Characterizing organizations as service systems

Characterizing Organizations as Service SystemsKelly Lyons and Stephen Tracy

University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

Over the past 50 years, the service sector has grown in most advanced industrialized economies tobe the dominant economic activity. Researchers are working to understand service activities anddefine scientific concepts and methods of service under an emerging research area called servicescience. Service is defined as the application of competence and knowledge to create value. Value isrealized through interactions and cocreation among service systems. Service systems vary in scope(from individuals to businesses, organizations, governments, and nations) and adapt dynamically andconnect to other service systems through value propositions. The service system has been proposedas an abstraction for service science, and yet it is not clear how to characterize a given organizationas a service system. In this article, we present a review of literature on service system concepts anddefine a service system framework developed from the literature that can be used to characterize anorganization as a service system. C© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: Service systems; Service science; Framework

1. INTRODUCTIONService science is an emerging multidisciplinary fieldconcerned with the study of service systems and valuecocreation. Service systems are defined as, “dynamicvalue cocreation configuration[s] of resources, includ-ing people, organizations, shared information (lan-guage, laws, measures, methods), and technology, allconnected internally and externally to other service sys-tems by value propositions.” (Spohrer, Vargo, Caswell,& Maglio, 2008b, p. 5). Many “things” can be viewed asservice systems, including “people, corporations, foun-dations, non-governmental organizations, nonprofits,government agencies, departments in an organization,cities, nations, and even families” (Spohrer, Anderson,Pass, & Ager, 2008, p. 1). The service system has been

Correspondence to: Kelly Lyons. University of Toronto,Faculty of Information, 140 St. George Street, Toronto,Ontario, M5S 3G6 Canada. e-mail: [email protected]

Received: 30 August 2011; revised 1 February 2012; accepted 3April 2012

View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hfm

DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20517

put forward as the most fundamental abstraction ofservice science (Maglio, Vargo, Caswell, & Spohrer,2009). As an abstraction, it can provide researchers withthe analytical tools needed to better understand the pat-terns and behaviors that exist between service providersand service customers. Abstractions enable researchersto build summary representations of a given phenom-ena, allow us to focus on the characteristics of a conceptrather than its definitive values (Medin & Smith, 1984),and “allow seemingly different things to be compared,and. . . explained in terms of [one] another” (Maglioet al., 2009, p. 396).

The service system concept and definition has thepotential to play a critical role in service organizationsand even entire economies. However, the definitionas presented is abstract, recursive, and includes manydisparate kinds of entities as examples (Glushko, 2010).It is not clear how one can apply the current abstractdefinition to help us understand a given organizationas a service system.

In this article, we present a framework and interviewtool that can be used to characterize a given organiza-tion as a service system according to the abstraction

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 00 (0) 1–9 (2012) c© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1

Characterizing Organizations as Service Systems Lyons and Tracy

concepts presented in the literature and demonstratehow it works to characterize an academic library as aservice system. Frameworks are used in a number ofways by scholars and practitioners alike. A frameworkis used to organize inquiry by helping to identify sets ofvariables of interest and relationships among them thatneed to be analyzed (Ostrom, 2011). Frameworks havebeen proposed to help service science researchers mapthe domain of service science research (Alter, 2009) andposition computer science and information systems re-search within the domain of service science research(Lyons, 2011).

The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD)framework has been used to address a variety of policyquestions by enabling researchers and policy makers toanalyze a given institution (Ostrom, 2011). The IADframework focuses on actions and resulting patternsof interactions and outcomes and methods for evalu-ating those outcomes. It can be used to analyze serviceoperations or policy decisions and has been appliedin a variety of domains, including service domains byinstitutional analysts and policy scholars.

In (Alter, 2008), three existing frameworks (the worksystem framework, the service value chain framework,and the work system life cycle model) are proposedas useful frameworks for understanding and analyz-ing service systems. These frameworks are meant tobe used by business and information technology (IT)professionals to analyze and design service systems byfirst understanding service systems in terms of worksystems.

