SIBoK

SIBoK

Service Innovation Body of Knowledge:

An ontology based approach

IACT731/IACT370

Information Architecture

SCAD

Prof. Mauricio Manhaes

This document serves as narrative of process creating a service innovation body of knowledge based on an ontological perspective.

Š 2016 SCAD School of Design All work that is not ours is attributed to the creator.

Ontology of Service Innovation

Design course: Information Architecture (IACT 731 - IACT 370) and was created entirely by the students enrolled in this combined course along with industry professionals who participated in a two round Delphi study. Its editorial ollege of Art and Design. It was produced in the Winter Quarter of 2016 and covers a period of time between January and March.

Design Team photos within this book were taken by Aaron Pompei at the SCAD Gulfstream Center for Design in Savannah, Georgia during the Winter Quarter of 2016.

Typefaces, Arial, Arial Bold, Arial Italic, Archer Book, and Archer Light, respectively were used. Archer was Patricia Saunders, and Steve Matteson. Book layout and interior illustrations were designed by Zach Nilsson.

Project Advisor

Design Team

Participant Contributors

Dr. Mauricio Manhaes SCAD Professor of Service Design

Lucinda Lu Isaac Hsu Aaron Pompei Jose Bertero Zach Nilsson

Alan Hartman Daniela Sangiorgi Don Allen Heather Yurko JJ Lee Lia Patricio Xenia Viladas Jonathan Kalinowski Doug Morse Cristina Mele Rajiv Naruekar Marja Toivonen Anders Gustafsson Yassi Moghaddam Clara Bassano Stephen Kwan Steven Alter Christoph Heitz

First and foremost, we would like to express our gratitude towards and the contributors who participated in our Delphi study and lent us their time, intellect, and opinions.

Additionally, we thank our professor, Mauricio Manhaes, for guiding us throughout this process and for sharing his knowledge and experience so freely. We especially thank our fellow teammates for mutual inspiration and support along this journey.

Special mention is warranted to our ISSIP stakeholders, Yassi Moghaddam, Dr. Steven Kwan, and Dr. Jim Spohrer whom we thank for their time and offering guidance and valuable feedback.

Table of contents 1 Project overview planning

1

Objective Audience Stakeholders

3

2 Initial structure taking action

5

Service Innovation

Literature review

3 4

7

Service innovation model Four disciplines

Body of Knowledge Exploration

Exploration Selection

Selected BoKs

Exploring Structures Defining the Structure SIBoK Structure V.1

3 Delphi study finding concensus

11

15 18 19 21

The Delphi Technique

23

Round 1

Summary

26

Co-defined terms

27

Round 2

Summary

30

Conclution of Study

31

Appendix

33

Appendix A

References

List of figures List of tables

Appendix B

Delphi round 1 feedback

Delphi round 2 feedback

35

39

1

Our team was granted with the opportunity of working with the International Society of Service Innovation (ISSIP) on establishing a basis for a first ever Service Innovation Body of Knowledge (BoK) based on an ontological perspective. The Overview explains the project’s objective, goals and its intended audience.

Figure 1. Zach taking notes during project planning.

Project overview planning

2

The objective of this project was to assist the International Society of Service Innovation Professionals (ISSIP) discover, develop, and document an initial ontology for Service Innovation, a structure for the Service Innovation Body of Knowledge (BoK), and design documentation to support continued development of the ontology and body of knowledge. In order to build this body of knowledge, a core ontology of the service domain will need to be established, validated, and implemented to support the development and documentation of knowledge within the service domain.

Project goals Design an ontological structure for service innovation professionals body of knowledge Develop a core ontology of service innovation professions Figure 2. Project Goals.

Audience Thought-leaders, practitioners, and novice designer or business people seeking to enter Service Innovation will be the intended audience of this Body of Knowledge.

The former audience is crucial to the further development of the product to meet the needs and desires of the later two audiences however practitioners will contribute significantly to the development of an Service Innovation Body of Knowledge as the thought-leaders define and solidify the knowledge assets within the service domain.

3

Stakeholders

The International Society of Service Innovation Professionals ISSIP is a democratically-run non-profit organization working to expand career options for service innovators while impacting business and society through new and improved service innovations. ISSIP seeks to build a body of knowledge for the assessment of domain practitioners to construct training curriculum aimed at professional certification.

Yassi Moghaddam

Dr. Jim Spohrer

Dr. Stephen Kwan

Executive Director ISSIP

Director, Global University Programs IBM

Lucas Professor of Service Science San Jose State University

4

5

Before responding with a vision or plan, our team needed to gain a better understanding of both ontologies as well as explore existing BoKs from similar or related fields. This phase is divergent and exploratory.

Figure 3. Lucinda, Zach, and Jose highlighting the similarities in between the se

elected BoKs.

Initial structure taking action

6

Service Innovation The domain of Service Innovation encompasses a wide range of objectives, perspectives, processes, and methodologies.

