get a sense of either efficiency
gains (reducing costs of inputs) or revenue
gains(increasingdemandforandhencevalueof
outputs).Partialproductivitymeasures,measure
output to labor or output to capital or output
to energy. Multifactor productivity measures,
measure output in relation to the sum of a set
of input factors. Total productivity measures
combinealloutputsandallinputs.Inoperations
theemphasisisonefficiencywhiledoingthings
at the lowest possible cost. The tradeoff most
commonly perceived is not to lower the quality
oftheoutputofaprocessasthecostofperform-
ing the process is reduced – in fact, ideally the
quality should increase as the cost is reduced.
The standardization of processes by removing
waste (Lean methods), removing variance (Six
Sigmamethod),andthenautomatingtoachieve
superior quality at the lowest cost is a typical
operations worldview approach. Increasingly,
operations add a final step of global sourcing
(see subsection i) to obtain the lowest cost la-
bor resources required to operate the process.
Pigou’s Paradox demonstrates that the produc-
tive capacity of a system can be increased by
adding a simple law to a service system with
appropriate governance mechanisms (see sub-
sectiond),whileaddinganadvancedtechnology
(i.e., zero cost network linkages) to the same
service system could decrease the productivity
capacity (Roughgarden 2005).
Back stage and front stage processes.
Operations as a function of the firm seeks to
understand provider processes and productiv-
ity, both those that do not directly involve the
customer (back stage processes) and those that
directly involve the customer (front stage pro-
cesses). By understanding the value providers
derive from a process as well as the value that
customers derive from a process, appropriate
operations techniques can be used to reconfig-
ure activities, information, risk, etc. between
people and technology, between organizations,
and between employees and customers to im-
prove productivity and quality of experience
(Womack & Jones 2005). By segmenting types
of processes into front-stage and back-stage
processes, appropriate techniques can be used
tooptimizeproductivityaswellasimproveflex-
ibleresponsiveness(Levitt1976;Teboul2006).
By decomposing processes into reconfigurable
components, service activities can be industri-
alized as technological capabilities advance to
improve quality and economies of scale (Levitt
1976, Quinn & Paquette, 1990).
Industrial engineering compared to ser-
vice science. The easiest way to appreciate the
difference is to compare Hopp & Spearman’s
“Factory Physics” to Fitzsimmons’ “Service
Management.” The key difference is the
focus shift from factory systems, products,
and processes to service systems, value, and
interactions.Thatis,fromsystemsgovernedby
physical laws to systems governed by human-
made laws.
d. Governance: Authorities and the
Compliance Measure
Governance and the authority stakeholder.
Political science, legal theory, contract law, all
relate to governance. Principal-agent theory in
economicsalsorelatestogovernance(Roberts,
2004). Management mechanisms and admin-
istrative science are associated with top down
controlofresourcesinahierarchy,whilegover-
nancemechanismsareassociatedwithagentsor
organizations(servicesystementitiesinourvo-
cabulary) interacting in the context of markets,
organizations, and institutions, and preferring
theefficiencyandfreedomsassociatedwithself
governancewhereverpossible.Williams(1999)
in “The Mechanisms of Governance” provides
theoretical and empirical investigations of al-
is prohibited.

ternative governance mechanisms. Computer
scientists, mathematicians, game theorists,
and economist have also worked to create the
area known as mechanism design. Mechanism
design provides a formalization of the proper-
ties of different types of auction mechanisms
as well as algorithms to repeatedly exchange
resources among agents in a system.
Service is different. Violating the laws
of physics is impossible; violating the laws
of logic is folly; violating the laws of man is
either criminal or an innovation (e.g. “Declara-
tion of Independence”). While service system
interactions (normatively) are proposals to
cocreate-valueviawin-winvaluepropositions,
many things can go wrong. For example, even
if the value proposition succeeds, third-party
stakeholders (victims) can step forward with
grievances and claims against the primary
stakeholders (providers-customers). Also,
stakeholders known as criminals may act in the
role of customer or provider with the intention
to deceive and act opportunistically, thus they
seek a win-lose outcome. Stakeholders known
as authorities may act to bring criminals to jus-
tice, and legitimately use coercive capabilities
to realize value propositions between authori-
ties and citizens. The ISPAR model of service
system interactions provides a description of
the ten most common outcomes of service
system interactions (Spohrer, Vargo, Maglio,
& Caswell, 2008).
Measuring compliance. The overall
level of regulatory compliance and the cost
of maintaining or improving those levels vary
considerably among the many nations around
the world. Regulatory compliance is a factor
in the transaction costs associated with doing
business in different regions of the world (or
even districts in a single city). For example, see
theRuleofLawIndexdescribedin(Kaufmann,
Kraay, & Mastruzzi, 2003). The Federalist Pa-
pers provide an example of a famous historical
effort to design and advocate for a particular
form of self governance – which led to the
United States.
Onemeasureofthesuccessofagovernance
structure is its ability to align incentives and
overcome opportunism. Langlois & Robert-
son (1995) in “Firms, Markets, and Economic
Change” provide a dynamic theory of the
boundaries of the firm that complements much
oftheworkbyCoase,North,andWilliamsonon
transaction costs, new institutional economics,
and governance structures.
100%compliancemaynotbeoptimal.The
service systems worldview does not make the
assumptionthat100%win-wininteractionsare
optimal.An ecology of interacting service sys-
tems with 100% win-win interactions could be
achievedwith100%compliantservicesystems.
For example, if people were as predictable as
technologicalcomponentsintheirperformance,
then success rates approaching 100% might be
possible.However,inthecaseof100%compli-
ance, the ecology of service systems might not
be very innovative.
Risk, rewards, and learning rates. Non-
compliance may be risky. John Adams (2000),
the UK scholar, in his recent book “Risk”
describes the way in which people self-govern
risk levels to balance risk and reward. By ac-
cepting some amount of risk, service system
entities (people, businesses, nations) are able
to take actions in a much wider range of situ-
ations and learn more rapidly than otherwise
might be possible. Adams also describes four
models of rationality that describe alternative
worldviews about risk taking behavior in soci-
ety. Systems that tolerate risk taking can also
(undercertainassumptions)bedemonstratedto
convertunknownunknownstoknownunknowns
and sometimes to known knowns to improve
future performance. Governance, compliance,
risk,trust,privacy,fairness,andlearningareall
interrelated. Governance mechanisms can also
bedesignedtoadjustthelearningratesofservice
systementitiesinservicesystemecologieswith
many unknowns and dynamic properties. For
example, the prime interest rate acts as a single
parameter related to the cost of capital and is
used by the chairman of U.S. Federal Reserve
Bank to curb inflationary tendencies (raise
interest rate) or curb recessionary tendencies
(lower interest rate). Investing in R&D and
innovation (risk taking) in an economy tends
is prohibited.

to diminish when the prime rate is high, and
increase when the prime rate is lower.
e. Design: Competitors and the
Sustainable Innovation Measure
Design and the competitor stakeholder.Alter-
native designs compete. Unlike evolutionary
change,designrelatestoconsciousexploration
of possibilities (changing resource configura-
tions), while remaining sensitive to subjective
and objective human response (changing ex-
periences). Hunt (2000) in “A General Theory
of Competition” outlines resource advantage
theory, and warns that reducing competition
in national economic systems has resulted in
decreased innovation capacity over time. The
design of new products, interfaces, processes,
spaces,andsystemsareallrelated,butdifferent.
Forexample,theboundariesofadesigntaskare
often determined by considerations of who are
the people involved: Are the people involved
users of physical products? Are they users of
information interfaces? Are they participants
in a process? Are they participants in using a
physical or virtual space? Or are they stake-
holder/roleholders in a system with rights and
responsibilities? What is the likely duration of
the lifecycle of the product, interface, process,
space,or system? Design is a conscious change
thatwillcompetewithanalternativedesign,and
may win or lose for reasons that are subjective,
not objective.
Serviceisdifferent.Gustafsson&Johnson
(2003) in “Competing in a Service Economy:
HowtoCreateCompetitiveAdvantageThrough
ServiceDevelopmentandInnovation”state“As
anexecutive,yourjobistosetaservicestrategy
and enable your people to both innovate and
continuously improve your services.” They
outline a progression from product value, to
service value, to solution value, to experience
value.
Measuring sustainable innovation. In-
novation is a measure of value created for
populations. Innovation in a service system
ecology (multiple populations of interacting
types of service system entities) is a relative
measure of the value-cocreation increase both
short-termandlong-term(sustainability).Stan-
dard examples of service system innovation
include: (1) a loyalty program for an airline, (2)
a self-service system at a bank (ATMs), airport
(tickets), or retail outlet (checkout scanning),
(3) creating a financial services offering, (4)
creating a new franchise model, (5) creating a
newtypeofbusinessororganizationalstructure,
(6) specializing and streamlining a medical
proceduretoexpandthenumberofpatientsthat
can afford and hence seek treatment, etc.
Experience design. Experience design is
often seen as a balancing act. Csiksezntmihalyi
(1990) in “Flow” describes the design of opti-
mal experience as balancing anxiety (too much
challenge, and not enough skill) with boredom
(notenoughchallenge,andtoomuchunutilized
skill). Csiksezntmihalyialsodescribesthebal-
ancingactbetweendifferentiation(moreunique
individual experiences) and integration (more
standardized collective experiences). Pine &
Gilmore(1999)in“TheExperienceEconomy”
provide a perspective on economic evolution
fromcommoditiestogoodstoservicestoexperi-
ence and then to transformations, as balancing
morecustomization(customersatisfaction)with
commoditization (customer sacrifice).
f. Anthropology: Privileged Access
and People Resources
Anthropology and the people resource. An-
thropology is the discipline that is concerned
with the study of humanity – all people across
all places, times, and dimensions of analysis.
The “four fields” approach to anthropology
encompasses physical anthropology (based on
physical data of biological and human evolu-
tion), archeology (based on physical artifacts
andenvironmentaldata),culturalanthropology
orsocialanthropology(basedondataofpastand
present organized groups of people who share
learning contexts or culture), and linguistics
(based on language data). It is worth noting
the rough correspondence between the “four
fields” and the four fundamental categories of
is prohibited.