Our proposed service system framework emergedfrom an extension literature review of past service sci-ence research and is accompanied by an interview in-strument that can be used by researchers and practi-tioners to understand specific organizations in termsof service systems. The goals and expected benefits ofour service system framework are multiple. For a singleorganization, a characterization of it as a service sys-tem can enable better understanding of it and help de-termine subsequent improvements. Using the servicesystem framework to characterize several related orga-nizations can result in a better understanding of classesof service systems and a better sense of how to repre-sent or model organizations as service systems. Finally,the exercise of applying the framework to multiple,noncommon, unique organizations can help critique,shape, and evolve emerging service system definitionsand foundations as researchers continue to develop theservice system abstraction.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW OF SERVICESYSTEM CONCEPTSKatzan (2008a, p. 2) defines a service system as a“socially constructed collection of service events inwhich participants exchange beneficial actions througha knowledge-based strategy that captures value froma provider-client relationship.” The emphasis on aknowledge-based strategy for the creation of value sig-nifies the importance of people and the competences ofpeople (such as knowledge and understanding) in a ser-vice exchange. Maglio and Spohrer (2008, p. 19) definea service system as a “value cocreation configurationof people, technology, value propositions connectinginternal and external service systems, and shared infor-mation.” Like Katzan (2008a), there is an emphasis onthe role of people and shared information, but they alsoinclude cocreation, which generally refers to the activeparticipation and engagement of both a provider anda customer. The customer contributes primarily socialcompetence (behavior and attitude) in the cocreationprocess and cocreates value for themselves and the ser-vice provider (Deist & Winterton, 2005).

Spohrer, Anderson, et al. (2008) propose 10 foun-dational principles of a service system that are, for allintents and purposes, the fundamental concepts thatcan be used to understand a service system as an ab-straction: resources, entities, access rights, value cocre-ation interactions, governance interactions, outcomes,stakeholders, measures, networks, and ecology. We ad-dress each of these principles below then present ourservice system framework that was derived from themin Section 30. These 10 foundational principles havealso been used to develop a service system ontology in(Mora, Raisinghani, Gelman, & Sicilia, 2011).

2.1. Resources

Resources play a central role in the service system, asthey are the things that are exchanged for the purpose ofcreating value. There are a number of differing defini-tions and interpretations of resources in the literature.Barile and Polese (2010) define resources as anythingwith a name that is useful. Vargo and Lusch (2004,p. 2) describe resources as either tangible or intangible“functions of human ingenuity and appraisal.” Operantresources (those that produce effects) are often the corecompetences or processes of an organization (Vargo &Lusch, 2006). Skills and knowledge are increasingly themost important types of operant resources (Vargo &

2 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Lyons and Tracy Characterizing Organizations as Service Systems

Lusch, 2006). Maglio and Spohrer (2008) identify fourtypes of key resources all of which are part of corecompetences and organization processes: people, tech-nology, organizations, and shared information.

Spohrer, Maglio, Bailey, and Gruhl (2007) highlightthree types of shared information: language; laws, andmeasures. Language provides the means for coordina-tion through shared vocabulary, vernacular, and stan-dard coding, while laws ensure compliance to regula-tions or policy. Measures are used in a number of ways.Price is one measure that is an agreement between theprovider and customer. Measures are also used inter-nally as performance indicators and may be establishedto seek opportunities for growth and/or innovation orfor reasons of transparency and accountability.

Spohrer, Anderson, et al. (2008) propose that allresources can be classified as one of four types: phys-ical with rights, not physical with rights, not physicalwith no rights, and physical with no rights, where thenotion of rights refers to the resource’s freedoms or en-titlements to carry out activities. A human is a physicalresource with rights, whereas a desktop computer is aphysical resource with no rights.

2.2. Access Rights

Barile and Polese (2010) discuss the notion of accessrights in relation to resources where access rights referto the “social norms and legal regulations that deter-mine access and use of resources” (Barile & Polese,2010, p. 25). They identify four types of access rightsthat a resource or group of resources may have: ownedoutright, leased or contracted, shared access, and priv-ileged access. Overall, understanding the access rightsof resources within a service system is important asthese attributes can influence the system design.