We initiated the project with a literature review of 15 papers sourced from various academic and industry journals to expand our knowledge of the various disciplines beyond Service Design. Developing a model of service innovation meant to organize the domain by identifying the primary disciplines and illustrating the relationships between each. From this group of journals, four were identified as an evolution of thought and practice among Service Innovation professionals: Evolving to a New Dominant Logic of Marketing (Lusch and Vargo, 2004), Succeeding Though Service Innovation (SSME) (University of Cambridge, 2008), Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Design (SSMED) (Spohrer and Kwan, 2009), and Service Disciplines (Manhaes, 2013).

The initial model for this Body of Knowledge is divided into four main sections within Service Innovation: Service Design (SD), Management (SM), Engineering (SE), and Science (SS).

Service Innovation

Service Design WHAT

>

Service Management WHEN

>

Service Engineering

>

HOW

Service Science WHY

Figure 4. The diagram above is a simplified representation of Dr. Manhaes’ relational model of Service Innovation.

This Service Innovation model will be used for the proposed BoK and evolving ontological structure.

7

2004

Evolving to a New Dominant Logic of Marketing

2007

Succeeding through Service Innovation (SSME)

2009 2013

Explains a new perspective that emphasizes on intangible resources, the co-creation of values and exchanges, and how managerial thinking has evolved and continues to evolve as a new Dominant Logic.

Provides cocreated definitions of terms within the field of Service Innovation that have been accepted by both academic and professional contributers, as well as delivers the multidisciplinary idea based on the SSME field (Service Science, Management, and Engineering) or in short Service Science.

Service Science, Management, Engineering and Design (SSMED): An Emerging Discipline This article discuses a revised vision for the disciplines within Service Innovation, elevating Service Design to the same level of importance as the other three disciplines. Service Design is presented as a “conscious exploration of possibilities� and considered more subjective, instead of being objective.

Service Disciplines: Who does What, When, Where and How? Delivers a theory concerning the hierarchy and relationships between the four disciplines within the field of Service (Service Science, Service Management, Service Engineering, and Service Design).

8

9

Figure 5. Zach and Aaron discussing the relationships within the initial structure of the SIBoK.

Service Design Being in the realm of praxis and close to Innovation and to the concept of disequilibrium, service design should be able to answer questions that start with ‘what’ and point to originality and newness.

Organizations with questions such as ‘What else can we do?’, should address them to service design discipline experts. These last ones would have to focus their research on new ways of exploring possibilities, of expanding the limits of what is possible. This is, indeed, a very rich and complex research endeavor that should aim to enable people to co-create preferred futures. (Manhaes, 2013)

Service Management Although the ‘art’ of management is heavily based on tacit knowledge, its focus starts to move towards efficiency and equilibrium.

Organizations that need to answer questions related to ‘when’ and timing would ask: ‘When should we start improving our service?’, ‘Is this the right moment to do it?’ or ‘What should we do NOW?’. The discipline of service management should supply answers based on ‘the lived moment’ of the organization, even indicating whether managers should pursue solutions created by other disciplines.

Knowing ‘what to do and when’ would be the major responsibility of the service management discipline and the focus of its research efforts.

(Manhaes, 2013)

Service Engineering Entering the other half of the continuum, the first discipline is service engineering, with its proximity to the concepts of ‘maintenance’ and ‘equilibrium’. With a stronger focus on efficiency, this discipline should be expected to answer questions like ‘How can it be done better?’ and ‘How can we improve the efficiency of this service?’ Its research focus would be on organizing best practices and procedures, building models and frameworks that can be repeated by organizations with the best results possible. Service engineering does not need to understand why something works, as long as it works repeatedly. (Manhaes, 2013)

Service Science Service science, predictably, should answer the question of ‘why’. To be able to improve the other disciplines, and to push the envelope of their research, at some point it will be necessary to know ‘Why did that workshop work?’, ‘Why did that model create that result?’, ‘Why was that the best time for doing that?’, etc.

Research in this discipline should be focused on understanding the relation between elements, structures and mechanisms, and why particular combinations create specific results. This is fundamental information to report back to the other disciplines. (Manhaes, 2013)

10

BoK identification

21 Bodies of Knowledge (BoKs) were collected from a wide array of professional domains. These BoKs were analyzed for both the content within as well as the organizations that contributed to them, utilizing the four disciplines of Service Innovation as a relevance filter. This filter was the initial criteria used to manage our field of search and which BoKs were collected.

11

Figure 6. Aaron and Isaac discussing the benchmarking of BoKs

All 21 BoKs were benchmarked to determine a base set of data to be used for this analysis. The BoKs were reviewed to assess the credible source material used to develop the various BoKs. If the resources and reference didn’t have a discoverable credibility they were removed from consideration. We wanted BoKs that were being actively maintained and came from nationally or internationally recognized industry organizations. The criteria used to filter this collection was:

Selection criteria First publication date Edition Organization membership Industry endorsement

12

Selected BoKs Product Development and Management Associate Handbook

Business Analysis Body of Knowledge

Software Engineering Body of Knowledge

Guide for the identification and execution of critical new product development (NPD) practices.

General overview of each Knowledge Area and the list of activities and tasks associated with each.

Represents next step in the evolution of the software engineering profession.

Primary Purpose: Give

readers insights into how to make improved decisions in New Product Development.