resourcesinservicescience(people,technology,
organizations, and shared information).
Service is different. Dawson (2004) in
“Developing Knowledge-based Client Rela-
tionships:LeadershipinProfessionalServices”
states that it is important to remember that ulti-
mately knowledge and relationships are about
people. He identifies seven drivers shaping the
evolutionoftheprofessionalservicesindustries:
clientsophistication,governance,connectivity,
transparency, modularization, globalization,
and commoditization. One of four strategies
fordealingwithcommoditizationofknowledge
proposedbyDawsonistoautomateaheadofthe
competition. This shifts the knowledge value
from the people who deliver the professional
service to the people who deliver the technol-
ogy, and the people and systems that keep the
necessary dynamic information and content
up to date. One important knowledge value
information flow in service systems is from
frontlinepeoplewhodeliverservicetocustom-
ers to technology people who automate and
operate/maintaintechnologysystemstodeliver
the related service to customers. Ensuring the
sustainability of this type of information flow
overtimeisarequirementofsustainableinnova-
tion in most professional service firms.
Privilegedaccess. Peoplearespecial.They
have unique and privileged access to their own
thoughts.Also, kinship relations and historical
factsareuniqueforindividuals.Importantprop-
erties of people as individual service systems
include: they have finite lifecycles (e.g., time is
alimitedresource),identities(e.g.,stakeholders
and roleholders in many service systems with
associated histories and future expectations),
legal rights and responsibilities (e.g., owner-
ship of property or assets, authority to perform
certain acts, and this varies over the lifecycle
from child to adult), perform multitasking as
a way to increase individual productive output
in a finite time, and engage in division-of-labor
with others to increase collective productive
output in finite time.
Life cycles. One view of service science is
thatitistheemergingtheoryofthelifecyclesof
resources(people,technology,sharedinforma-
tionandorganizations)astheyaredynamically
configured into service systems that interact
via value propositions to cocreate-value (as
mutually measured or judged by various stake-
holders; “mutually” meaning they can reason
abouteachother’sreasoningprocesses–orstep
into each other’s shoes temporarily).The value
of knowledge, which is sometime thought of
as embedded in resources, changes over their
life cycles depending on the context of use
(Boisot 1995).
g. Engineering: Owned Outright and
Technological/Environmental
Resources
Engineering and physical resources. Funda-
mentally, engineering is concerned with the
translationofknowledgetovalue,bymanifest-
ing the knowledge in some physical and useful
form.Engineeringapproacheshavebeenbroad-
ly applied to areas relevant to service science,
including industrial and systems engineering,
industrialization of services, engineering eco-
nomics (Woods & Degarmo, 1953/1959; Park
2004; Newman, Lavelle, & Eschenbach, 2003;
Sepulveda,Souder,&Gottfried,1984),activity-
based costing (ABC), incentive engineering,
humanperformanceengineering(Gilbert2007),
financial engineering (Neftci 2004), process
engineering and statistical process control,
product engineering, document engineering
(Glushko & McGrath 2005), and of course
service engineering (Ganz 2006; Spath 2007;
Mandelbaum and Zeltyn, 2008).
Serviceisdifferent.Engineeringproblems
are solved in order to create solutions that help
realize a value proposition between service
systems. Engineering of sustainable service
systemsseekstoeconomizeonscarceresources
(individualpeople’stime,attention,andcapital
aswellasenvironmentalresources,societaland
business resources, etc.). Engineering in close
collaborationwiththeirunderlyingscienceareas
alsoseekstocreatenewabundantresourcesand
infrastructures that can enable the translation
of desired possibilities into reality.
is prohibited.

Owned outright. Physical property can be
owned outright. Since property does not have
rights, it can be completely controlled at the
whimoftheowner.Agoodgeneralintroduction
to the role of engineering in modern society is
Beniger’s (1986) “The Control Revolution:
Technological and Economic Origins of the
InformationSociety.” North(2005)wroteabout
gaining control and predictability in economic
systems by using knowledge to remove un-
certainty first from physical systems and then
social systems.
h. Computing: Shared Access and
Information Resources
Computing and information resources. The
area of services computing and web services
(Zhang 2007) is one of the most fundamental
of the emerging disciplines relevant to the
design and engineering of scalable and sustain-
able service systems. Marks & Bell (2006) in
“Service-Oriented Architecture: A Planning
and Implementation Guide for Business and
Technology” wrote that “Many organizations
wrestle with the semantic and linguistic barri-
ers between the business community and the IT
community... SOA offers the potential to create
a unified language of business based on a unit
of analysis known as a service.”As businesses
embrace SOA, a service system worldview is
catchingonslowly,andbothbusinesspractitio-
ners and IT specialist have begun to converge
on a common service-oriented language.
Checkland & Howell (1998/2005) developed
the notion that all information systems are in
fact service systems: “A consequence of the
nature of the process, in which intentions are
formed and purposeful action is undertaken
by people who are supported by information,
is that ‘information system’has to be seen as a
service system: one which serves those taking
the action.”
Service is different.Akey trend in service
interactionsisself-service.Theproviderthathad
empowered employees with a special informa-
tion infrastructure opens up that infrastructure
to sophisticated customers who engage in self-
service interactions. Honebein & Cammarano
(2005)in“CreatingDo-It-YourselfCustomers”
examine this trend, starting with the rise of the
sophisticated customer.
Shared access. The internet and world-
wide-web have greatly expanded the shared
information in the world. Effective customer-
providerinteractionsarebasedonsharedaccess
to information. Value propositions (one type of
shared information) can be communicated (a
proposal),agreedto(apromiseorcontract),and
realized(aneventorassuranceofafutureevent).
The value of shared information is central to all
service system entities. Information is used to
update models of all stakeholders (customers,
providers, authority, competitors) in the world
(world model fidelity), which is essential to
creatingnewvaluepropositions,realizingvalue
propositions that are part of existing relation-
ships,aswellasfairlyandtransparentlyresolv-
ing disputes. Customers ‘own’ the knowledge
assets relatedto theproblemsthey needsolved.
Providers ‘own’ the knowledge assets related
to the capabilities that can be brought to bear
to solve those problems. However, without
somehow sharing the information, it is of little
value.Castells(2004)in“TheNetworkSociety”
describes“Anetworksocietyisasocietywhose
social structure is made of networks powered
by microelectronics-based information and
communication technologies.”
Money as shared information. In the ser-
vice system worldview, money and capital are
primarily information (for example, see “The
ShapeofActions:WhatHumansandMachines
Can Do” by Collins & Kusch (1999)). The
growthofon-lineorvirtualworldswithartificial
currencies, makes the notion of “money as in-
formation”evenmoreapparent.Theconnection
between information accumulation and culture
is a strong one (see the definition of culture and
its relation to information in “Not By Genes
Alone” by Richardson & Boyd (2005)).
is prohibited.