2.3. Entities

Barile and Polese (2010) define entities as resource in-tegrators that enable exchange for the purpose of valuecocreation within or between service systems. Spohrer,Anderson, et al. (2008) point out that all service systementities are resources but not all resources are servicesystem entities. Maglio and Spohrer (2008) assert thatentities exchange competence through arrangementsdetermined and understood by the value propositionsthat connect them.

High-level categories of service system entities havebeen identified, including business, customer, and gov-

ernment entities (Gummesson & Polese, 2009). Katzan(2009) identifies five types of entities, each with its ownunique role and contribution to service outcomes: ser-vice principal, service producer, service provider, ser-vice client or customer, and service object. A serviceprincipal is the legally recognized holder or owner ofthe service system as a whole. The service produceris responsible for back-end production of the serviceoffering (e.g., infrastructure, availability), while theprovider is responsible for the application of resourcesfor the benefit of a service customer. A service object,“may be the direct recipient of the result of the serviceprocesses” (Katzan, 2009, p. 40).

2.4. Service System Interactions

Service system interactions take place between enti-ties. They are defined by the processes involved in themobilization, exchange, and integration of resourcesthrough competence. Barile and Polese (2010) distin-guish value cocreation interactions and governance in-teractions. Value cocreation interactions generally in-volve a set of processes, either formal or informal,that define the nature of the exchange and estab-lish the prerequisites for value cocreation (Sandstrom,Edvardsson, Kristensson, & Magnusson 2008). Theseprerequisites are established by the provider and com-municated through a value proposition. The partiesexchange something characterized as applied special-ized resources (skills and knowledge; Vargo, Lusch, &Morgan, 2006).

Following a cocreation interaction the value realizedby a customer is highly dependent on their perceptionof the service provided in addition to previously estab-lished expectations (Katzan, 2008b). Some believe that,in order to understand customer value, one must alsoconsider phenomena related to customer process or ac-tivities as they interact with service offerings (Woodruff& Flint, 2006). In addition to customer value, it is alsoimportant to consider stakeholder value and value-creating networks in service systems (Mele & Polese,2011).

In contrast, governance interactions refer to the sys-tem interactions that take place as a means to ensure thesystem is efficient and viable (Barile & Polese, 2010).They may exist to ensure compliance to internal or ex-ternal policies or regulations, to continuously seek op-portunities for growth and innovation, or to serve as adispute resolution (Spohrer, Anderson, et al., 2008).Governance interactions involve entities, generally

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 3


authoritative, that exist either within or outside of theservice system.

2.5. Outcomes

Service is accomplished through the interaction of enti-ties that seek value cocreation outcomes (Spohrer, An-derson, et al., 2008). Spohrer, Anderson, et al. (2008)propose a basic model for understanding service sys-tem outcomes called the interact-serve-propose-agree-realize (ISPAR) model, which identifies 10 possibleoutcomes: 1) value is realized, 2) the proposal (valueproposition) is not understood, 3) the proposal is notagreed to, 4) value is not realized and disputes do notarise, 5) disputes are resolved in a manner that is OKfor all stakeholders, 6) disputes are resolved in mannerthat is not OK for all stakeholders, 7) an interaction isnot a service interaction and is welcomed, 8) an un-welcomed nonservice interaction is not criminal, 9)an unwelcomed nonservice interaction is criminal andjustice results, 10) an unwelcome nonservice interac-tion is criminal and justice does not result. Spohrer,Anderson, et al. (2008) argue that the 10 scenarios en-compass all the possible outcomes that may result froma service interaction.

2.6. Stakeholders

Stakeholder types typically include shareowners, em-ployees, customers, suppliers, lenders, and society. Inservice science, the stakeholder concept is seen as a per-spective rather than an entity such that a service systementity can maintain multiple stakeholder perspectives(Maglio & Spohrer, 2009). There tend to be four dom-inant stakeholder perspectives that resonate through-out the service science literature: customer, provider,authority, and competitor (Barile & Polese, 2010).