13

Primary Purpose: Identify the Business Analysis Knowledge Areas that are generally recognized and accepted as good practice.

Primary Purpose: To

describe the portion of the Body of Knowledge that is generally accepted, to organize that portion, and to provide topical access to it.

Project Management Body of Knowledge

Geographic Information Science and Technology Body of Knowledge

Provides and promotes a common vocabulary within the project management profession for discussing, writing, and applying project management concepts.

Providing the information about the land and the location and characteristics of people and resources.

Primary Purpose: Indicates

the application of appropriate knowledge processes tools, skills, and techniques which can have an significant impact to project success.

Primary Purpose: To

teach the users how to manage and communicate with geospatial information.

14

Exploring structures

Figure 7. Aaron, Zach, Mauricio, and Isaac analyzing existing BoK structures.

Once the bodies of knowledge were selected a method for analyzing the content had to be defined. To keep the outcome unbiased we compared keyword frequency across all five BoKs. The table of contents of each BoK was pinned up on a wall to identify common and frequently used terms. These terms were color coded and marked within each body of knowledge.

Figure 8. Representation of the research team’s “Mode” technique of existing BoKs to identify an initial structure for SIBoK .

15

The proposed structure follows the order and “mode” of terms within the BoK structures was established through this process. This process resulted in a list of 10 terms that would be the base from which we evolve the ontological structure for service innovation in a Delphi study.

Figure 9. Aaron, Zach, Mauricio, and Jose discussing similarities between the existing BoKs.

After extracting the terms and arranging them in order of occurrence we had to interpret how this could describe Service Innovation. We can see it deals with the organization of people and artifacts, delegation and use of resources over time, establish key details necessary for construction, and evaluation for alignment and learning.

16

17

Figure 10. Aaron referencing terms found through the service literature search in regards to the proposed BoK structure.

Defining the structure Model A representation of a system using general rules and concepts.

Process A set of interrelated actions and activities performed to achieve a pre-specified product, result, or service. Each process is characterized by its inputs, the tools and techniques that can be applied, and the resulting outputs.

Develop The practice of identifying responsibilities, required skills, reporting relationships, and creating a staffing management plan.

Toolset The methods used to address areas of concern with recognizable outcomes that seem most actionable.

Control The proper overseeing of the project/product. It ensures all requests and changes will be executed properly.

Requirement

The specification of what is needed in order to complete the final deliverable.

The deliverable is defined as the stakeholders needs and wants.

Cost

The establishment of controls for accounting that manage expenditures and opportunity for increasing value.

Stakeholder A person that has a legitimate interest in a project or entity.

Risk The possible loss that comes with any investment. Risk can be influenced by a number of different factors including sales per-unit price all the way to governmental regulations.

Analysis Examining the cost or problems of a project requires quantifiable research to identify business needs and solutions. * Term definitions above have been paraphrased from the Project Management BBody of Knowledge (PMBoK) to establish a base for the Delphi study.

18

SIBoK structure v.1 Proposed structure for the Service Innovation Body of Knowledge (SIBoK)

Service Innovation Service Design

Service Management

Service Engineering

Service Science

Figure 11. Proposed SIBoK model (four disciplines).

With this proposed ontological structure for service innovation assembled we sought feedback from domain professionals and academics. The proposed structure is illustrated in a truncated fashion below to show how knowledge can be organized within the service innovation domain.

Service Innovation Model

Process Develop Toolset Control Requirement Cost Stakeholder Risk Analysis

Service Design

Service Management

Service Engineering

Service Science

Model Process Develop Toolset Control Requirement Cost Stakeholder Risk Analysis

Model Process Develop Toolset Control Requirement Cost Stakeholder Risk Analysis

Model Process Develop Toolset Control Requirement Cost Stakeholder Risk Analysis

Model Process Develop Toolset Control Requirement Cost Stakeholder Risk Analysis

Figure 12. Proposed SIBoK structure.

19

The initial structure is just the beginning of an evolutionary process that will advance while we seek academic and professional input to build context and deeper connection to the space of Service Innovation.

Figure 13. Zach and Mauricio during a class work session.

20

21

Our team choose to conduct a Delphi study, a structured communication process converging to consensus leveraging industry professionals, for a duration of 2 rounds. Feedback acquired was then analyzed and packaged for ISSIP to continue further until reaching the structure for the SIBoK.

Figure 14. Isaac reviewing responses from Delphi round 1.

Delphi study finding consensus

22

The Delphi technique A Delphi study was conducted to gain consensus between 15- 30 service innovation professionals provided by ISSIP. The SCAD reserach team facilitated two Delphi rounds to establish a foundation guiding later action for those appointed by ISSIP to continue.

Figure 15. Illustration explaining the Delphi technique.

The Delphi technique was chosen due to it being an accepted method of converging thoughts and opinions within academic circles. This study would be used to merge the structure outcome from the research team’s mode technique with the realworld knowledge of industry professionals. Professionals solicited, were all current members of ISSIP as well as active contributors to the field of Service Innovation.

SCAD-Driven

Structure Summary of Changes Anonymous Feedback

Figure 16. The proposed Delphi process for this project.