i. Sourcing: Leasing/Contracts and
Organization Resources
Sourcing and organizations as resources.
Sourcing is also known as the discipline of
procurement. Scott (1981/2003) in “Organiza-
tions: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems”
observed that “Today’s organizations are vig-
orously pursuing a strategy of externalization,
outsourcing functions and relying on alliances
orcontractsforessentialgoodsandservices...”
A single person can run a sole-proprietorship
business, and so an organization can consist of
a single individual. Clearly, a lot of functions
wouldbeoutsourcedinthissituation.However,
whilemostindividualpeoplearenotconsidered
organizations, all people are considered to be a
service system. So ‘service system’ is a more
general concept than ‘organization,’as service
systemincludespeople,opensourcecommuni-
ties, and markets, as well as all organizations.
Movingbeyondoutsourcing,someauthors
and practitioners have begun talking about
the notion of multisourcing (Cohen & Young,
2006): “The disciplined provisioning and
blending of business and IT services from the
optimal set of internal and external providers
in the pursuit of business goals.” Building a
sourcingstrategyrequiresadeepunderstanding
of the short-term and long-term nature of the
need for custom or standard, business outcome
driven (value) or operational outcome driven
(cost)serviceforeverycomponentofabusiness
and service value network of partners.
Service is different. While oil and iron ore
may only exist in specific geographies, people
exist everywhere. Sourcing can redistributes
jobs and expertise on a global scale. Friedman
(2005) in “The World is Flat” fueled the grow-
ing concern that expertise, hence services, can
be sourced from anywhere. These concerns
have lead to the US report “Rising above the
Gathering Storm” (COSEPUP, 2007) which
provides recommendations for US policy
aimedatensuringastronghigh-skillinnovation
economy in the US.
Leasing/Contracts. Access to resource
via leasing and other types of contracts. The
fundamental generalization of make-buy from
early manufacturing is the concern in sourcing.
Sourcingcreatesmoreinterdependenceandless
independence.
Organizationalintelligence.March(1999)
in “The Pursuit of Organizational Intelligence”
wrote “Organizations pursue intelligence… In
particular, organizations (like other adaptive
systems)areplaguedbythedifficultyofbalanc-
ing exploration and exploitation. By explora-
tion is meant such things as search, discovery,
novelty, and innovation. It involves variation,
risk taking, and experimentation. It commonly
leads to disasters but occasionally leads to
important new directions and discoveries. By
exploitationismeantrefinement,routinization,
production, and implementation of knowledge.
Itinvolveschoice,efficiency,selection,andreli-
ability.Itusuallyleadstoimprovementbutoften
is blind to major redirections.” This is a very
fundamental observation. Organizations, and
in general service system entities, are dynamic
configurationsofresourcesinaconstantprocess
of change. However, to continue to exist that
organizational change must balance two types
of activities – exploration and exploitation – in
order to both exist in and adapt to a changing
environment. This balance is not unlike the
balance that individual people seek in optimal
learning, in which too much challenge can lead
to anxiety and too little challenge can lead to
boredom. Balance is the key to sustainable
change.
Open innovation and boundaries of the
firm. Historically in large firms, common
perceptions were that (1) internal sourcing
(centralR&D)isbesttocreateinnovations,and
(2) external sourcing (partnership) is best for
cost reductions and industry standardizations.
However,openinnovationmodels(Chesbrough
2006)maychallengetheformerperspective,and
increasinglystandardizedapproachestoleaning
and automating processes may challenge the
latter perspective. Moore (2005) in his book
“DealingwithDarwin”statesthat“Theformula
for tackling innovation and overcoming inertia
in tandem is simple: Extract resources from
context and repurpose them for core.” What is
is prohibited.

context (can be outsourced) and what is core
(should not be outsourced) changes over time,
and must be constantly reassessed and is at the
heart of business discipline.
j. Futures: Strategic Investment &
Management
Strategy. Learning from the future is akin to
what chess experts do when they ‘look ahead’
to possible worlds, and then invest their efforts
in trying to realize the possible worlds that are
morefavorabletotheirambitions.Thechallenge
is to understand the likely responses of others.
Nevertheless, strategy can be viewed as the art
oflearningfrompossiblefutures.Management
then seeks to make wise investments to realize
favorable possible futures.
Servitization strategy. Many enterprises
which had successes in product development
andmanufacturingprocessesarefacinggrowth
pressures, and are seeking new revenue mod-
els through innovation and servitization. For
example, this led to Toyota to declare itself
a “service company”. Servitization includes
strategies of providing customer solutions
combining products and service options with
active customer and community participation
in creating value. The impact of these actions
is dramatic in some industries.
Investment. A key responsibility of man-
agement is to provide strategic direction to the
firm, and allocate resources and investment
wisely to ensure the future of the firm. Fitzsim-
mons & Fitzsimmons (2008) in “Service Man-
agement” provide an overview of the types of
operational and strategic investment decisions
typical of service firms, including mergers and
acquisitions,divestitures,shiftingtoafranchise
business model, etc. Mendelson & Ziegler
(1999) in “Survival of the Smartest” identify
the five characteristics (external information
awareness, effective decision architecture, in-
ternalknowledgedissemination,organizational
focus, and information age business network)
of High-IQ versus Low-IQ companies, and
show a correlation with superior growth rate
for High-IQ companies..
Management.Managementofinformation
systems(MIS),projectmanagement(PM),inno-
vationandmanagementoftechnology(IMOT),
operations management (OM), financial
management (FM), supply chain management
(SCM),enterpriseresourcemanagement(ERP),
customer relation management (CRM), human
resource management (HRM), intellectual
property management, contract management
(CM),riskmanagement,aswellasstrategyand
organizationalchangemanagement(S&OCM)
arewelldevelopedfieldsofknowledgerelatedto
improvingdecisionmakingandtheperformance
of complex business and societal systems.
PROFESSIONS AND COMPLEX
COMMUNICATIONS
Beforestudentschoosetostudyservicescience,
theywillsurelyaskaboutfuturejobsandprofes-
sions. Is this a good career choice? Yes, from
the perspective of flexibility. Service scientists
mustpossesscomplexcommunicationskills(in-
teractionalexpertise)acrossmultipleacademic
disciplinesandareasofpractice. Entrepreneurs
and business consultants are in high demand,
but it has been difficult to specify curriculum
beyond exposure to technology change and
management practice. SSMED offers a new
opportunity to create curriculum relevant to
those who aspire to entrepreneurship and busi-
ness consulting. Scientists and engineers are
also in high demand, but demand constantly
shifts to new areas. We expect more students
who aspire to be system scientists and system
engineers will seek a solid understanding of
service science for many different career paths
in academics, government, and business.
Entrepreneurs, Business
Consultants, and Mindset
Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial capitalism
(Baumol, Litan, Schramm, 2007) is “a type of
capitalism where entrepreneurs, who continue
to provide radical ideas that meet the test of
is prohibited.

the marketplace, play a central role in the sys-
tem.” The rise of entrepreneurial capitalism is
a relatively recent phenomenon fueled in part
by increasing global wealth. Simultaneously,
more and more students aspire to have their
own business. Student surveys at a number of
universities indicate the growing importance
of flexibility and personal growth, as well
as open career paths, behind their interest in
entrepreneurship.
BusinessConsultants.AccordingtotheUS
Bureau of Labor Statistics job growth will be
strongestinbusinessandprofessionalservices,
even stronger than growth in healthcare, which
issecondstrongest.Businessconsulting,which
relates to global supply chains, organizational
change, information technology-driven busi-
ness transformation, mergers and acquisitions,
as well as divestitures, are high demand areas.
McKenna (2006) in “The World’s Newest
Profession: Management Consulting in the
Twentieth Century.” speaks to the cyclic focus
on creating a more technical and advanced
tool-based form of consulting. Service sci-
ence seeks to provide the foundation for the
growing technical and systematic approaches
to consulting.
Mindset.Aservicemindsetisbasedinpart
on empathy for customers, as well as a sense of
empowerment that comes from understanding
how things are likely to change in the future.
Understandingthelifetimevalueofacustomer
is essential, and responding in ways that have
the potential to scale beyond the customer to
create whole new markets. A successful ser-
vice mindset, like successful entrepreneurship,
comesfromcreatingnewmarkets.Berry(1995)
states, “Great service is a matter of mentality.
The quest to improve is unrelenting; ideas are
part of the job; the spirit of entrepreneurship
is strong.” (Pg. 16).
Service System Design Lab Network: Be-
yondlecturesandtextbooks,tohelpensurethat
studentsgainpracticalexperiencefromrealistic
assignments, service science laboratories (also
known as service systems design lab networks)
arebeingenvisionedbyanumberofacademics
(Kwan & Freund 2007). The goals of service
system labs include: support of service science
curriculum and research; engage industry and
government partners; develop and disseminate
service science curriculum materials; create
collaborative opportunities among universi-
ties involved in the service science initiative;
establish an entrepreneurial service mindset
in students based on empathy for customers,
and a sense of empowerment that can lead to
establishingnewmarkets.Servicesystemdesign
lab networks will connect academics, govern-
ment, and business around challenge-based,
project-based instruction aimed at real world,
virtual world, and simulated world solutions
to service system and value proposition design
challenges.
Scientists, Engineers, and
Leadership
System scientists. John Sterman (2000) in
“Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking for a
Complex World” wrote: “The dizzying effects
of accelerating change are not new. Henry Ad-
ams,aperceptiveobserverofthegreatchanges
wroughtbytheindustrialrevolution,formulated
the Law of Acceleration to describe the expo-
nential growth of technology, production, and
population… A steady stream of philosophers,
scientists, and management gurus have since
echoedAdams, lamenting the acceleration and
calling for similar leaps to fundamental new
ways of thinking and acting. Many advocate
the development of systems thinking – the
ability to see the world as a complex system,
in which we understand that ‘you can’t just do
one thing’ and that ‘everything is connected
to everything else.’” Sterman then goes on to
develop vocabulary, tools, and examples to
enable systems thinking. Fortunately for our
efforts, many of his examples are examples of
complex service systems. Sterman contrasts
the event-oriented view of the world and its
vocabulary (goals + situation, problem, deci-
sion, results) with the feedback (double loop
learning) view of the world and its vocabulary
(real world, information feedback, decisions,
mental models, strategy, structure, decision
is prohibited.

