Embedding the New Discipline of Service Science

  • Irene Ng
  • Roger Maull
  • Laura Smith
Part of the Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy book series (SSRI)


This chapter presents a conceptual discourse for embedding the new discipline of service science. It argues for service science to be free of paradigmatic research influences of existing disciplines, proposing service science as an integrative discipline of engineering, technological and, social sciences for the purpose of value cocreation with customers. The chapter argues that thinking of a service organisation from a systems perspective will complement the traditional reductionist position and that together they will provide a sound foundation for the discipline of service science. The chapter then goes on to put forward a research agenda for service science, considering five salient issues for knowledge production. The argument for service science knowledge production is located alongside disciplinary knowledge of service, in so doing, suggesting that service science is not a logical development within any discipline and that the time is right for it to emerge into a discipline of its own.


Service science Systems theory Complex service systems Viable systems model Value-in-use Value co-creation 


  1. Akkermans, H. and Vos B. (2003). “Amplification in service supply chains: An exploratory case study from the telecom industry,” Production & Operations Management, 12 (2), 204–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M. and Skoldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. C. (1972). “How to construct achievement tests to assess comprehension,” Review of Educational Research, 42 (2), 145–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beer, S. (1984). “The viable system model: Its provenance, development, methodology and pathology,” The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 35 (1), 7–25.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, L. L. and Parasuraman, A. (1993). “Building a new academic field – The case of services marketing,” Journal of Retailing, 69 (1), 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertalanffy, L. V. (1972). “The history and status of general systems theory,” The Academy of Management Journal, 15 (4), 407–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bower, J. L. and Christensen, C. M. (1995). “Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave,” Harvard Business Review, 73 (1), 43–53.Google Scholar
  8. Breen, B. and Hamel, G. (2007). The Future Of Management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, S. (1993). “Postmodernism … The End of Marketing?,” in Rethinking Marketing, D. Brownlie et al, Ed. Coventry: Warwick Business School Research Bureau.Google Scholar
  10. Buckley, W. (1980). Systems. In: M. Lockett and R. Spear (eds.) Organisations as Systems. Milton Keynes: OU Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chase, R. B. and Apte, U. M. (2007). “A history of research in service operations: What’s the big idea?,” Journal of Operations Management, 25 (2), 375–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chase, R. B. and Tansik, D. A. (1983). “The customer contact model for organisation design,” Management Science, 29 (9), 1037–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  14. Chesbrough, H. and Spohrer, J. (2006). “A research manifesto for service science,” Communications of the ACM, 49 (7), 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, E. G. D. (2005). “Boltzmann and Einstein: Statistics and dynamics – An unsolved problem,” Pramana, 64 (5), 635–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis, M. M. and Berdow, I. (2008). “Service science: Catalyst for change in business school curricula,” IBM Systems Journal, 47 (1), 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Demirkan, H. and Goul, M. (2006). “Service oriented technology management to improve organizational agility,” International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 6(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  19. Emery, F. E. and Trist, E. L. (1960). “Socio-Technical Systems,” in Management Sciences, Models and Technique, C.W. Churchman et al, Ed. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  20. Epstein, J. M. (1999). “Agent-based computational models and generative social science,” Complexity, 4, 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisk, R. P., Brown, S. W. and Bitner, M. J. (1993). “Tracking the evolution of services marketing literature,” Journal of Retailing, 69 (1), 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forrester, J. W. (2003). “Dynamic models of economic systems and industrial organizations (archive paper from 1956),” System Dynamics Review, 19 (4), 331–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibbons, M. , Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow. M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies.. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Goldratt, E. M. (1994). Theory of Constraints. Aldershot, Hampshire: Gower Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Grönroos, C. (2001). “The perceived service quality concept – A mistake,” Managing Service Quality, 11 (3), 150–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gronroos, C. and Gummesson, E. (1985). Services Marketing: Nordic School Perspectives. Stockholm: University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
  27. Henle, P. (1942). “The status of emergence,” Journal of Philosophy, 39: 486–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. IfM and IBM. (2008). Succeeding Through Service Innovation: A Service Perspective for Education, Research, Business and Government. Cambridge, United Kingdom: University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, B. C., Manyika, J. M. and Yee, L. A. (2005). “The next revolution in interactions,” McKinsey Quarterly, (4), 20–33.Google Scholar