23

Analysis of Results Structure Summary of Changes Anonymous Feedback

Round Four Analysis of Results Structure Summary of Changes Anonymous Feedback

Feedback

Analysis of Results

Round Three

Feedback

Structure Summary of Process Guided Steps

Round Two

Feedback

Analysis of Results

Feedback

ISSIP Feedback

Round One

ISSIP-Driven

Take Action SIBoK Structure Participant Consensus

A Delphi study was conducted to gain consensus between 15-30 service innovation professionals.

24

25

Figure 17. Zach, Lucinda, and Isaac comparing Delphi responses.

The terms and definitions making up the initial structure were developed through a research design method.

Round 1

Duration: 5 business days

62 17 3

Candidates Participants Service disciplines

Summary Round one of the Delphi study was provided to 62 candidates representing Service Design, Service Management, Service Engineering, and Service Science. Candidates received a 49 question survey separated into two sections, section one was relative to the candidate’s professional discipline and section two was relative to Service Innovation as a knowledge domain. Each section detailed the same 10 terms and definitions for candidates to respond to. Candidates were asked to respond to these terms and definitions from the perspective of their professional discipline and from the perspective of Service Innovation.

“

Different authors have defined service science in different ways, but most of the definitions are not satisfying. In practice, service science is defined as just about anything that includes the word service. That includes service design, service management, service engineering, service-dominant logic, service economy, service computing, service industries, service-oriented architectures, service oriented enterprises, etc... - Round 1 Participant

“

Of the 62 candidates, we initiated 17 participants into the study representing Service Design, Service Management, and Service Science (no one from Service Engineering). We collected data from 13 surveys where participants answered both sections and 4 surveys where participants complete the first section only.

26

Co-defined terms Through analysis we identified minor deviations in responses between the two sections. These responses were analyzed and compiled for each term and definition across each represented discipline to construct definitions applicable across all disciplines. This outcome represents the second iteration of the structure used in round two of the Delphi study.

Model A referable structure to guide ways of thinking within a knowledge domain.

Process A repeatable order of interrelated actions and activities aimed towards achieving a goal or outcome.

Develop The practice and activities associated with creating a resource integration plan towards attaining the implementation of a product (goods and/or service) or to bring it to a more advanced or effective state.

Toolset A collection of explicit knowledge, practices, technologies and instruments used to facilitate processes.

Control Control also refers to guiding a process so that it operates within its prescribed bounds. It ensures all requests and changes will be executed resulting in an end to end superior customer experience.

27

Requirement

A part of the specification of what is known to be needed in order to establish essential criteria within a deliverable.

Cost

The expenditure of all forms of capital used to achieve a task or goal.

Stakeholder Entities with a legitimate interest in a specific outcome, and that can influence the creation of value of a particular system.

Risk Risk is related to understanding the certainty/uncertainty of outcomes that may impact a wider set of stakeholders and the environment. It includes, but it is not limited to, understanding the probability of any negative occurrence caused by external or internal vulnerabilities.

Analysis Analysis is the breaking down of a phenomenon in order to understand how each part influences a whole and results in the collection, consolidation, and representation of the information gathered in order to answer specific questions.

These SIBoK term definitions have been cocreated among 17 Delphi contributors and the SCAD research team.

28

29

Figure 18. Isaac taking notes during Delphi round 2 discussion.

Results from this round will be the foundation for a continued discussion for introducing an ontology for Service Innovation.

Round 2

Duration: 5 business days

59 6 3

Candidates Participants Service disciplines

Summary The new definitions and the original 10 terms were sent back out to 62 candidates as a 10 question survey seeking responses to the new definitions. We initiated 6 participants in this round all of whom completed the survey in its entirety. From this round the data is beginning to show consensus on 5 terms with continued disagreement on the remaining 5 terms. These results will be the foundation for continued discussion to reach consensus for all 10 terms introduced to form an ontology for service innovation.

Table 1.

Consensus between participants during Delphi round 2.

Consensus among participants

0% disagree

50%

agree

100%

Model Process Develop Toolset Control Requirement Cost Stakeholder Risk Analysis 30

Conclusion of study The journey to develop an ontology of service innovation is well underway.

The co-creation process to develop the delivered structure of terms and definitions constitutes a solid base of professional, influencer, and leader contributions for ISSIP to build certification and continuity throughout Service Innovation. With consensus reached on half of the terms in the structure future work will support continued discussion to reach consensus for the remaining terms.

Once complete, ISSIP has the basis to develop resources for the continued advancement of Service Innovation.

31

Figure 19. Jose and Lucinda discussion the second Delphi.

32

Appendix A

- References

- List of figures

- List of tables

33

Appendix B

- Delphi round 1 feedback

- Delphi round 2 feedback

Figure 20. Jose and Mauricio discussing next steps.