2.7. Measures

Measures can be viewed as a type of shared informationthat is exchanged for the purpose of value cocreation, orthey can be viewed as part of a governance mechanism.Spohrer, Anderson, et al. (2008) state that there are fourprimary types of measures: quality, productivity, com-pliance, and sustainable innovation, and each measurerelates to one of the four dominant stakeholder per-spectives (customer, provider, authority, and competi-tor). In their view, quality is evaluated by customers,productivity is evaluated by providers, compliance isevaluated by authorities, and sustainable innovationis evaluated by competitors (Spohrer, Anderson, et al.,

2008). They argue that without competitive forces thereis often very little motivation or incentive to pursue in-novative strategies.

2.8. Networks

Networks play a critical role in value cocreation withinand across service systems. Networks are formedthrough the exchange that takes place between en-tities that are connected through value propositions(Spohrer, Anderson, et al., 2008). Furthermore, thesenetworks can exist exclusively within a given servicesystem, or they can transcend the system boundariesto connect external entities and resources. Mele andPolese (2011) argue that interactions between servicesystems create a social network and a technological net-work that form the basis for a value-creating networkthat brings increases in stakeholder value. Hsu (2009)believes that service science and network science areinterdependent. He asserts that the scientific tools andmethods that have been developed in network sciencecan be applied in ways that reveal a great deal about thenature of service systems and the strategies and designrequirements needed to optimize them.

2.9. Ecology

The concept of ecology is more characteristic of a groupof service systems. Spohrer, Anderson, et al. (2008, p. 9)describe ecology as encompassing the full universe ofservice system entities and is “characterized both by thediversity of types of service system entities and their rel-ative numbers.” Overall the ecology is composed of thetotal “population of all types of service system entities”within a service system as well as their relationshipsand networks (Spohrer & Maglio, 2009). One issueidentified as relevant to service system ecologies is thequestion of how to coordinate and assign prices to of-ferings in service ecologies (van Dinther, Blau, Conte,& Weinhardt, 2011).

3. THE SERVICE SYSTEMFRAMEWORKBased on the concepts presented above, a frameworkto describe an abstract service system was developed(see Figure 1). To apply this abstract framework toa specific organization, we designed a correspondinginterview questionnaire (Appendix) that can be posedto people within that organization. In the next section,we demonstrate how the framework and questionnaire



Figure 1 Service system framework.

was used to characterize an academic library as a servicesystem.

3.1. Applying the Framework to anAcademic Library

Using the service system framework and questionnaire,we interviewed two senior library administrators toproduce a description of an academic library as a ser-vice system. It is important to define the boundariesof the given service system. The library is situatedwithin one faculty in the university and connects tothe larger university library system. Organizationally,it exists within the faculty’s Information Services (IS)department, which provides IT services in addition tolibrary services. We define the service system bound-ary to include services of the library but not those ofIT portion of the IS department. Table 1 provides ahigh-level characterization of the library as a servicesystem. It is not exhaustive but gives a sense of how theservice system concepts apply to the library. Specificand unique aspects of the academic library are furtherhighlighted below.

3.1.1. Resources

In addition to technology, people, and shared infor-mation resources, our application of the frameworkrevealed that a key library resource is space and theconfiguration of that space to support service interac-tions, including the way the desks and computers areplaced in the library and the positioning of individualand group study spaces. Virtual space available on ITservers is also a resource of the library. Furthermore,application of our framework indicated that the differ-entiation between conceptual and physical resources inthe library can be blurred. Collection items are part ofthe physical resources, but the conceptual ideas withinthe books are also considered valuable resources.