rules). He goes on to identify the impediments
to learning that make even the feedback view
of the world problematic for dealing with the
dynamic complexity of the real world. He
concludes, and we agree, that simulations are
an essential tool for professionals who want to
approach systems thinking rigorously and seri-
ously. Sawyer (2005) in “Social Emergence:
Societies as Complex Systems” describes third
wave systems theory and ever growing impor-
tance of simulations tools for thinking about
emergence in complex societal systems.
Weinberg (1975/2001) in his classic “An
Introduction to General Systems Theory”
provides a distillation of many concepts from
systemtheoristssuchasvonBertalanffy(1976)
and many others. While general systems theo-
rists seek to understand the general principles
that underlie all systems (physical, chemical,
biological, computational, social, etc.), service
scienceaimstobedescriptive,explanatory,and
predictive of business and societal evolution.
Within this more limited context of complex
service systems, Wright (2001) in “Non-Zero:
History, Evolution, Human Cooperation” pro-
vides insights into systems that establish and
evolve win-win value propositions. Buchanan
(2001) in “Ubiquity: The Science of History”
and more recently in his (2007) “The Social
Atom” provides insights into the path-depen-
dent evolution of complex systems where, to
understand the evolution, the properties of the
parts are less important than organization of
those parts.
System engineers. Bell Laboratories pro-
vided the foundational work for both systems
engineeringandstochasticservicesystemanaly-
sis almost a half century ago. Hall (1962) in “A
Methodology for Systems Engineers” laid the
foundation for the field of system engineering.
Riordin(1962)in“StochasticServiceSystems”
drew on and then extended queuing theory for
what he argued where more general types of
service systems.
Science challenge: Confidential data.
The best science depends on improved mea-
surement and access to data. Businesses are
service system entities, so much of the data that
would inform service science are considered
proprietary and hence not easily shared. For
example, details of successful and unsuccess-
ful contract negotiations and executions would
be of enormous value in understanding learn-
ing curves for service interactions. However,
most business would be reluctant to share the
details of successful, much less, unsuccessful
contracting attempts. One implication is that
developments in service science will likely be
much more dependent on simulated data as a
result. The properties of simulated worlds will
be more transparent and repeatable, and allow
cumulative progress that might not otherwise
be possible. As techniques for modeling and
measuring simulated ecologies of service sys-
tems advance, these efforts may someday lead
to the equivalent of a CAD (computer-aided
design) tool for service system design and
engineering. Ultimately, service scientists will
have deep competence in using service system
simulations tools.
Engineeringchallenge:Patentincentives.
The best engineers create a lot of patents. This
is personally motivating to the engineers, and
highly beneficial to their employers. Just as
many business method and software patents
are challenged on the grounds of “technicity”
(technical contribution - this area is already a
major difference between US and EU patent
law), the invention of new types of service
systemsentities,value-cocreationmechanisms,
and governance mechanisms may be difficult
or impossible to patent. Without the ability to
patentinventions,amajorincentiveforinnova-
tion is removed. Nevertheless, the continuous
innovation in this area may confer significant
advantages to providers of service over their
competitors,oreventheirownpreviousbusiness
approaches, and hence be a significant driver
of investment. As the ability to design new
service systems entities and networks (CAD
for service) increases, along with the ability to
drop them into simulation of existing ecolo-
gies, the technicity requirement may become
easier to achieve, allowing innovative designs
to become patentable.
is prohibited.

National economic leadership. History
provides evidence that emerging sciences and
their associated engineering and management
disciplines can provide the basis for national
economic leadership. For example, Murmann
(2006) describes the rise of chemistry in Ger-
many in the 19th
century, Bush (1945) foresaw
the rise of computing in the US in the mid 20th
century, and finally, the product quality and
innovation management movements in Japan
providesamorerecentexample.Inthesecases,
the key to success was government, industry,
and academic collaboration. Today, nanotech-
nology, biochemistry, computational biology,
and service science offer the possibilities for
such collaborations around emerging areas of
science.However,ofthesefour,onlyservicesci-
enceseekstounderstandingeneralthecomplex
sociotechnicaldimensionsofusingnewknowl-
edge to enable new value creating systems.
The full benefits of technological inventions
cannot be realized without the development
of new service system networks that carry the
invention into the market. Understanding the
science of service systems holds the potential
to rapidly realize the value potential inherent
in technological inventions, as well as to help
prioritizewhichtechnologicalinventionsmight
be poised to provide the most benefit to busi-
ness and society.
SUMMARY
In sum, this article has attempted to provide
an outline and set of preliminary references
to better understand the emergence of Service
Science,Management,Engineering,andDesign
(SSMED).Servicescienceisatthebeginningof
the beginning, and a great deal of work remains
tointegrateacrossthedisciplines.Asanextstep,
we invite others to use the ten basic concepts
to create a more integrated view of existing
disciplines. Finally,weinviteacademicsaround
theworldtoestablishservicesystemdesignlab
networks in conjunction with practitioner part-
nersfrombusiness,government,andnon-profit
agencies, and seek answers to the foundational
questions in the context of specific service
systems in which they live and work.
ACKNOwLEDGMENT
Support from IBM, San José State University,
and NSF grant IIS-0527770 2006-09 is grate-
fully acknowledged.
Categorization of the References
Each of the references below has been given a
primary mapping key number (1-14) as well as
alistofsecondarymappingkeynumbers(1-14)
intoeachsectionofthisarticle.The15th
category
number indicates a “must read reference.” We
hopetoencouragethisinterdisciplinaryservice
science reference categorization to stimulate
important connections in the emerging service
science community.
1. service science researchers and students
of service
2. service science practitioners and other
practitioners
3. economists, historians, mathematicians
4. marketing professionals
5. operations professionals
6. political scientist, legal professionals
7. designers, artists, innovators
8. socialscientists,anthropologists,cognitive
scientists
9. engineers, technologists
10. computer scientists, linguists
11. organization theorists, procurement spe-
cialists
12. managers,investors,strategists,mathema-
ticians
13. entrepreneurs, professors, lab instructors
14. systems theorists, leaders, general scien-
tists
For example, consider the reference to the
book that is of primary interest to economists
(3), as well as organization theorists (11) and
managers (12):
is prohibited.

Milgrom, P. & Roberts, J. (1992) Economics, Or-
ganization, and Management. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall. [3 (11 12)]
An online version of all references (with
quotations) is maintained at: http://www.cob.
sjsu.edu/ssme/refmenu.asp
REFERENCES
Abbot, A. (2001). Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press. 14 (3 8)
Argote, L. (2005). Organizational Learning: Creat-
ing, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge. New
York, NY: Springer. 11 (1 15)
Adams, J. (1995/2000). Risk. London, UK: Rout-
ledge. 1 (12 15)
Afuh, A. (2004). Business Models: A Strategic
Management Approach. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill Irwin. 1, (12)
Albrecht, K., & Zemke, R. (1985). ServiceAmerica!
New York, NY: Warner Books. 12 (3)
Alter, S. (2002). Information Systems: The Founda-
tionsofe-Business.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Prentice
Hall. 10, (12)
Alter,S.(2006).TheWorkSystemMethod:Connect-
ing People, Processes, and IT for Business Results.
Larkspur, CA: Work Systems Press. 2 (10 15)
Alter, S. (2008). Service Systems Fundamentals:
Work systems, value chains and life cycle. IBM
Systems Journal, 47(1). 1 (11)
Anderson, J. C., Narus, J. A. Narus, & van Rossum,
W.(2006).CustomerValuePropositionsinBusiness
Markets. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 90-99.
1 (4 15)
Anderson, C. (2006). The Long Tail: Why the Future
of Business Is Selling Less of More. New York, NY:
Hyperion. 12 (4)
Argyris, C. (1992/1999). On Organizational Learn-
ing. Second Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 11
(8 12)
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational
Learning II: Theory, Method, Practice. New York,
NY: Addison-Wesley. 11 (12)
Arrow,K.J.(1974).TheLimitsofOrganization.New
York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. 3 (6)
Arthur, W. B. (1994). Increasing Returns and Path
Dependence in the Economy. Ann Arbor, MI: Uni-
versity of Michigan Press. 3 (1)
Baldwin,C.Y.,&Clark,K.B.(2000).DesignRules:
Volume 1. The Power of Modularity. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press. 7 (3)
Barley, S. R., & Orr, J. E. (1997). Introduction: The
Neglected Workforce. In S. R. Barley & J. E. Orr
(Ed.), Between Craft and Science: Technical Work
in U.S. Settings. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press. 8 (3)
Barlow, S., Parry, S., & Faulkner, M. (2005). Sense
and Respond: The Journey to Customer Purpose.
New York, NY: Palgrave/MacMillan. 4 (11)
Barnard, C. I. (1938/1968). The Functions of the
Executive. Thirtieth Anniversary Edition. Boston,
MA: Harvard University Press. 1 (11 12)
Bastiat, F. (1848/1964). Selected Essays on Po-
litical Economy, Patrick S. Sterling, trans, G. B.
de Huzar (Ed.). Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nordstrand.
3 (6 8 11)
Bastiat, F. (1850/1979). Economic Harmonies.
Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: The Foundation for
Economics Education. 3 (6 8 11)
Baumol, W. J. (2002). Services as Leaders and the
Leader of the Services. In J. Gadrey, & F. Gallouj
(Ed.), Productivity, Innovation and Knowledge in
Services: New Economic & Socio-Economic Ap-
proaches, (pp. 147-163). Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar, 3 (1)
Baumol, W. J., Litan, R. E., & Schramm, C. J.
(2007). Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the
Economies of Growth and Prosperity. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press. 11 (3)
Bausch, K. C. (2001). The Emerging Consensus
in Social Systems Theory. New York, NY: Kluwer.
14 (1)
Becker, G. S. (1976/1990). The EconomicApproach
to Human Behavior. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press. 3 (8 15)
Beinhocker, E. D. (2006). The Origin of Wealth:
Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking
is prohibited.

of Economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
School Press. 3 (8 1 14 15)
Bell, D. (1973/1999). The Coming of the Post-
Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting.
New York, NY: Basic. 12 (3)
Beniger, J. R (1986). The Control Revolution: Tech-
nological and Economic Origins of the Information
Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9 (3 10)
Benkler, Y. (2007). The Wealth of Networks: How
SocialProductionTransformsMarketsandFreedom.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 3 (10 8)
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social
Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology
of Knowledge. New York, NY: Anchor. 8 (1 15)
Bernstein, P. L. (1998). Against the Gods: The
Remarkable Story of Risk. New York, NY: Wiley.
12 (3)
von Bertalanffy, L. (1976). General System Theory:
Foundation, Development, Applications. George
Braziller. 14 (11)
Berry,L.L.(1995).OnGreatService:AFramework
for Action. New York, NY: Free Press. 4 (12)
Bitner, M. J., Ostrom,A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2007).
Service Blueprinting: A Practical Tool for Service
Innovation. Working Paper, Center for Services
Leadership, Arizona State University.
Bohn, R., & Jaikumar, R. (2005). From Filing and
Fitting to Flexible Manufacturing. Hanover, MA:
Now Publishers Inc. 3 (9 5)
Boisot, M. H. (2002). Knowledge Assets: Securing
CompetitiveAdvantageintheInformationEconomy.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 1 (10 15)
Bryson, J. R., Daniels, P.W., &Warf, B. (2004). Ser-
viceWorlds:People,Organizations,andTechnology.
New York, NY: Routledge. 3 (8 9 10 11)
Buchanan, M. (2001). Ubiquity: Why Catastrophes
Happen. New York, NY: Three River Press. 14 (3)
Buchanan,M.(2007).TheSocialAtom:Whytherich
get richer, cheaters get caught, and your neighbors
usually look like you. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
8 (14)
Bush, V. (1945). As We May Think. The Atlantic
Monthly, 176(1), 101-108 (July). 10 (12)
Castells, M. (2004). The Network Society: A Cross-
cultural Perspective. Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elger. 8 (3 10 11 12)
Chandler,A.D.(1977).TheVisibleHand:TheMana-
gerialRevolutioninAmericanBusiness.Cambridge,
MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press. 3 (11 12)
Chase, R. B., Jacobs, F. R., &Aquilano, N. J. (2004).
OperationsManagementforCompetitiveAdvantage.
Instructor’s Edition. Tenth Edition. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill Irwin. 2 (5 15)
Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998/2005). Informa-
tion, Systems, and Information Systems: Making
Sense of the Field. Chichester, UK: Wiley. 10 (1
14 15)
Chesbrough, H., & Spohrer, J. (2006). A research
manifesto for services science. Communications of
the ACM, 49(7), 35-40. 1 (14)
Chesbrough,H.(2005).Towardascienceofservices
(in Breakthrough Ideas of 2005). Harvard Business
Review, 83(2), 17-54. 1 (14)
Chesbrough,H.(2006).OpenBusinessModels:How
to thrive in the New Innovation Landscape. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press. 7 (12)
Childe, V. G. (1936/2003). Man Makes Himself.
Nottingham, UK: Spokesman/Watts. 3 (8)
Christopher, M., Payne, A., & Ballantyne, D.
(1991). Relationship Marketing: Bringing quality,
customer service, and marketing together. London,
UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. 4 (12)
Christopher, W. F. (2007). Holistic Management:
Managing What Matters for Company Success.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience. 14 (1 11 12 15)
Clark, C. (1940/1957). Conditions of Economic
Progress.ThirdEdition.NewYork,NY:Macmillan.
3 (11)
ClippingerIII,J.H.(1999).TheBiologyofBusiness:
Decoding the Natural Laws of Enterprise. Jossey-
Bass. 14 (3 11)
Coase, R. H. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Eco-
nomica, 4, 386-405. 3 (11)
Coase, R .H. (1990). The Firm, the Market, and the
Law. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 3
(6 11)
is prohibited.

Cohen, L., & Young, A. (2006). Multisourcing:
Moving Beyond Outsourcing to Achieve Growth
and Agility. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press. 11 (6 12 15)
Collins,H.,Evans,R.,&Gorman,M.(2007).Trading
zones and interactional expertise. Studies in History
and Philosophy of Science, 39(1). 13 (8)
Collins, H., & Kusch, M. (1999). The Shape of
Actions: What Humans and Machines Can Do.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 8 (10
Collins, J (2005). Why Business Thinking is Not
the Answer: Good to Great and the Social Sector:
A monograph to Accompany Good to Great. Why
SomeCompaniesMaketheLeap…andOthersDon’t.
ISBN-10: 0-9773264-0-3. 12 (13)
Cooper,R.G.,&Edgett,S.J.(1999).ProductDevel-
opment for the Service Sector: Lessons from Market
Leaders. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books. 7 (12)
COSEPUP (2007). Rising Above the Gathering
Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a
Brighter Economic Future. Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), US
National Academies Press. 13 (14)
Cohen, S. S., & Zysman, J. (1988). Manufacturing
Matters: The Myth of the Post-Industrial Economy.
New York, NY: Basic. 3 (10 13)
Csikszentmihalyi,M.(1990).Flow:ThePsychology
of Optimal Experience: Steps Toward Enhancing
The Quality of Life. New York, NY: Harper/Peren-
nial. 7 (4 8 13)
Darr, A. (2006). Selling Technology: The Changing
Shape of Sales in an Information Economy. Ithaca.
NY: Cornell University Press. 8 (3 9)
Davis, M. M., & Heineke, J. (2005). Operations
Management: Integrating Manufacturing and
Services. Fifth Edition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill
Irwin. 2 (5 15)
Dawson, R. (2005). Developing Knowledge-Based
Client Relationships: Leadership in Professional
Services. New York, NY: Elsevier. 12 (4 8 10)
Deacon, T. W. (1997). The Symbolic Species: The
Co-EvolutionofLanguageandtheBrain.NewYork,
NY: Norton. 10 (3)
Diamond,J.(2005).Collapse:HowSocietiesChoose
to Fail or Succeed. New York, NY: Viking. 3 (12)
Dixit, A. K. (2004). Lawlessness and Economics:
Alternative Models of Governance. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press. 6 (1 3 11 12 15)
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society. New
York, NY: Harper Business. 12 (3)
Durkheim, E. (1893/1997). The Division of Labor in
Society. New York, NY: Free Press. 3 (8)
Fagin, R., Halpern, J. Y., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. Y.
(2003). Reasoning About Knowledge. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press. 1 (10 15)
Fitzsimmons, J. A., & Fitzsimmons, M. J. (2007).
Service management: Operations, Strategy, Infor-
mation Technology. Sixth Edition. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Irwin. 2 (5 12 15)
Foster, I., Kesselman, C., & Tuecke, S. (2001). The
Anatomy of the Grid: Enabling Scalable Virtual
Organizations. International J. Supercomputer Ap-
plications, 15(3). 10 (6 11)
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The Third
Logic/On the Practice of Knowledge. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press. 14 (13)
Friedman, D. (1996/2007). A little manifesto on
Learning and Economics. URL http://leeps.ucsc.
edu/leeps/manifesto. 3 (12)
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The World is Flat. Farrar
Straus & Giroux. 11 (3)
Ganz, W. (2006). Germany: service engineering.
Communications of the ACM ,49(7), 79. 9 (2)
Gadrey, J., & Gallouj, F. (2002). Productivity, Inno-
vation and Knowledge in Services: New Economic
& Socio-Economic Approaches. Cheltenham, U.K:
Edward Elgar. 3 (5 7)
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., & Langlois, R. N.
(2003). Managing in the Modular Age: Architec-
tures, Networks, and Organizations. NewYork, NY:
Blackwell Publishing. 14 (10 11)
Gershuny,J.(2000).ChangingTimes:WorkandLei-
sure in Postindustrial Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. 3 (8)
Gilbert,T.F.(1978).HumanCompetence:Engineer-
ing Worthy Performance. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill. 9 (8)
is prohibited.