Appendix 34

Appendix A - References - List of figures - List of tables

35

References

36

37

List of figures Figure 1. Zach taking notes during project planning

1

Figure 2. Project Goals

3

Figure 3. Lucinda, Zach, and Jose highlighting the similarities in between the selected BoKs

5

Figure 4. The diagram above is a simplified representation of Dr. Manhaes’ relational model of Service Innovation

7

Figure 5. Zach and Aaron discussing the relationships within the initial structure of the SIBoK

9

Figure 6. Aaron and Isaac discussing the benchmarking of BoKs

12

Figure 7. Aaron, Zach, Mauricio, and Isaac analyzing existing BoK structures

15

Figure 8. Representation of “Mode” technique of existing BoKs to identify an initial structure for SIBoK

15

Figure 9. Aaron, Zach, Mauricio, and Jose discussing similarities between the existing BoKs

16

Figure 10. Aaron referencing terms found through the service literature search in regards to the proposed BoK structure

17

Figure 11. Proposed SIBoK model (four disciplines)

19

Figure 12. Proposed SIBoK structure

19

Figure 13. Zach and Mauricio during a class work session

20

Figure 14. Isaac reviewing responses from Delphi round 1

21

Figure 15. Illustration explaining the Delphi technique

23

Figure 16. The proposed Delphi process for this project

23

Figure 17. Zach, Lucinda, and Isaac comparing Delphi responses

25

Figure 18. Isaac taking notes during Delphi round 2 discussion

29

Figure 19. Jose and Lucinda discussion the second Delphi

32

Figure 20. Jose and Mauricio discussing next steps

33

Figures 21-30. Participant feedback Delphi round 1

41-50

Figures 31-40. Participant feedback Delphi round 2

52-61

List of tables Table 1.

Consensus between participants during Delphi round 2

30

38

Appendix B - Delphi feedback round 1 - Delphi feedback round 2

39

Delphi round 1 feedback The following responses from round one are compiled to show the initial definition, the feedback received from participants representing each discipline, and the new term definition changed in accordance with participant feedback.

40

MODEL Original Description

A representation of a system using general rules and concepts.

Participant Feedback

Service Design •

A representation of a system with essential structure, flow and components.

•

I agree that a model is a representation, but it can be a representation of other things besides a system.

It can be the customer experience, it can be a service system. I am not sure if system is the best word.

Service Management •

A referable depiction of a structure , concept, a system, object or entity.

Service Science •

There are many different types of models. Some are abstract models of great generality. Others are related to specific situations. For example, an astrophysics model of the Big Bang does not use general rules and concepts. Rather it uses concepts that have been developed in that field. In relation to service science per se there is no clarity about which are the rules and concepts that apply.

Service Innovation •

A representation of a human-centered system (service system) using general rules and concepts.

Updated Description

A referable structure to guide ways of thinking within a knowledge domain.

Figure 21. Participant feedback Delphi round 1 (Model).

41

PROCESS Original Description

A set of interrelated actions and activities performed to achieve a pre-specified product, result, or service. Each process is characterized by its inputs, the tools and techniques that can be applied, and the resulting outputs.

Participant Feedback

Service Design •

I don’t agree with the ‘pre-specified products, result or service’ part. I would suggest that is aiming toward a better outcome, but not specific outputs.

•

Should include outputs, tools and techniques makes the definition too specific, actions/activities may be more appropriate.

•

A set of interrelated actions and activities performed to achieve a goal. Each process is characterized by its inputs, the tools and techniques that can be applied, and the resulting outputs.

Service Management •

There should be an element of repetition in it otherwise it would be a project.

•

I disagree with the the idea to achieve a pre-specified product. A process can achieve also an unexpected result.

•

A set of interrelated actions, resources (human and other) and activities performed to achieve a pre-specified result, or outcome Each process is characterized by its inputs, resources required, workflow and enabling tools that can be applied to achieve a specified output or set of outputs.

Service Science •

Most definitions of processes identify inputs, process steps and outputs in some way.

Many definitions of processes say nothing about the tools and techniques that are applied.

•

Processes and activities may be specified to varying degrees.

Service Innovation •

No pre-specified product.

Updated Description

A repeatable order of interrelated actions and activities aimed towards achieving a goal or outcome.

Figure 22. Participant feedback Delphi round 1 (Process).

42

DEVELOP Original Definition

The practice of identifying responsibilities, required skills, reporting relationships, and creating a staffing management plan.

Participant Feedback

Service Design

•

This is very focused on human resources, while I would say that develop should include all the elements of a service delivery system.

•

Develop is to take a design and implement it.

•

The practice and activities associated with the selection of an idea that is favorable to both the business and user, and the documentation of all scenarios, iterations and business rules requisite for implementation.

•

It seems to me that this definition of develop is more about planning, because it does not involve the execution of the development.

Service Management

•

Lacking an element of change.

•

To bring out the capabilities or possibilities of; bring to a more advanced or effective state.

•

In the definition of development, future-orientation and striving for improvement should be added.

Service Science

•

The word develop has many different meanings that one might find in articles related to service science.

Service Innovation

•

The practice of identifying responsibilities, resources, required skills, reporting relationships, creating a staffing management plan, creating resource integration plan (that turns design into an actual service), and executing the resource integration which leads to service co-creation.

•

The development of a service innovation is a process of identifying, refining and testing of ideas.

•

This is very focused on human resources, while I would say that develop should include all the elements of a service delivery system.