3.1.2. Access Rights

Some resources in the library service system do notneatly fit into the service system categories of owned,leased, shared, or privileged access but instead areconsidered open access. Furthermore, part of a valueproposition the library has with its stakeholders and



TABLE 1. Characterization of an Academic Library as a Service System

Concepts Academic Library

Resources Physical: staff, students, faculty members, space, books/collections, classrooms, desks, computers, shelvesConceptual: website, digital content, information (library staff are also information resources), reference

knowledge, ideas, catalogs, policiesMeasures: feedback from clients (survey), usage statistics

Access rights Open access material, owned (furniture, equipment, books, some policies), leased (equipment, loanedbooks), shared access (objects in partner libraries, some policies), privileged access (material madeavailable for students in a class)

Entities Principal: the faculty in which the library existsProducer: publishers, e-resource providers, library staffProvider: university library, faculty members, universityClients: faculty members, students, staff, alumni, wider communityObject: courses materials, research project results

Stakeholders Customer: students, faculty members, community (alumni, employers)Provider: the library, faculty members, university, university library, publishers, database providers, library

associationsAuthority: faculty members, university, university library, committee, associationsCompetitor: other universities, libraries for staff and students, other groups for budget and space, other

libraries for usersChange driven by client feedback, change in curriculum, change in research direction of faculty members,

library associations’ policies, faculty/university prioritiesInteractions Value cocreation interactions: reference service interactions, course support, instructional service

interactions, IT support service interactions, research support, use of space, equipment, collectionGovernance interactions: staff contracts, providers of materials, other libraries, the faculty and the

university, producing front desk schedule, collecting stats for library associations and internal useNetworks Internal: staff, faculty members, students, classes, faculty, university

External: universities, external libraries, library associationsOutcomes Value realized: ideas, conversations, projects, prototypes, use of space, items borrowed, workshops

Information resources: course resources, knowledge in papersUsage statistics are produced and provided to the university library and to library associations

Ecology Taking a holistic approach; providing a learning environment so that ideas and practices can be developed

clients is that they are responsible for the ways in whichresources are accessed according to copyright and own-ership laws. The library plays a stewardship role forcertain kinds of collection resources.

3.1.3. Interactions

Another unique feature identified by applying ourframework is the way in which students (clients) in-teract with staff through what would be deemed gover-nance interactions in service system literature. Studentsworking on a paper or project come up with service in-novations and ideas that can be implemented in thelibrary then interact with staff make those improve-ments. We also discovered that service interactions inthe library primarily take place face-to-face; however,value is sometimes not realized until later when stu-

dents make use of knowledge gained through thoseinteractions in writing their papers.

3.1.4. Outcomes

We discovered that in a library setting, knowledge is anoutcome that often results from a service interaction.Clients can bring information and make use of libraryresources (staff, information, technology) to cocreateknowledge outcomes.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTUREWORKIn this article, we presented a framework and cor-responding interview guide for characterizing an or-ganization as a service system. Our service system



TABLE 2. Comparison of the Service System Framework with Other Frameworks

Work Systems, Service ValueChain, Life Cycle Frameworks(Alter, 2008)

Institutional and Development(IAD) Framework (Ostrom,2011)

Service SystemFramework (Lyons &Tracy, 2012)

Focuses on Participants, information,technologies, processes,activities, products, services,customers, service encounters,delivery, consumption

Actors, positions, actions,information, control,interactions, outcomes, costsand benefits, evaluativecriteria, external variables

Service systemdefinitions andconcepts from servicescience literature

Originallydesigned for

Systems that perform work withinor across organizations

Policy decisions, institutionaloperations

Service organizations

Used by Information systems professionals Policy-making professionals Service scientistsApplied in Various for-profit business

scenariosGovernment, business,

resources sectorLibrary, social enterprise

framework was developed from an examination of ser-vice science literature. This contrasts others that havebeen adapted from existing frameworks for use withservice systems (Alter, 2008; Ostrom, 2011). Table 2compares our framework with two other frameworksaccording to several criteria.