  30. Kast, F. E. and Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). “General systems theory: Applications for organization and management,” Academy of Management Journal, 15 (4), 447–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klüver, J. (2000). The Dynamics and Evolution of Social Systems: New Foundations of a Mathematical Sociology. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Latour, B. and Biezunski, M. (1988). Science in Action. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lipsey, R. G. and Lancaster, K. (1956). “The general theory of second best,” The Review of Economic Studies, 24 (1), 11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu, C., Wang, C. and Lee, Y. (2008). “Revisit service classification to construct a customer-oriented integrative service model,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19 (5), 639–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maglio, P. P., Srinivasan S., Kreulen, J. T. and Spohrer, J. (2006). “Service systems, service scientists, SSME, and innovation,” Communications of the ACM, 49 (7), 81–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller, J. H. and Page, S. E. (2007). Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mills, P. K. and Moberg, D. J. (1982). “Perspectives on the technology of service operations,” Academy of Management Review, 7 (3), 467–78.Google Scholar
  38. Ng, I. C. L. and Yip, N. (2009a). “B2B performance-based contracts in services: the attributes of value co-creation,” in 11th Quality in Services Symposium (QUIS 11). Wolfsburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  39. Ng, I. C. L. and Yip, N. (2009b). “Identifying risk and its impact on contracting through a benefit based-model framework in business to business contracting: case of the defence industry,” in CIRP Design Conference, Cranfield.Google Scholar
  40. Ng, I. C. L., Guo, L., Scott, J. and Yip, N. K. T. (2008). “Towards a benefit-based framework for understanding business to business services and its impact on contract and capability” in 10th International Research Seminar in Services Management: Marketing, Strategy, Economics, Operations & Human Resources: Insights into Service Activities La Londe, France.Google Scholar
  41. Ng, I. C. L., Nudurupati, S. S. and Tasker, P. (2009). “Value co-creation in the delivery of outcome-based contracts for business-to-business service”, Advanced Institute of Management (AIM) Research Discussion Paper Series Google Scholar
  42. Ng, I. C. L., Williams, J. and Neely, A. (2009). “Outcome-based contracting: changing the boundaries of B2B customer relationships”, Advanced Institute of Management (AIM) Research Executive Briefing Series, October 2009,, ISBN 978-1-906087-22-7
  43. Nilsson, J. (2001). “The future of research: What is the role of the university?,” in Report of the Faculty of Medicine conference. Trolleholm: Lund University: Available:
  44. Normann, R. and Ramarez, R. (1993). “From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy,” Harvard Business Review, 71 (4), 65–77.Google Scholar
  45. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2003). “Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge,” Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy, 41 (3), 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Papazoglou, M. and Heuvel, W. v. d. (2007). “Service oriented architectures: approaches, technologies and research issues,” The VLDB Journal The International Journal on Very Large Data Bases, 16 (3), 389–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Payne, A., Kaj, S.and Pennie, F. (2008). “Managing the co-creation of value,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective Knowledge; an Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  49. Prahalad, C. K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2000). “Co-opting customer competence,” Harvard Business Review, 78 (1), 79–87.Google Scholar
  50. Prahalad, C. K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2003). “The new frontier of experience innovation,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 44 (4), 12–8.Google Scholar
  51. Ramirez, R. (1999). “Value co-production: Intellectual origins and implications for practice and research,” Strategic Management Journal, 20 (1), 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schroeder, R. G. (2008). “Introduction to the special issue on theory development in operations management,” POMS, 17(3): 354–56.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. Spohrer, J. (2009). “Welcome to our declaration of interdependence,” Service Science, IBM.Google Scholar
  54. Spohrer, J. and Maglio, P. (2005). Emergence of Service Science: Services Sciences, Management, Engineering (SSME) as the Next Frontier in Innovation. San Jose, CA: IBM Almaden Research Center.Google Scholar
  55. Spohrer, J. and Maglio, P. P. (2009). Service science: Toward a smarter planet. In W. Karwowski & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Service engineering, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. Spohrer, J. and Maglio, P. P. (2008). “The emergence of service science: Toward systematic service innovations to accelerate co-creation of value,” Production & Operations Management, 17 (3), 238–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spohrer, J., Maglio, P. P., Bailey, J., and Gruhl, D. (2007). “Steps toward a science of service systems,” IEEE Computer Society, 40, 71–7, (January).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sprague, L. G. (2007). “Evolution of the field of operations management,” Journal of Operations Management, 25 (2), 219–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tiebout, C. M. (1956). “A pure theory of local expenditures,” The Journal of Political Economy, 64 (5), 416–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weinberg, G. (1975). An Introduction to General Systems Thinking. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F. (2004). “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F. (2008). “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Weaver, W. (1948). “Science and complexity,” American Scientist, 36: 536Google Scholar
  64. Wolfram, S. (2002). A New Kind of Science. Champaign, Illinois: Wolfram Media Inc.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  65. Wild, P. J., Clarkson, P. J. and McFarlane, D. C. (2009). “A Framework for Cross Disciplinary Efforts in Services Research,” CIRP Design Conference, Cranfield, UK, March.Google Scholar
  66. Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means? Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J. and Gremler, D. D. (2006). Services Marketing. Singapore: McGraw Hill: International Edition.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science and Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irene Ng
  • Roger Maull
  • Laura Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations