Dr Moira Scerri20 January 2016

• Doctorate • Defining new measure of productivity for service and

network based firms

• Measures at individual, organisation, network and economy levels

• Industry experience• Over 30 years in service design,

service operations management

• Range of industries• Travel and tourism

• Information technology

• Payments

• Education (Business and service delivery)

A bit about me

Today’s program

1. Why are models important?

2. Service productivity models1. Service Process Matrix (Schmenner 1986, 2004)

2. Service Cubicle (Agarwal & Selen 2005)

3. Service Productivity Model (Gronroos & Ojasalo 2004)

3. Limitations of existing models

4. Service Enterprise Productivity in Action (SEPIA) model• Development

• Operationalisation

5. Future research

1. Why are models important?

• There is sometimes a radical and revolutionary change in the image when knowledge “hits some sort of nucleus or supporting structure…and the whole thing changes in quite a radical way” (Boulding 1956, p. 8)

• The use of models assists with understanding the world and helps predict how things may behave in the future (Simon 1957)

• Enable people to communicate and work collectively and collaboratively on a problem

Models are important

2. Service productivity models

2. Service productivity models

1. Service productivity models• Service Process Matrix (Schmenner 1986, 2004)

• Service Cubicle (Agarwal & Selen 2005)

• Service Productivity Model (Gronroos & Ojasalo 2004)

Service Process Matrix (Schmenner 1986;2004)

Service Process Matrix - Schmenner (1986) • Overlay of service concepts onto Product Process MatrixService Matrix – Schmenner (2004)• Changed dimensions on the matrix• Introduced the Theory of Swift Even Flow (the faster material or information flows

through a system increases in productivity) – inclusion of the productivity diagonalWeakness• Invalid assumptions – service organisations have multiple modes of operating• Unable to accurately plot each of the organisations on the matrix

Service Cubicle (Agarwal & Selen 2005)

Key contribution Service Cubicle - Agarwal & Selen (2005)Inclusion of technology (innovation) as an enabler and positioning of the firm within the service value network providing causality to the increase in service productivity WeaknessAdopts the same weaknesses as Schmenner’s Service Process Matrix

Service Productivity Model (Gronroos & Ojasalo 2004)

Key contribution Service Productivity Model – Gronroos & Ojasalo (2004)Includes customer inputs and technology, and incorporates different operating models Acknowledges internal and external environmentsWeaknessLinear, does not does not address the heterogonous nature of employees,

3. Limitations of existing models

Characteristics Service ProcessMatrix

Service Cubicle Service Productivity Model

Objective measures operationalised

X X X

Multiple operating environments

X X X

Information Communication technology

X P P

Multiple input – outputpoints

X P X

Network as a unit of analysis

X X X

Impact of suppliers X X P

What are the limitations?

4. Service Enterprise Productivity in Action(SEPIA) Model - Development

Boulding’s (1956) Nine level system hierarchy Levels 1-5

Boulding’s (1956) Nine level system hierarchyLevels 6-9

Service Enterprise Productivity in Action (SEPIA) model – Operationalisation

• Reconceptualising productivity• Incorporates five stakeholders

• Includes customer input

• Include bi-directional exchanges

• Positions productivity in the social domain

• Convergence of resources rather than linear flow

SEPIA model

• Customer interface• Service complexity

• Customer interactions

• Customer channel

• Customer loyalty

• Willingness to pay (proxy for value)

SEPIA model

SEPIA model

From literature Addressed by

Definition of service industries includes multiple perspectives

Includes customers, employees, managers, suppliers and shareholders

Single direction input – transformation – outputmodel

All interactions are bi-directional, with each stakeholderexchanging inputs and outputs

Employees are heterogeneous Recognition of the difference between employees and managers

Firm as the unit of analysis Firms do not make decisions, people do, therefore the appropriate unit of analysis is the human level

No customer input Customers and customer input are included

Single firm no longer the “productive unit” Firm is positioned within a service value network, with different network configuration highlighted (NEPIA model)

5. Future research

• Incorporate aspects of all stakeholders• Managers

• Suppliers

• More work on network productivity • From dyadic networks

• Service triads

• Other network configurations

Future research

• Managing Service Productivity• Chapter 6 Service Enterprise

Productivity In Action (SEPIA)

Reference

Questions?

Dr Moira ScerriSEPIA Consulting

Telephone: +61 (0) 405 064 886e-mail: moira.scerri@sepiaconsulting.com.au

www.sepiaconsulting.com.au