1. Dr Moira Scerri
20 January 2016

2. • Doctorate
• Defining new measure of productivity for service and
network based firms
• Measures at individual, organisation, network and
economy levels
• Industry experience
• Over 30 years in service design,
service operations management
• Range of industries
• Travel and tourism
• Information technology
• Payments
• Education (Business and service delivery)
A bit about me

3. Today’s program
1. Why are models important?
2. Service productivity models
1. Service Process Matrix (Schmenner 1986, 2004)
2. Service Cubicle (Agarwal & Selen 2005)
3. Service Productivity Model (Gronroos & Ojasalo 2004)
3. Limitations of existing models
4. Service Enterprise Productivity in Action (SEPIA)
model
• Development
• Operationalisation
5. Future research

4. 1. Why are models important?

5. • There is sometimes a radical and revolutionary
change in the image when knowledge “hits some sort
of nucleus or supporting structure…and the whole
thing changes in quite a radical way” (Boulding 1956, p. 8)
• The use of models assists with understanding the
world and helps predict how things may behave in the
future (Simon 1957)
• Enable people to communicate and work collectively
and collaboratively on a problem
Models are important

6. 2. Service productivity models

7. 2. Service productivity models
1. Service productivity models
• Service Process Matrix (Schmenner 1986, 2004)
• Service Cubicle (Agarwal & Selen 2005)
• Service Productivity Model (Gronroos & Ojasalo 2004)

8. Service Process Matrix (Schmenner 1986;2004)
Service Process Matrix - Schmenner (1986)
• Overlay of service concepts onto Product Process Matrix
Service Matrix – Schmenner (2004)
• Changed dimensions on the matrix
• Introduced the Theory of Swift Even Flow (the faster material or information flows
through a system increases in productivity) – inclusion of the productivity diagonal
Weakness
• Invalid assumptions – service organisations have multiple modes of operating
• Unable to accurately plot each of the organisations on the matrix

9. Service Cubicle (Agarwal & Selen 2005)
Key contribution Service Cubicle - Agarwal & Selen (2005)
Inclusion of technology (innovation) as an enabler and positioning of the firm within the service
value network providing causality to the increase in service productivity
Weakness
Adopts the same weaknesses as Schmenner’s Service Process Matrix

10. Service Productivity Model
(Gronroos & Ojasalo 2004)
Key contribution Service Productivity Model – Gronroos & Ojasalo (2004)
Includes customer inputs and technology, and incorporates different operating models
Acknowledges internal and external environments
Weakness
Linear, does not does not address the heterogonous nature of employees,

11. 3. Limitations of existing models

12. Characteristics Service Process
Matrix
Service Cubicle Service
Productivity Model
Objective measures
operationalised
X X X
Multiple operating
environments
X X X
Information
Communication
technology
X P P
Multiple input – output
points
X P X
Network as a unit of
analysis
X X X
Impact of suppliers X X P
What are the limitations?

13. 4. Service Enterprise Productivity in Action
(SEPIA) Model - Development

14. Boulding’s (1956) Nine level system hierarchy
Levels 1-5

15. Boulding’s (1956) Nine level system hierarchy
Levels 6-9

16. Service Enterprise Productivity in Action
(SEPIA) model – Operationalisation

17. • Reconceptualising productivity
• Incorporates five stakeholders
• Includes customer input
• Include bi-directional
exchanges
• Positions productivity in the
social domain
• Convergence of resources
rather than linear flow
SEPIA model

18. • Customer interface
• Service complexity
• Customer interactions
• Customer channel
• Customer loyalty
• Willingness to pay
(proxy for value)
SEPIA model

19. SEPIA model
From literature Addressed by
Definition of service industries includes
multiple perspectives
Includes customers, employees, managers, suppliers and
shareholders
Single direction input – transformation – output
model
All interactions are bi-directional, with each stakeholder
exchanging inputs and outputs
Employees are heterogeneous Recognition of the difference between employees and managers
Firm as the unit of analysis Firms do not make decisions, people do, therefore the
appropriate unit of analysis is the human level
No customer input Customers and customer input are included
Single firm no longer the “productive unit” Firm is positioned within a service value network, with different
network configuration highlighted (NEPIA model)

20. 5. Future research

21. • Incorporate aspects of all stakeholders
• Managers
• Suppliers
• More work on network productivity
• From dyadic networks
• Service triads
• Other network configurations
Future research

22. • Managing Service Productivity
• Chapter 6 Service Enterprise
Productivity In Action (SEPIA)
Reference

23. Questions?
Dr Moira Scerri
SEPIA Consulting
Telephone: +61 (0) 405 064 886
e-mail: moira.scerri@sepiaconsulting.com.au
www.sepiaconsulting.com.au