Revised Definition

The practice and activities associated with creating a resource integration plan towards attaining the implementation of a product (goods and/or service) or to bring it to a more advanced or effective state.

Figure 23. Participant feedback Delphi round 1 (Develop).

43

TOOLSET Original Definition

The methods used to address areas of concern with recognizable outcomes that seem most actionable.

Participant Feedback

Service Design

•

A toolset is a set of tools not the application thereof.

•

From my perspective, a method is a systematic process, which may involve tools (that facilitate the process). The systematic process of using the tools may be a method, and not the other way around.

•

The outcomes can be actionable or not, it is unrelated to the existence and nature of the tools.

Service Management •

Knowledge/ skills and or enabling technology or other automation of tasks.

Service Science

•

Probably we should say it is an instrument .....and not a method which is more subjective and which is Made up by instruments and technique. So I suggest to change method into instrument.

•

A toolset is not a method. A method is a way of doing things. Tools are artifacts that are used while doing things. Methods may or may not use a particular toolset.

Service Innovation

•

Probably we should say it is an instrument .....and not a method which is more subjective and which is Made up by instruments and technique.

Revised Definition

A collection of explicit knowledge, practices, technologies and instruments used to facilitate processes.

Figure 24. Participant feedback Delphi round 1 (Toolset).

44

CONTROL Original Definition

The proper overseeing of the project/product. It ensures all requests and changes will be executed properly.

Participant Feedback

Service Design

•

Control is perform some direct action on something - you definition for control is called management.

•

The proper overseeing of the project/product/service relative to customer needs, wants, aspirations and experiences. It ensures all requests and changes will be executed resulting in an end to end superior customer experience.

•

It also ensures that all drifts and failures are being acknowledged and can be addressed according to the final goal.

Service Management

•

To exercise restraint by use of measure and persuasion to achieve a particular outcome.

•

In the concept of control, directing the human resources should be added.

•

The proper overseeing of the project/product/service relative to customer needs, wants, aspirations and experiences. It ensures all requests and changes will be executed resulting in an end to end superior customer experience.

Service Science

•

Control means many different things within general discussions of service.

•

To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over.

Service Innovation

•

Control also refers to guiding a process so that it operates within its prescribed bounds.

•

Control of human resources is missing.

•

The proper overseeing of the project/product/service relative to customer needs, wants, aspirations and experiences. It ensures all requests and changes will be executed resulting in an end to end superior customer experience.

Revised Definition

Control also refers to guiding a process so that it operates within its prescribed bounds. It ensures all requests and changes will be executed resulting in an end to end superior customer experience.

Figure 25. Participant feedback Delphi round 1 (Control).

45

REQUIREMENT Original Definition

The specification of what is needed in order to complete the final deliverable. The deliverable is defined as the stakeholders needs and wants.

Participant Feedback

Service Design

•

A requirement is the specification of what has been identified as being needed to address a problem to be solved. Whether the final deliverable has it is based on cost, time, and whether the deliverable can be executed without it.

•

It doesn’t it to be necessarily linked to a “final” deliverable, it can also come about at any moment of a project, related to any process.

Service Management

•

A part of the specification of what is needed in order to complete a task or deliverable.

•

Latent needs are at times not articulated. so requirement captures only the stated or known needs.

•

The specification of what is needed in order to complete the final deliverable and co-create a total superior customer experience.

Service Science

•

The definition is fairly close, but there many places where requirements are not full specifications.

Service Innovation

•

Cost is related to expenditure of resources to achieve some goal, task, product, or service.

•

The specification of what is needed in order to complete the final deliverable and cocreate a total superior customer experience.

Revised Definition

A part of the specification of what is known to be needed in order to establish essential criteria within a deliverable.

Figure 26. Participant feedback Delphi round 1 (Requirement).

46

COST Original Definition

The establishment of controls for accounting that manage expenditures and opportunity for increasing value.

Participant Feedback

Service Design

•

Cost is the resources needed to complete a task or activity it has nothing to do with opportunity for increasing value since that is mostly a judgment.

•

Again, cost is not the establishment of control. In that case we would have cost control, and now cost.

•

The amount of an expenditure or an outlay.

Service Management

•

One cost could be effort too.

•

Expenditures in a tangible financial sense or of alternative resources as it “opportunity cost”.

•

The definition of cost should be: expenditures and losses emerging in the context of pursue for a specific value.

Service Science

•

Cost is related to expenditure of resources to achieve some goal, task, product, or service.

•

This definition is quite confused. In my business experience in a service business, cost can be discussed without talking about establishment of controls. Also, cost is essentially unrelated to opportunity for increasing value.

Service Innovation •

Should be expenditures linked to the pursues for increasing value.

Revised Definition

The expenditure of all forms of capital used to achieve a task or goal.

Figure 27. Participant feedback Delphi round 1 (Cost).

47

STACKHOLDER Original Definition

A person that has a legitimate interest in a project or entity.

Participant Feedback

Service Design

•

Who has influence over the organization or the project (as in the capacity to modify it or prevent its completion).

Service Management

•

Not necessarily a person, could be an organization.

•

A person or entity that has a legitimate interest in a specific outcome.

•

There can also be organizations as stakeholders.