Glushko, R., & McGrath, T. (2005). Document En-
gineering: Analyzing and Designing Documents for
Business Informatics and Web Services. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press. 10 (9 15)
Goldratt, E. M. (1990). Theory of Constraints. Great
Barrington, MA: North River Press. 11 (14)
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Gen-
eration Evaluation. London, UK: Sage. 2 (3 4 5 6
7 8 9 12)
Guile, B. R., & Quinn. J. B. (1988). Technology in
Services: Policies for Growth, Trade, and Employ-
ment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9 (6)
Gummesson, E. (2007). Exit Services Marketing –
Enter Service Marketing. The Journal of Customer
Behaviour, 6( 2), 113-141. 4 (12)
Gummesson,E.(2007).Casestudyresearchandnet-
worktheory:birdsofafeather. QualitativeResearch
inOrganizationsandManagement:AnInternational
Journal, 2(3), 226-248. 2 (4 11 14)
Gummesson, E. (2003).All research is interpretive!
JournalofBusiness&IndustrialMarketing,(18)6/7,
482-492. 2 (4 11 13 14)
Gummesson, E. (2001). Are current research ap-
proaches in marketing leading us astray? Marketing
Theory, 1(1), 27-48. 2 ( 4 11 13 14)
Gustafsson,A.,&Johnson,M.D.(2003).Competing
in a Service Economy: How to Create Competitive
Advantage Through Service Development and In-
novation. San Francisco, CA: Wiley/Jossey-Bass.
7 (12)
Gutek,B.,&Welsh,T.(2000).TheBraveNewService
Strategy–AligningCustomerRelationships,Market
Strategies, and Business Structure. New York, NY:
AMACOM. 12 (3 4 8 11)
Gutek, B. A. (1995). The Dynamics of Service:
Reflections on the Changing Nature of Customer/
Provider Interactions. San Francico, CA: Jossey-
Bass Publishers. 1 (3 4 8 10 11 12 15)
Hall, A. D. (1962). A Methodology for Systems
Engineering. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Com-
pany. 14 (9 15)
Handy,C.(1989).TheAgeofUnreason.Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Business School Press. 12 (8 11)
Hawley,A. H. (1986). Human Ecology: A Theoreti-
calEssay.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.
14 (3 8 11)
Heizer,J.,&Render,B.(2004).PrinciplesofOpera-
tionsManagement.UpperSaddleCreek,NJ:Pearson
Education. 5 (2)
Helpman, E. (2004). The Mystery of Economic
Growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. 3 (5)
Heritage, J. (1984/1989). Garfinkel and Enth-
nomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. 8
(2 11)
Herzenberg,S.A,Alic,J.A.,&Wial,H.(2000).New
RulesforaNewEconomy:EmploymentandOpportu-
nityinPostindustrialAmerica.Ithaca,NY:ILRPress
Books, Cornell University Press. 3 (6 12)
Heskett, J. L., Sasser Jr., W. E., & Schlesinger, L.
A. (1997). The Service Profit Chain. NewYork, NY:
The Free Press. 2 (12)
Hidaka, K. (2006). Trends in services sciences in
Japan and abroad. Science & Technology Trends:
Quarterly Review, 19, 35-47 (April). 1 (10)
Honebein, P. C., & Cammarano, R. F. (2005). Creat-
ingDo-It-YourselfCustomers:HowGreatCustomer
Experiences Build Great Companies. Mason, OH:
Thomson. 4 (7)
Hoopes, J. (2003). False Prophets: The Gurus Who
Created Modern Management and Why Their Ideas
areBadforBusinessToday.Cambridge,MA:Perseus
Books. 3 (12)
Hopp, W. J., & Spearman, M. L. (1996). Factory
Physics: Foundations of Manufacturing Manage-
ment. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill. 5 (2 14)
Horn, P. (2005). The New Discipline of Services
Science. BusinessWeek, January 21, 2005. 14 (10)
Hunt,S.D.(2000).AGeneralTheoryofCompetition:
Resources, Competences, Productivity, Economic
Growth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
3 (1 11)
Huntzinger, J. R. (2007). Lean Cost Management:
Accounting for Lean by Establishing Flow. Fort
Lauderdale, FL: Ross Publishing. 12 (2 9)
IBM Research (2004). “Services science: a new
academic discipline?” A 120-page report of a two-
is prohibited.

day summit entitled Architecture of On-Demand
Business, May 17-18, 2004. 14 (10 11 12)
IfM & IBM. (2007). Succeeding through Service
Innovation:ADiscussion Paper. Cambridge, United
Kingdom: University of Cambridge Institute for
Manufacturing. ISBN: 978-1-902546-59-8. 1 (14)
Johansson, F. (2006). The Medici Effect: What
Elephants and Epidemics Can Teach Us About In-
novation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press. 13 (7)
Johnson, S. (2001).Emergence:The connectedlives
of ants, brains, cities, and software. New York, NY:
Scribner. 14 (11)
Johnston, D. C. (2007). Free Lunch: How The
WealthiestAmericansEnrichThemselvesAtGovern-
ment Expense (And Stick You With The Bill). New
York, NY: Portfolio. 6 (3)
Kessler, A. (2005). How We Got Here: A Slightly
Irreverent History of Technology and Markets. New
York, NY: Harper Collins. 3 (6 9 11 12)
Khalil, T. (2000). Management of Technology: The
KeytoCompetitivenessandWealthCreation.Boston,
MA: McGraw-Hill. 9 (7 12)
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2003).
Governance Matters III: Governance Indicators
for 1996–2002. World Bank, World Bank Policy
Research Working Paper 3106. Available at: http://
www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/pubs/govmat-
ters2001.htm 6 (12)
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue Ocean
Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space
and Make the Competition Irrelevant. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press. 7 (12)
Kwan, S. K., & Freund, L. (2007). Developing a
Service Science, Management and Engineering
(SSME) Program at SJSU. 13 (14)
Langlois, R. N., & Robertson, P. L. (1995). Firms,
Markets, and Economic Change. London, UK:
Routledge. 3 (6 11)
Laszlo, E. (2002). The Systems View of the World.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 14 (13)
Laszlo, E. (2007). Science and the Akashic Field:
An Integrated Theory of Everything. Rochester, VT:
Inner Traditions. 14 (13)
Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the Social: An
Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (Clarendon
Lectures in Management Studies). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University. 8 (11)
Levinson, Marc (2006). The Box: How the Shipping
Container Made the World Smaller and the World
EconomyBigger.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversity
Press. 5 (3 9 11)
Levitt, T. (1976). The Industrialization of Service.
Harvard Business Review. 54(5), 63-74. 12 (9)
Levy,F.,&Murnane,R.J.(2005).TheNewDivision
of Labor: How Computers Are Creating the Next
Job Market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press. 3 (11)
Lewis, W. W. (2004). The Power of Productivity:
Wealth, Poverty, and the Threat to Global Stability.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 5 (3 6)
Lovelock, C. (2007). Services Marketing: People,
Technology, Strategy. Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education. 4 (2 8 9 10 11 12
15)
Lovelock, C., & Gummesson, E. (2004). Whither
service marketing? In search of a new paradigm
and fresh perspectives. Journal of Service Research,
7(1), 20-41. 4 (12)
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). The Service-
Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and
Directions. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. 4 (12 15)
Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2006, in press). SSME.
Production and Operations Management. 14 (13)
Maglio, P. P., Kreulen, J., Srinivasan, S., & Spohrer,
J.(2006).Servicesystems,servicescientists,SSME,
andinnovation.CommunicationsoftheACM,49(7),
81 – 85. 14 (1)
Malone, T. W. (2004). The Future of Work: How
the New Order of Business Will Shape Your Orga-
nization, Your Management Style, and Your Life.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
11 (3 6 8 10 12)
Mandelbaum, A., & Zeltyn, S. (2008). Service en-
gineering of call centers; Research, Teaching, and
Practice. In Hefly, B., & Murphy W. (Ed.), Service
Science Management and Engineer: Education for
the 21st Century, (pp. 317-328). New York, NY:
Springer. 9 (10)
is prohibited.

