Talk:Service system/Archive 1

Service system, and the relevance in an evolving economy
In reading the preamble (which is much too long), the definition, and the history on this page, I wonder if a different approach should be taken, according to the types of readers who are likely to encounter this entry.

In the preamble, asserting that "service system" is equivalent to "customer service system" is overly broad. Public institutions provide service, and are organized as service systems, but the description of "citizen" would be more appropriate than "customer".

Under the definition, the second paragraph of "one recent definition" should probably have a direct reference that could be validated and/or discussed.

Under history, the practical use of the term "service system" -- I would think -- has to be way before 1962, because both services and systems are concepts that predate even the industrial age. (Is the church a service system?) In saying this, I recognize that a lot of the post-industrial interest in service systems is the result of structural changes in the economy and in work i.e. the introduction of information technologies, and new forms of collaboration).

I have rather strong opinions on "services", "systems", "service systems" and the "science of service systems" where I try to make the ideas clear to myself ... and these may or may not be helpful to the layman who comes to Wikipedia. I've tried to disentangle "science of service systems, service sector, service economy" for myself, but see myself in the post-industrial frame. Daviding (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi David, I agree about your assessment and as a first step I wikified and added some more sections. Now I recently wrote a new article on the Dutch Wikipedia about the service industy, but I don't know much about (the theory of) service systems. I do know explaining this concept to "the layman who come here" is more difficult then it looks. With this renewed structure it would make it easier, I hope. I am sorry I can't get into this much more right now, due to a lot of (copyright) corrections I have to make in a lot of my earlier work. -- Mdd (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Service system, definition
Would it be practical to cite the definition of service system from the Cambridge SSME Symposium (2007, published 2008)? "A service system can be defined as a dynamic configuration of resources (people, technology, organisations and shared information) that creates and delivers value between the provider and the customer through service. In many cases, a service system is a complex system in that configurations of resources interact in a non-linear way. Primary interactions take place at the interface between the provider and the customer. However, with the advent of ICT, customer-to-customer and supplier-to-supplier interactions have also become prevalent. These complex interactions create a system whose behaviour is difficult to explain and predict." I think that definition is helpful, and doesn't do much damage to the core idea of a system.Daviding (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted section removed
In this revision I removed text from this source, as it didn't seem to be in line with being "brief" enough to justify non-free usage according to NFC. If including it anew, it should be reformulated to avoid copyright infringement. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Value-coproduction system
I converted Value-coproduction system to a redirect to here, rather than a small entry about how someone described it. If reinserted, I think it should state how "unbundling and rebundling of value-creating systems" works, rather than stating the fact that someone used the term. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)