•

An individual that contributes to the co-creation of value in the service ecosystem.

Service Science

•

A service system that interact with other service systems in the ecosystem for a legitimate interest.

•

More than just a legitimate interest, there should also be a cost/benefit stake involved.

Service Innovation

•

More than just a legitimate interest, there should also be a cost/benefit stake involved.

•

A service system that interact with other service systems in the ecosystem for a legitimate interest.

•

Organization can also be a stakeholder.

•

An individual that contributes to the co-creation of value in the service ecosystem.

Revised Definition

Entities with a legitimate interest in a specific outcome, and that can influence the creation of value of a particular system.

Figure 28. Participant feedback Delphi round 1 (Stakeholder).

48

RISK Original Definition

The possible loss that comes with any investment. Risk can be influenced by a number of different factors including sales per-unit price all the way to governmental regulations.

Participant Feedback

Service Design

•

The concept of risk should not refer only to the organizational perceptive but also include the wider set of stakeholders, citizens and the environment.

•

Risk is the probability that a task or outcome will be achieve.

•

Risk is the possibility of losing, not the possible loss. I also is associated to not only to investments but to any kind of resources or assets, including the non-financial ones: the possibility of losing reputation is a risk. Risk is generally associated to uncertainty.

Service Management

•

A probability or threat of damage, injury, liability, loss, or any other negative occurrence that is caused by external or internal vulnerabilities, and that may be avoided through preemptive action.

Service Science

•

Risk is related to the certainty/uncertainty of outcomes as the result of a decision(s).

•

Risk has different meanings in different discussions. Every investment has some risk, but the idea of risk is not linked solely to investments.

Service Innovation

•

Risk is related to the certainty/uncertainty of outcomes as the result of a decision(s).

•

The concept of risk should not refer only to the organizational perceptive but also include the wider set of stakeholders, citizens and the environment.

Revised Definition

Risk is related to understanding the certainty/uncertainty of outcomes that may impact a wider set of stakeholders and the environment. It includes, but it is not limited to, understanding the probability of any negative occurrence caused by external or internal vulnerabilities.

Figure 29. Participant feedback Delphi round 1 (Risk).

49

ANALYSIS Original Definition

Examining the cost or problems of a project requires quantifiable research to identify business needs and solutions.

Participant Feedback

Service Design •

Examining the cost or problems of a project through quantifiable research to identify all stakeholder needs and potential solutions.

•

I would not agree, as my concept of analysis is more aligned with research, which can b both quantitative or qualitative, and surely exploratory.

•

Analysis is the collection, consolidation, and representation of the information gathered in order to answer specific questions.

•

The definition is focused on cost, whereas analysis is a much broader term.

•

Analysis is not only associated to costs or problems: it is a systematic research on a topic, be it a system, a business model, a competitive landscape, etc.

Service Management •

A study of facts and data that calls for a conclusion using knowledge and skills.

•

The definition is too narrow and focuses too much on problems. It is also possible to analyze opportunities. Qualitative research is a good alternative, too.

•

Detained examination of the cost and benefits of a project.

Service Science •

Business needs and solutions require not only a problem solving capability but also competences for implementing a right decision making problem which implies governance ability to read and interpret the context.

•

Analysis is related to breaking down a problem/phenomenon to understand how each part influences the behavior or construction of the problem/phenomenon.

•

Analysis is not necessarily about a project... Analysis does not necessarily require quantifiable research... Analysis is not necessarily related to business needs and solutions.

Service Innovation •

Positive perspective and qualitative research are missing.

•

Examining the cost or problems of a project requires quantifiable research to identify all stakeholders’ needs and solutions.

Revised Definition

Analysis is the breaking down of a phenomenon in order to understand how each part influences a whole and results in the collection, consolidation, and representation of the information gathered in order to answer specific questions.

Figure 30. Participant feedback Delphi round 1 (Analysis).

50

Delphi round 2 feedback Responses from round two are compiled to show the new definition created from round one feedback, feedback received from participants representing each discipline to the new term definitions, and if consensus was reached for the term and definition.

51

MODEL Cocreated Definition

A referable structure to guide ways of thinking within a knowledge domain.

Participant Feedback

Service Design •

A structured representation of aspects of a knowledge domain. ALTERNATIVELY. A structured abstract representation of something. “Referable” does not add anything to the definition, and “ways of thinking” ignores the essential attribute of a model, which is an abstract representation of the real world or a knowledge domain.

•

I prefer the original - it’s more elastic. (A representation of a system using general tools and concepts.)

Service Management •

A referable structure for guiding ways of thinking or design within a domain.

Consensus Percentage

50%

Updated definition to come in ISSIP-driven round 3 Figure 31. Participant feedback Delphi round 2 (Model).

52

PROCESS Cocreated Definition

A repeatable order of interrelated actions and activities aimed towards achieving a goal or outcome.

Participant Feedback

Service Design •

This definition makes process feel very linear, again - I prefer the original definition.

Service Management •

Overly generic.

Service Science •

A set of interrelated actions and activites performend to achieve a pre-specified product, result, or service. Each process is characterized by its inputs, the tools and techniques that can be applied, and the resulting outputs.