Strengths of our framework include the fact that itidentifies variables and relationships among the vari-ables that are specific to service science concepts ratherthan trying to define service systems according to setsof variables and frameworks that were identified forother purposes. As such, our service system frameworkcan be used to characterize classes of service systemsand can be applied to nontraditional, understudiedservice systems such as nonprofit and public sectorservice systems. The main weakness of our frameworkis that it has not been thoroughly tested and applied ina broad set of contexts. Future work includes applyingthe framework to multiple organizations and classes oforganizations, further developing the framework andcreating additional tools that can facilitate the collec-tion of information about organizations.

As a first step, we demonstrated how our frameworkcan be applied to an academic library and produceda characterization of the library as a service system.This characterization can be used to help stakehold-ers better understand the library’s service capabilities.Furthermore, the unique features of the library thatwere identified can be used to broaden existing servicesystem definitions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe wish to thank G. Parrish for early contributionsto the background research. Anonymous referee com-

ments greatly improved the presentation and contentof this paper. Funding was provided by a CanadianNational Sciences and Engineering Research CouncilDiscovery Grant.

APPENDIXINTERVIEW GUIDE

Letters in square brackets correspond to top levels ofthe Framework in Figure 1:

Q1[A] Describe your service system in your ownwords. Q2 [A,F,H] List and describe the various ser-vice offerings found within your system. Q3 [C,B] Listthe types of resources that may be found within yourservice system, and for each, indicate whether it is op-erant or operand, conceptual or physical, generatedinternally or externally, and whether it is owned out-right, leased outright, shared or privileged access. Q4[A] Describe dynamic aspects of your service system.In what ways does your service system evolve? Whatforces, entities, or features of your service system en-able or constrain evolutionary change. Q5 [A] In whatdirections do you think your service system will go inthe future? Do you see their service system growingand providing services to a greater number of peo-ple or organizations? If so, what plans are in place toreach this goal? Q6 [F, I] What policies, practices, ormeasures are in place to explore opportunities for in-novative or transformative growth? Q7 [D,G] Describethe organizational structure(s) that their service sys-tem works within. Q8 [E] Describe stakeholders anddiscuss stakeholder perspectives in your service sys-tem. Q9 [D,E] Discuss competition in the context ofyou organization. Can individuals opt for a different



service provider or simply choose not to use your or-ganization? How has competition altered your servicemodel, if at all. Q10 [C] Discuss any legal constraintsof your service system. Q11 [F,H] Are any materialgoods produced in the context of their service systemsand if so, how do these material goods fit in to theexchange of services? Q12 [F] Describe the key serviceprocesses and interactions in your service system. Q13[F,H] Discuss the forms of exchange that take placein those interactions. Q14 [G] Describe what kindsof systems have been acquired or created to facilitatethe exchange. Are they IT systems? Are there otherkinds of systems? Q15 [F,G,H] Consider other servicesystems that are connected to your service system, in-ternally and externally. What values or benefits definethese connections? How is this value judged? Are therecosts or risks associated with these connections? Q16[C,E,F,H] Consider how value is judged in your servicesystem and the possible frames of reference for judgingthat value. Consider in what other ways the people ororganizations involved in your service system definevalue. In what ways is value cocreated by more thanone service system or entity. Q17 [D,E] Indicate whichkinds of service interactions currently exist within yoursystem: B2B, B2C, B2G, G2C, G2G, C2C. Q18 [E,G,I]Based on the kinds of service interactions identified inthe previous question, describe which organizational,business, or governmental entities your organizationcooperates with and how this fits within your over-all service model. Q19 Did the above questions makesense? Was it clear what was meant by a service system?Suggest any changes to interview questions.

References

Alter, S. (2008). Service system fundamentals: Work sys-tem, value chain, and life cycle. IBM Systems Journal47(1), 71–85.

Alter, S. (2009). Mapping the domain of ser-vice science. AMCIS 2009 Proceedings. Paper 414.http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2009/414

Barile, S., & Polese, F. (2010). Smart service systems andviable service systems: Applying systems theory to ser-vice science. Service Science, 2, 21–40.

