Structuring front office and back office work in service delivery systems: An empirical study of three design decisions

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this paper is to investigate how the distinction between contact and non‐contact activities influences the design of service delivery systems and to identify key design decisions for structuring front office and back office work.

Design/methodology/approach

Building on current literature, the paper identifies three design decisions and associated performance trade‐offs. The design decisions regard the degree of customer contact in the process, the decoupling of activities and the grouping of employees. The design decisions and the trade‐offs are empirically validated in five case studies of 15 service delivery systems in the financial services sector.

Findings

Distinguishing between the three design decisions is more suitable for describing today's practices than traditional front office – back office thinking. For each design decision a trade‐off was observed consisting of several design considerations. However, the trade‐offs do not involve the weighing of one set of performance objectives against another, as the design choices contribute to the same objectives, yet in different ways.

Research limitations/implications

This study concentrated on a limited number of cases in the financial services sector. The contents of the trade‐offs should be tested on a larger scale and in different industries. In order to develop design guidelines, future research should also examine the impact of contingency factors, such as the service being delivered and strategic priorities.

Originality/value

The three design decisions and the trade‐offs improve understanding of the impact of customer contact on a service organisation and provide support for designing service delivery systems in practice.

Citation

Zomerdijk, L.G. and de Vries, J. (2007), "Structuring front office and back office work in service delivery systems: An empirical study of three design decisions", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 108-131. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570710714565