Service Science Learning: Exploring the Challenge of Cross Disciplinary and Academia–Company Collaboration
Several authors have claimed that there is an increasing demand for multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary work in service science, management and innovation. Especially in the service area there is a need to break down the barriers between disciplines. At the same time here is evidence that joint multidisciplinary work by authors in academic journals is only increasing marginally. Another weakness is the lack of real academia–company interaction. Service sector companies have accumulated significant experiential knowledge base and tacit insight from their engagements with many real life applications and successes, but these have often not been studied by academicians for abstraction and understanding of principles. This calls for more study as well. As academia cannot bridge the gap alone with their traditional curricula, there is a most important role for new learning approaches incorporating cross disciplinary and academia–company learning at the group level. In this case, bringing the group approach to learning means contributions from a wide area of disciplines and participation from academia as well as from companies. Problem based learning (PBL) seems to be an approach that provides the necessary structure for systematic goal oriented collaboration while encouraging new paradigms to emerge.
KeywordsService science Service systems Inter-disciplinary research Multi-disciplinary teaching Problem based learning (PBL) Service innovation
- Annabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context, Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
- Cambridge White Paper. (2008). Succeeding through service innovation, University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing. (www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/ssme/documents/080428ssi_us_letter.pdf accessed on 12/09/2009).
- Christopherson, E., Coupe, P. S., Lenschow, R. J. and Townson, J. (1994). Evaluation of civil and construction engineering education in Denmark, Centre for Quality Assurance and Evaluation of Higher Education in Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
- Dym, C. L. and Little, L. (2003). Engineering design: A project-based-introduction, 2nd edition, John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
- Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point, Little Brown, NY.Google Scholar
- Godin, S. (2001). Unleashing the idea virus, Hyperion, NY.Google Scholar
- Grinter, L. E. (1956). Report on the evaluation of engineering education, Engineering Education, 46, pp 25–63.Google Scholar
- Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B. (2003). A new approach to innovative design, Proceedings International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
- Johansson, F. (2006). The medici effect, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar
- Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Prentice-Hall, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
- Spohrer, J. and Kwan, S. K. (2008). Service Science, Management, Engineering and Design (SSMED); Outline & References (http://www.col.sjsu.edu/ssme/ssmed.pdf accessed on 12/10/2009).
- Svobodovas, L. (2008). The challenge of SSME (www.informatics-europe.org/ECSS08/Papers/svobodova.pdf accessed on 12/10/2009).
- Verganti, R. (2006). Innovation trough design, Harvard Business Review, 84 (12), pp 114–122.Google Scholar
- Wilkerson, L. and Gijselaers, W. H. (Eds.) (1996). Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice. New directions in teaching and learning, Jossey-Bass quarterly sourcebooks, number 68. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.Google Scholar