Consensus Percentage

50% Updated definition to come in ISSIP-driven round 3 Figure 32. Participant feedback Delphi round 2 (Process).

53

DEVELOP Cocreated Definition

The practice and activities associated with creating a resource integration plan towards attaining the implementation of a product (goods and/or service) or to bring it to a more advanced or effective state.

Participant Feedback

Service Design •

The practice and activities associated with implementing a product (goods and/or service) or bringing the product to a more advanced state. The “resource implementation plan” is a possible tool, but not really a necessary part of developing something.

Service Management •

This specifies an precise order, the order is not always the same.

•

Advancement should be highlighted - not ‘OR’ but ‘AND’. The target should be defined in broader terms - not only as a product.

Service Science •

I see no sense in defining such a general verb. It is hard to see for me that “develop” should have some special meaning in the Service Innovation world. If you consider different situations such as “Develop an idea”, “develop a new service”, “Develop a concept, “develop a model”, then I have difficulties to adopt the given definition, and, more importantly, to get any benefit from using such a definition. I do not see how the given definition might help anyone. I suggest to exclude this term from the list.

Consensus Percentage

33.33% Updated definition to come in ISSIP-driven round 3 Figure 33. Participant feedback Delphi round 2 (Develop).

54

TOOLSET Cocreated Definition

A collection of explicit knowledge, practices, technologies and instruments used to facilitate processes.

Consensus Percentage

100%

Updated definition to come in ISSIP-driven round 3 Figure 34. Participant feedback Delphi round 2 (Toolset).

55

CONTROL Cocreated Definition

Control also refers to guiding a process so that it operates within its prescribed bounds. It ensures all requests and changes will be executed resulting in an end to end superior customer experience.

Participant Feedback

Service Design •

What is the “also” referring to? Why not keep it simple. Control is the guidance of a process so that it operates within its prescribed bounds.

Service Management •

Control is a broader term - not targeted to customer experience. The first sentence is enough.

Service Science •

a formal comment: I stumble over the word “also” in the defintion. Apart of this: For me, this definition could make sense, but only in some specific contexts (e.g. control a service process). I can imagine many contexts in Service Innovation where this definition makes no sense. E.g. Control a service innovation process.

Consensus Percentage

50% Updated definition to come in ISSIP-driven round 3 Figure 35. Participant feedback Delphi round 2 (Control).

56

REQUIREMENT Cocreated Definition

A part of the specification of what is known to be needed in order to establish essential criteria within a deliverable.

Participant Feedback

Service Management •

Deliverable is a strange concept in this context ...’to complete a task’ is better

Consensus Percentage

83.33% Updated definition to come in ISSIP-driven round 3 Figure 36. Participant feedback Delphi round 2 (Requirement).

57

COST Cocreated Definition

The expenditure of all forms of capital used to achieve a task or goal.

Participant Feedback

Service Design •

The restriction to monetary dimension is much too narrow. The cost of a service is the consumption of own resources which include time, attention, effort, and so on.

Consensus Percentage

83.33% Updated definition to come in ISSIP-driven round 3 Figure 37. Participant feedback Delphi round 2 (Cost).

58

STACKHOLDER Cocreated Definition

Entities with a legitimate interest in a specific outcome, and that can influence the creation of value of a particular system.

Consensus Percentage

100%

Updated definition to come in ISSIP-driven round 3 Figure 38. Participant feedback Delphi round 2 (Stakeholder).

59

RISK Cocreated Definition

Risk is related to understanding the certainty/uncertainty of outcomes that may impact a wider set of stakeholders and the environment. It includes, but it is not limited to, understanding the probability of any negative occurrence caused by external or internal vulnerabilities.

Participant Feedback

Service Science •

Risk is the possibility of a negative outcome.

Consensus Percentage

83.33% Updated definition to come in ISSIP-driven round 3 Figure 39. Participant feedback Delphi round 2 (Risk).

60

ANALYSIS Cocreated Definition

Analysis is the breaking down of a phenomenon in order to understand how each part influences a whole and results in the collection, consolidation, and representation of the information gathered in order to answer specific questions.

Consensus Percentage

100%

Updated definition to come in ISSIP-driven round 3 Figure 40. Participant feedback Delphi round 2 (Analysis).

61

62

Authors

Aaron Pompei

Isaac Hsu

Lucinda Lu

MFA Candidate SCAD Service Design

MFA Candidate SCAD Service Design

MFA Candidate SCAD Service Design

apompe20@student.scad.edu

weihsu23@student.scad.edu

yuanlu20@student.scad.edu

Jose Bertero

Zach Nilsson

BA Candidate SCAD Service Design

MA Candidate SCAD Design Management

jbert20@student.scad.edu

znilss20@student.scad.edu

About SCAD Service Design Service designers are changing the world, bringing innovation and a human-centered approach to health fer both B.F.A. and take advantage of small classes with faculty who are also practicing professionals, opportunities to work with leading organizations and collaboration with creative peers — then create the design solutions of tomorrow.

scad.edu/academics/programs/service-design

Savannah

Atlanta

Hong Kong

Lacoste

eLearning