Evaluation and Assessment of Two Simulation Software for Service Engineering

  • Giuditta PezzottaEmail author
  • Roberto Pinto
  • Fabiana Pirola
  • Sergio Cavalieri
Conference paper


The service industry is recognized as a central element of modern economies. Services represent an important topic both for practitioners and researchers: although they may contribute substantially to a company’s bottom line, they still lack a methodological support and a systematic study for the design phase. To make service provision profitable in the long term, it is of utmost relevance to balance the excellence in the value channel to the customer with a high efficiency and productivity of the service processes. In this respect, simulation can support companies during their service engineering process by providing a support in the identification of the best scenario, as well as a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the company’s decisions. Nonetheless, no specific service-oriented simulation software is available on the market. Therefore, this chapter aims at comparing two simulation software solutions originally oriented to the manufacturing area. Through a real-case example, we discuss a comparative analysis between two widespread commercial simulation software, evaluating which one is the most suitable to be used in the service contexts.


Service engineering Simulation Software comparison 


  1. 1.
    Johnston R, Silvestro R (1990) The determinants of service quality – a customer based approach. In: Proceedings of the 1st international research seminar in service management. Aix en ProvenceGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johns N (1999) What is this thing called service? Eur J Mark 33(9/10):958–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levitt T (1972) Production line approach to service. Harv Bus Rev 50(5):20–30Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berry LL, Parasuraman A (1991) Competing through quality. In marketing services. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bitner MJ (1997) Services marketing: perspectives on service excellence’. J Retail 1(73):3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cook D, Goh C, Chung C (1999) Service typologies: a state of the art survey. Prod Operation Manag 8(3):318–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blois KJ (1974) The marketing of services: an approach. Eur J Mark 8(Summer):137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lovelock CH (1983) Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights. J Mark 47(3)(Summer), 9–20Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berry LL (1980) Service marketing is different. Business, May–June, 24–29Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zeithaml VA, Bitner MJ (1996) Services marketing, McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gronroos C (2000) Services management and marketing: a customer relationship approach, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quinn J, Baruch J, Paquette P (1987) Technology in services. Sci Am 257(6):50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin KJ (2008) The design of an accountability framework for service engineering. In: Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii international conference on system sciencesGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bullinger H, Fahnrich K, Meiren T (2003) Service engineering—methodical development of new service products. Int J Prod Econ 85(3):275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Banks J (1998) Handbook of simulation: principles, methodology, advances, applications, and practice. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bangsow S (2012) Use cases of discrete event simulation appliance and research. Springer-Verlag, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laughery KR, Laughery BR, Lovvoll DR, Mcquilkin ML, Wogalter MS (1998) Effects of warnings on responsibility allocation. Psychol Mark 15:687–706Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duckwitz et al (2011) Simulation oh human behavior in knowledge-intensive services, Institute of industrial engineering and ergonomics. RWTH Aachen University, AachenGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Banks (1998) Handbook of simulation: principles, methodology, advances, applications, and practice. Wiley, New York September 14Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gladwin B, Tumay K (1994) Modelling business processes with simulation tools. In: Tew JD, Manivannan S, Sadowski DA, Seila AF (eds) Winter Simulation Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL, December 11–14. pp. 114–121Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chung AC (2004) Simulation Modeling Handbook: A Practical Approach. Boca Raton, London, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nikoukaran J, Paul RJ (1999) Software selection for simulation in manufacturing: a review. Simul Pract Theory 7(1):1–14Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Olson DL (1996) Decision aids for selection problems. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stewart TJ (1992) A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice. OMEGA 20(5/6):569–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Banks J (1991) Selecting simulation software. In: Proceedings of the 1991 winter simulation conference. Arizona, pp 15–20Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Banks J, Aviles E, McLaughlin JR, Yuan RC (1991) The simulator: new member of the simulation family. Interfaces 21(2):76–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Banks J, Carson JS, Nelson BL (1996) Discrete-event system simulation. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Davis L, Williams G (1994) Evaluation and selecting simulation software using the analytic hierarchy process. Integr Manuf Syst 5(1):23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hlupic V (1997) Simulation software selection using SimSelect. Simulation 69(4):231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nikoukaran J, Paul RJ (1998) Simulation software selection “whys and hows”. Yugosl J of Oper Res 8(1):93–102zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuditta Pezzotta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roberto Pinto
    • 1
  • Fabiana Pirola
    • 1
  • Sergio Cavalieri
    • 1
  1. 1.CELS – Research group on Industrial Engineering, Logistics and Service OperationsUniversità degli Studi di BergamoBergamoItaly

Personalised recommendations