March, J. G. (1988). Decisions and Organizations.
New York, NY: Basil Blackwell. 6 (11 12)
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation
in organizational learning. Organizational Science,
2(1), 71-87. 11 (5 7 12)
March,J.,&Simon,H.(1958/2003).Organizations.
Second Edition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. 11 (6
8 12 14)
March, J. G. (1999). The Pursuit of Organizational
Intelligence. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 11 (14)
Marks, E. A & Bell, M. (2006). Service-Oriented
Architecture:APlanningandImplementationGuide
for Business and Technology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
10 (12)
Marshall,A. (1890/2006). Principles of Economics.
Abridged Edition. New York, NY: Cosimo. 3 (6 8)
McGahan, A. M. (2004). How Industries Evolve:
Principles for Achieving and Sustaining Superior
Performance.Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchool
Press. 7 (3 11)
McKenna, C. D. (2006). The World’s Newest Pro-
fession: Management Consulting in the Twentieth
Century (Cambridge Studies in the Emergence of
Global Enterprise). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. 13 (8 11 12 14 15)
Mendelson, H., & Ziegler, J. (1999). Survival of the
Smartest: Managing Information for Rapid Action
and World-Class Performance. New York, NY:
Wiley. 12 (10 11)
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, Or-
ganization, and Management. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall. 3 (11 12)
Mill,J.S.(1929).PrinciplesofthePoliticalEconomy.
London,UK:LongmansGreen.(AvailableonGoogle
Books) 3 (6 8)
von Mises, L. (1998). Human Action: A Treatise on
Economics (Scholars Edition). Ludwig Von Mises
Institute. 3 (1 8 15)
Monahan, B., Pym, D., Taylor, R., Tofts, C., &
Yearworth,M.(2006).GrandChallengesforSystems
and Services Sciences. Paper prepared for FET/FP7
Workshop,Brussels(January31,2006).Availableas
HPLabsTechnicalReport,HPL-2006-99,fromhttp://
www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2006/HPL-2006-99.
pdf 14 (9 10)
Moore, G. (2005). Dealing with Darwin: How
Great Companies Innovate at Every Phase of Their
Evolution.NewYork,NY:Portfolio/PenguinGroup.
7 (11 12)
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage. 11 (8)
Moulton Reger, S. J. (2006). Can Two Rights Make
a Wrong? Insights from IBM’s Tangible Culture
Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/IBM
Press. 8 (10 11)
Mulgan,G.(2006).TheProcessofSocialInnovation.
Innovations, 145-162 (Spring). URL: http://www.
youngfoundation.org 13 (6 7)
Murmann, J. P. (2006). Knowledge and Competitive
Advantage: The Coevolution of Firms, Technology,
and National Institutions (Cambridge Studies in the
Emergence of Global Enterprise). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. 3 (6 7 8 9 10 11)
Nagle, T. T., & Holden, R. K. (1987/2002). The
Strategy and Tactics of Pricing: A Guide to Profit-
able Decision Making. Third Edition. Upper Saddle
River. NJ: Prentice Hall. 12 (4)
Nambisan, S., & Sawhney, M. (2008). The Global
Brain: Your Roadmap for Innovating Faster and
Smarter in a Networked World. Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education, Wharton School Publishing. 7
(6 11 12)
Neftci, S. N. (2004). Principles of Financial Engi-
neering. New York, NY: Elsevier. 9 (12 15)
Nelson, R. R., &Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolution-
ary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press. 3 (8 14)
Newnan, D. G., Lavelle, J. P., & Eschenbach, T.
G. (2003). Essentials of Engineering Economics.
Second Edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press. 9 (3 12)
Normann, R. (2001). Reframing Business: When
the Map Changes the Landscape. Chichester, New
Sussex: Wiley. 1 (2 4 6 7 8 12 13 14 15)
Norman, D.A. (1993). Things That Make Us Smart:
Defending Human Attributes in the Age of the Ma-
chine. New York, NY: Addison Wesley. 7 (8 9)
North, D. C. (2005). Understanding the process of
economic change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-
sity Press. 1 (3 6 11 15)
is prohibited.

Ormerod, P. (2005). Why Most Things Fail: Evolu-
tion,Extinction,andEconomics.London,UK:Faber
and Faber. 3 (11 12)
Palmisano, S.J. (2006). The Globally Integrated
Enterprise. Foreign Affairs, 127-136 (May/June).
11 (12)
Park, C. S. (2004). Fundamentals of Engineering
Economics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. 9
(2 3 12)
Penrose, E. (1959/1995). The Theory of the Growth
of the Firm. Third Edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. 3 (8 11 12)
Pine II, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The Experi-
ence Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business
a Stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press. 7 (3 4 8 12)
Porat, M. U. (1977). The Information Economy:
Definition and Measurement. US Department of
Commerce, Office of Telecommunications, OT
Special Publication, 77-12(1). 3 (8 10 11)
Prahalad, C.K. (2004). The Future of Competition.
Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press. 7 (4)
Prencipe,A., Davies,A., & Hobday, M. (2005). The
BusinessofSystemsIntegration.Oxford,UK:Oxford
Quinn, J. B., Baruch, J. J., & Paquette, P. C. (1987).
Technology in Services. ScientificAmerican, 257(2)
(December). 9 (4 10 11 12)
Quinn,J.B.,&Paquette,P.C.(1990).Technologyin
services: Creating organizational revolutions. Sloan
Management Review, 31(2), 67-78. 11 (4 9 10 12)
Ricardo, D. (1817/2004). The Principles of Political
EconomyandTaxation.Mineola,NY:DoverPublica-
tions. 1 (3 6 8 9 12)
Richardson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not By Genes
Alone:HowCultureTransformedHumanEvolution.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 8 (3 10)
Riordin, J. (1962). Stochastic Service Systems. New
York, NY: Wiley. 14 (1 5 9)
Roberts,J.(2004).TheModernFirm:Organizational
Design for Performance and Growth. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press. 11 (3 6 8 12 15)
Roughgarden, T. (2005). Selfish Routing and the
Price of Anarchy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1
(3 5 6 8 9 10 11)
Rouse, W. B. (2006). Enterprise Transformation:
UnderstandingandEnablingFundamentalChange.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 14 (2 8 9 10 11 12)
Rust, R., Zeithaml,V., & Lemon, K. (2000). Driving
Customer Equity: How Customer Lifetime Value is
ReshapingCorporateStrategy.NewYork,NY:Free
Press. 4 (12 15)
Sampson,S.E.(2001).UnderstandingServiceBusi-
nesses: Applying Principles of the Unified Services
Theory. Second Edition. Wiley. 2 (4 5 12 14 15)
Sampson, S. E., & Froehle, C. M. (2006). Founda-
tionsandImplicationsofaProposedUnifiedServices
Theory. Production and Operations Management,
15(2), 329-343. 14 (4 5 12)
Sawyer, R. K. (2005). Social Emergence: Societies
as Complex Systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Say,J.B.(1821).ATreatiseonthePoliticalEconomy.
Boston, MA: Wells and Lilly. (In Google Books)
6 (3)
Scheer, A., & Spath, D. (2004). Computer-Aided
Service Engineering. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
In German 9 (7)
Schmenner, R. W. (1986). How Can Service Busi-
nesses Survive and Prosper? Sloan Management
Review, 27(3). 2 (4 5 12)
Schmitt,B.H.(2003).CustomerExperienceManage-
ment:ARevolutionaryApproachtoConnectingWith
Your Customers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 4 (7 12)
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1995). Winning
the Service Game. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press. 4 (8 11 12)
Schneider, B., & White, S. S. (2003). Service Qual-
ity: Research Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. 4 (8 11 12)
Scott, W. R. (1981/2003). Organizations: Rational,
Natural, and Open Systems. Fifth Edition. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 11 (6 12)
Seabright, P. (2005). The Company of Strangers: A
Natural History of Economic Life. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University. 3 (8 11)
is prohibited.

