The purpose of this chapter is to define a scope of service science and service automation in service economy based on ideal generic service systems originally developed by the author. There are two goals of this study: 1) to develop generic service categories and their generic systems, and 2) to define a scope of service science based upon the presented generic models of service systems, which determine the required support from emerging system science. The research methodology is based on the architectural modeling according the paradigm of enterprise-wide systems (Targowski, 2003). The architectural system approach is based on the philosophy of the system approach (Klir, 1985), and management cybernetics (Beer, 1981) which provide comprehensive and cohesive solutions to the problems of systems design, thus eliminating the fuziveness of the “application portfolio” and the “information archipelago” (McFarlan, 1981; Targowski, 1990). The mission of the architectural system approach is to find the ultimate synthesis of the whole system structure that involves appropriate logic, appropriate technological accommodation, operational quality, a positive user involvement, and co-existence with nature (Targowski, 1990). In its nature, the architectural system approach is of deductive rather than inductive nature. It looks for the ideal model of a solution, which in practice is far away from its perfect level. The difference between the architectural system approach and the engineering approach is in the level of abstraction. The architectural models are more conceptual whereas engineering outcomes are more technical and specific. The architectural system approach is the response to the complexity of expected outcomes. Prior to spending a few million dollars for a new information system, one must provide its information architecture and the business and social implications associated with it (Targowski, 2003). In this sense, this study will define service systems’ architectures.
TopIntroduction
The purpose of this chapter is to define a scope of service science and service automation in service economy based on ideal generic service systems originally developed by the author. There are two goals of this study: 1) to develop generic service categories and their generic systems, and 2) to define a scope of service science based upon the presented generic models of service systems, which determine the required support from emerging system science. The research methodology is based on the architectural modeling according the paradigm of enterprise-wide systems (Targowski, 2003).
The architectural system approach is based on the philosophy of the system approach (Klir, 1985), and management cybernetics (Beer, 1981) which provide comprehensive and cohesive solutions to the problems of systems design, thus eliminating the fuziveness of the “application portfolio” and the “information archipelago” (McFarlan, 1981; Targowski, 1990). The mission of the architectural system approach is to find the ultimate synthesis of the whole system structure that involves appropriate logic, appropriate technological accommodation, operational quality, a positive user involvement, and co-existence with nature (Targowski, 1990). In its nature, the architectural system approach is of deductive rather than inductive nature. It looks for the ideal model of a solution, which in practice is far away from its perfect level. The difference between the architectural system approach and the engineering approach is in the level of abstraction. The architectural models are more conceptual whereas engineering outcomes are more technical and specific. The architectural system approach is the response to the complexity of expected outcomes. Prior to spending a few million dollars for a new information system, one must provide its information architecture and the business and social implications associated with it (Targowski, 2003). In this sense, this study will define service systems’ architectures.
Service economy can refer to one or both of two recent economic developments. First is the increased importance of the Hsector in industrialized economies. Services account for a higher percentage of U.S. GDP than 20 years ago, since modern-day off-shore outsourcing of manufacturing contributes to the growing service sector of the American economy. The 2006 Fortune 500 companies list contains more service companies and fewer manufacturers than in previous decades. The service sector is classified as the tertiary sector of industry (also known as the service industry) and is one of the three main industrial categories of a developed economy, the others being the secondary industry (manufacturing, construction), and primary industry (extraction such as mining, agriculture and fishing). Services are defined in conventional literature as “intangible goods” (Drucker, 1969; Rathmell, 1974; Bell, 1976; Shostack, 1977). According to Laroche (2001), it is clear that intangibility has been cited by several authors as the fundamental factor differentiating services from goods (Rust, Zahorik, & Keiningham, 1996; Breivik, Troye, & Olsson, 1998; Lovelock, 2001). All other differences emerge from this distinction (Bateson, 1979; Zeithaml & Bitner, 2000). According to evident practice, service tends to be wealth- consuming, whereas manufacturing is wealth-producing. The tertiary sector of industry involves the provision of services to businesses as well as final consumers and citizens (users of government services). Services may involve the transport, distribution and sale of goods from producer to a consumer as may happen in wholesaling and retailing, or may involve the provision of a service such as in pest control or entertainment. Goods may be transformed in the process of providing a service, as happens in the restaurant industry. However, the focus is on people interacting with people and serving the customer rather than transforming physical goods.