Deist, F. D. L., & Winterton, J. (2005). What is com-petence? Human Resource Development International,8(1), 27–46.

Glushko, R. J. (2010, June). Describing service systems.Paper Presented at the 19th Frontiers in Service Con-ference, Karlstad, Sweden.

Gummesson, E., & Polese, F. (2009). B2B is not an island!Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 24(5/6),337–350.

Hsu, C. (2009). Service science and network science. Jour-nal of Service Science, 1(2), 1–2.

Katzan, H. (2008a). Foundations of service science con-cepts and facilities. Journal of Service Science, 1(1),1–22.

Katzan, H. (2008b). Foundations of service science man-agement and business. Journal of Service Science, 1(2),1–16.

Katzan, H. (2009). Principles of service systems: An onto-logical approach. Journal of Service Science, 2(2), 35–52.

Lyons, K. (2011). A framework that situates technol-ogy research within the field of service science. In H.Demirkan, J. C. Spohrer, & V. Krishna, (Eds.), Servicesystems implementation, a volume in service science:Research and innovations (SSRI) advances of servicesystems (pp. 175–188). New York: Springer.

Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of servicescience. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,36(1), 18–20.

Maglio, P. P., Vargo, S., Caswell, N., & Spohrer, J. (2009).The service system is the basic abstraction of servicescience. Information Systems & e-Business Mgmt, 7,395-406.

Medin, D. L., & Smith, E. E. (1984). Concepts and conceptformation. Annual Review of Psychology, 35(1), 113–138.

Mele, C., & Polese, F. (2011). Key dimensions of servicesystems in value-creating networks. In H. Demirkan, J.C. Spohrer, & V. Krishna, (Eds.), Service systems im-plementation, a volume in service science: Research andinnovations (SSRI) advances of service systems (pp. 37–59). New York: Springer.

Mora, M., Raisinghani, M., Gelman, O., & Sicilia, M.A. (2011). Onto-ServSys: A service system ontology.In H. Demirkan, J. C. Spohrer, & V. Krishna, (Eds.),Service systems implementation, a volume in: Researchand innovations (SSRI) advances of service systems (pp.151–173). New York: Springer.

Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analy-sis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal,39(1), 7–27.

Sandstrom, S., Edvardsson, B., Kristensson, P., & Magnus-son, P. (2008). Value in use through service experience.Managing Service Quality, 18(2), 112–126.

Spohrer, J., Anderson, L., Pass, N., & Ager, T. (2008). Ser-vice science and service-dominant logic, Otago Forum2: Academic Papers, 2, 1–18.

Spohrer, J., Maglio, P. P., Bailey, J., & Gruhl, D. (2007).Steps toward a science of service systems. Computer,40(1), 71–77.



Spohrer, J., Vargo, S. L., Caswell, N., & Maglio, P. P.(2008). The service system is the basic abstraction ofservice science. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaiian In-ternational Conference on System Sciences (HICSS),Waikoloa, Hawaii.

van Dinther, C. Blau, B., Conte, T., & Weinhardt, C.(2011). Designing auctions for coordination in ser-vice networks. In H. Demirkan, J. C. Spohrer, & V.Krishna, (Eds.), Service systems implementation, a vol-ume in service science: Research and innovations (SSRI)advances of service systems (pp. 107–129). New York:Springer.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a newdominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing,68, 1–17.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2006). Evolving to a newdominant logic for marketing. In R. E. Lusch & S. L.Vargo, (Eds.), The service dominant logic of marketing:Dialog, debate, and directions (pp. 29-42). Armonk,NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Vargo, S. L., Lusch, R. F., & Morgan, F.W. (2006). His-torical perspectives on service-dominant logic. In R.E. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service dominantlogic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions (pp.29–42). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Woodruff, R. B., & Flint, D. J. (2006). Marketing’s service-dominant logic and customer value. In R. E. Lusch &S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service dominant logic of mar-keting: Dialog, debate, and directions (pp. 183–195).Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.


Documents

Characterizing organizations as service systems