Sen,A.(2000).DevelopmentAsFreedom.NewYork,
NY: Anchor/Random House. 3 (6 8 11 13 15)
Sepulveda, J. A., Souder, W. E., & Gottfried, B.
S. (1984). Theory and Problems of Engineering
Economics.NewYork,NY:McGrawHill/Schaum’s
Outline Series. 9 (2 3 12)
Shostack, G.L. (1982). How to Design a Service.
European Journal of Marketing, 16(1), 49-63. 7
(2 4 8 15)
Simon,H.A.(1945/1997).AdministrativeBehavior:
Astudy of decision-making processes in administra-
tive organizations. New York, NY: Free Press. 11 (3
6 8 10 12 14)
Slywotzky,A.,Wise,W.,&Weber,K.(2003).Howto
Grow When Markets Don’t. New York, NY: Warner
Business Books. 7 (4 11 12)
Smith, A. (1776/1904). An Inquiry into the Nature
and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London, UK:
W. Strahan & T, Cadell, 3 (1 5 8 11)
Solow, R. (1956). A Contribution to the Theory of
EconomicGrowth.QuarterlyJournalofEconomics,
February. 3 (5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12)
Spath, D. (2007). Advances in Services Innovations.
New York, NY: Springer. 7 (2 9)
Spitzer, D. R. (2007). Transforming Performance
Measurement: Rethinking the Way We Measure
and Drive Organizational Success. New York, NY:
American Management Association. 1 (4 5 6 7 8
11 12)
Spohrer, J., Anderson, L., Pass, N., & Gruhl, D.
(Submitted). Service Science. The Journal of Grid
Computing. 10 (1)
Spohrer, J., & Kwan, S. K. (2008). Service Science,
Management, Engineering, and Design (SSMED):
Outline&References.InGanz,W.,&Spath,D.(Ed.),
The Future of Services – Trends and Perspectives.
Stuttgart, Germany: Frunhofer-Institut Arbeitswirt-
schaft und Organisation (forthcoming).
Spohrer, J., & Maglio, P. P. (In Press). The emer-
genceofservicescience.ProductionandOperations
Management. 14 (13)
Spohrer,J,Maglio,P.P.,Bailey,J.,&Gruhl,D.(2007).
Towards a Science of Service Systems. Computer,
40(1), 71-77. 1 (14 15)
Spohrer, J., & Riecken, D. (2006). Special Issue:
Servicesscience.CommunicationsoftheACM.49(7),
30 – 87 (July). 14 (3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13)
Spohrer, J., Maglio, P. P., McDavid, D., & Cortada,
D. (2006). NBIC Convergence and Coevolution:
Towards a Services Science to Increase Productivity
Capacity. In W. S. Bainbridge & M. C. Roco (Ed.),
Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations. The
Netherlands: Springer. 14 (3 9)
Spohrer, J., Vargo, S., Maglio, P. M., & Caswell, N.
(submitted). The service system is the basic abstrac-
tion of service science. HICSS Conference. 1 (14)
Stacey, R. D. (2003). Strategic Management and
Organizational Dynamics: The Challenge of Com-
plexity. Fourth Edition. Harlow, England: Prentice
Hall/Pearson Education. 12 (11 14)
Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems
Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Irwin
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. 13 (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 14 15)
Subramanian, K. (Subbu) (2000). The System Ap-
proach: A Strategy to Survive and Succeed in the
GlobalEconomy. Cincinnati,OH:ModernMachine
Shop/Hanser Gardner Publications. 14 (12)
Taleb, N. N. (2004). Fooled by Randomness: The
Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets.
Second Edition. New York, NY: Texere/Thomson.
12 (8)
Tapscott, D. (2003). The Naked Corporation: How
theAgeofTransparencyWillRevolutionizeBusiness.
New York, NY: Free Press. 11 (2 6 10 12)
Tapscott, D., &Williams,A. D. (2006). Wikinomics:
HowMassCollaborationChangesEverything.New
York, NY: Portfolio/Penguin. 6 (3 4 8 10 11 12)
Teboul,J.(2006).ServiceIsFrontStage:Positioning
Services for Value Advantage. INSEAD Business
Press, Palgrave MacMillan. 2 (4 5 12 15)
Tien, J. M., & Berg, D. (under review). On Services
ResearchandEducation.JournalofSystemsScience
and Systems Engineering. 14 (13)
Tien, J. M., & Berg, D. (2007). A Calculus for
Services Innovation. J Sys Sci Syst Eng, 16(2),
129-165. 7 (13 14)
is prohibited.

Triplett, J. E., & Bosworth, B. P. (2004). Produc-
tivity in the U.S. Services Sector: New Sources of
EconomicGrowth.Washington,DC:TheBrookings
Institute. 5 (3 8 11)
Vargo, S. L. (In Press). On A Theory of Markets
And Marketing: From Positively Normative To
Normatively Positive. Australasian Marketing
Journal. 4 (3)
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a
New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68, 1-17. 1 (3 4)
Vargo,S.L.,&Lusch,R.F.(2006).Service-Dominant
Logic: What It Is, What It Is Not, What It Might Be.
In R.F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo, S. L. (Ed.) The Service-
Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and
Directions. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. 4 (1 3)
Vargo,S.L.,&Lusch,R.F.(InPressa).FromGoods
To Service(s): Divergences And Convergences Of
Logics. Industrial Marketing Management. 4 (1 3)
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (In Press b). Service-
Dominant Logic: Further Evolution. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science. 4 (1 3)
Vargo, S. L., & Morgan, F. W. (2005). An Histori-
cal Reexamination of the Nature of Exchange: The
Service-Dominant Perspective. Journal of Macro-
marketing, 25 (1), 42-53. 4 (1 3)
Wallin, J. (2006). Business Orchestration: Strate-
gic Leadership in the Era of Digital Convergence.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 12 (6 9 10 11)
Watts, D. J. (2003). Six Degrees: The Science of a
Connected Age. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &
Company. 14 (1 15)
Weber,S.(2004).TheSuccessofOpenSource.Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard Business Press. 6 (10)
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press. 3 (6 8 11)
Weinberg, G. M. (1975/2001). An Introduction to
General Systems Thinking (SilverAnniversary Edi-
tion). Dorset House Publishing. 14 (13 15)
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institu-
tions of Capitalism. New York, NY: Free Press. 6
(3 8 12)
Williamson, O. E. (1999). The Mechanisms of Gov-
ernance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 6
(1 3 11 12 15)
Wilson, E. O (1998). Consilience: The Unity of
Knowledge. New York, NY: Borzoi/Knopf. 14 (8)
Womack,J.P.,&Jones,D.T.(2005).LeanSolutions:
How Companies and Customers Can Create Value
and Wealth Together. New York, NY: Free Press. 5
(2 4 8 11 12 15)
Woods, B. M., & Degarmo, E. P. (1953/1959). Intro-
duction to Engineering Economy. Second Edition.
New York, NY: Macmillan. 9 (2 3 12)
Wooldridge, M. (2002). An Introduction to Multi-
Agent Systems. Chichester, UK: John Wiley. 10 (1
2 6 8 11 13 14 15)
Wright, R. (2000). Non-Zero: The Logic of Human
Destiny. New York, NY: Vintage/Random House.
3 (6 1)
Young, H. P. (1998/2001). Individual Strategy and
Social Structure:An Evolutionary Theory of Institu-
tions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 11
(1 3 6 8 12 14 15)
Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D.
(2006). Services Marketing: Integrating Customer
Focus Across the Firm. 4th
Edition. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Irwin. 4 (2 15)
Zhang, L. (2007). Modern Technologies in Web
Services Research. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.
10 (9 15)
Zuboff, S., & Maxmin, J. (2002). The Support
Economy:WhyCorporationsareFailingIndividuals
and the Next Episode of Capitalism. NewYork, NY:
Penguin. 3 (4 8 12)
ENDNOTES
1
An earlier version of this paper containing
quotations accompanying the extensive set of
references will appear in (Spohrer & Kwan
2008).
2
See URL http://www.ilo.org/public/english/
region/asro/bangkok/public/releases/yr2007/
pr07_02sa.htm.
is prohibited.

Jim Spohrer is director of service research at IBM’s Almaden Research Center in San José, CA, where he
directs efforts to develop systematic approaches to service innovation. Spohrer is a founding member of
the SRII (Service Research and Innovation Initiative). Previously, he was CTO of IBM’s Venture Capital
Relations Group. In the 1990’s he was a distinguished engineer scientist and technologists in Apple Com-
puter’s Advanced Technology Group. Spohrer has a PhD in computer science from Yale University, and a
BS in physics from MIT.
Stephen K. Kwan is a professor of management information systems at the College of Business, San José
State University. He was the founding chair of the department and had served as the senior associate dean
of the College. He is currently working on the development of a service science, management and engineer-
ing (SSME) program at his university, and the promotion of education and research about standardization
in US universities. He received a BS and MS in computer science from the University of Oregon, and a
PhD in management from UCLA.
is prohibited.

Call for artiCles
International Journal of Information Systems in the

Service Sector

An official publication of the Information Resources Management Association!
The Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector (IJISSS) would
like to invite you to consider submitting a manuscript for inclusion in this scholarly journal. The following
describes the mission, the coverage and the guidelines for submission to IJISSS.
MISSION:
The International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector (IJISSS)

provides an outstanding channel for practitioners and researchers (from both

public and private areas of the service sector), software developers, and vendors,

to contribute and circulate ground-breaking work and shape future directions

for research. IJISSS will also assist industrial professionals in applying various

advanced information technologies. It details the complimentary relationship

between the advancement of the service sector and the evolution of information

systems.

COVERAGE/MAJOR TOPICS:
Recommended topics include, but are not limited to, the following: IJISSS top-
ics include, but are not limited to:

• Business services
• Creative problem solving
• Decision making under uncertainty
• Decision-support systems
• Forecasting, planning, scheduling, and control
• Green service and sustainability
• Logistics network configuration
• Matching supply with demand
All submissions should be emailed to:• Performance measures and quality control
John Wang, Editor-in-Chief• Public service management
• Self-service systems International Journal of Information
• Service business models Systems in the Service Sector
• Service information systems Email: j.john.wang@gmail.com
For Full Submission Guidelines, please turn to the back of this journal or visit
the IGI Global website at www.igi-global.com.
Ideas for Special Theme Issues may be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief.
ISSN 1935-5688
eISSN 1935-5696
Published quarterly
Please recommend this publication to your librarian. For a convenient
easy-to-use library recommendation form, please visit: http://www.igi-
global.com/IJISSS and click on the "Library Recommendation Form" link
along the left margin.

Service sciencemanagement engineering and design (ssmed) an e

More Related Content

What's hot (12)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Service sciencemanagement engineering and design (ssmed) an e (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Service sciencemanagement engineering and design (ssmed) an e