Service Science Learning: Exploring the Challenge of Cross Disciplinary and Academia–Company Collaboration

  • Jos G. A. M. Lemmink
  • Jayanta Chatterjee
Part of the Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy book series (SSRI)


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.


Service science Service systems Inter-disciplinary research Multi-disciplinary teaching Problem based learning (PBL) Service innovation 


  1. Agarwal, R. and Selen, W. (2009). Dynamic capability building in service value networks for service innovation, Decision sciences, 40 (3), 431–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context, Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
  3. Beckman, S. L. and Berry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process, California Management Review, 50 (1), 25–56, Fall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cambridge White Paper. (2008). Succeeding through service innovation, University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing. ( accessed on 12/09/2009).
  5. 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
  6. Dutson, A. J., Todd, R. H., Magleby, S. P. and Sorensen, C. D. (1997). A review of literature on teaching design through project oriented capstone courses, Journal of Engineering Education, 76 (1), pp 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dym, C. L. and Little, L. (2003). Engineering design: A project-based-introduction, 2nd edition, John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Eris, O. (2004). Effective inquiry for innovative engineering design, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point, Little Brown, NY.Google Scholar
  10. Godin, S. (2001). Unleashing the idea virus, Hyperion, NY.Google Scholar
  11. Grinter, L. E. (1956). Report on the evaluation of engineering education, Engineering Education, 46, pp 25–63.Google Scholar
  12. Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B. (2003). A new approach to innovative design, Proceedings International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  13. Holman, D., Pavlica, K. and Thorpe, R. (1997). Rethinking Kolb’s theory of experiential learning in management education, Management Learning, 28 (2), pp 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johansson, F. (2006). The medici effect, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  15. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Prentice-Hall, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Kolb, A. Y. and Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential learning in higher education, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4 (2), pp 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liedtka, J. (2000). Strategic planning as a contributor to strategic change: A generative model, European Management Journal, 18 (2), pp 195–206, April.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lemmink, J. (2005). The need for more multidisciplinary research, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16 (1), pp 7–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pinhanez, C. (2009). Services as customer-intensive systems, Design Issues, MIT, 25 (2), pp 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reynolds, M. and Vince, R. (2004). Critical management education and action based learning, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3 (4), pp 442–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Spohrer, J. and Kwan, S. K. (2008). Service Science, Management, Engineering and Design (SSMED); Outline & References ( accessed on 12/10/2009).
  22. Svobodovas, L. (2008). The challenge of SSME ( accessed on 12/10/2009).
  23. Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing, Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), pp 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Verganti, R. (2006). Innovation trough design, Harvard Business Review, 84 (12), pp 114–122.Google Scholar
  25. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science and Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jos G. A. M. Lemmink
    • 1
  • Jayanta Chatterjee
  1. 1.School of Business and EconomicsMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations