Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the intertwining of productivity, quality and innovation in the service domain and, based on that discussion, propose and examine the implications of a service productivity framework that incorporates not only the company's perspective (as is done traditionally) but also the customer's perspective and a typology for classifying service innovations on the basis of their potential impact on productivity from the company's and the customer's perspectives.

The service productivity framework and service innovation typology are developed by synthesizing – and extending – concepts and insights from the relevant literature pertaining to productivity, quality and innovation.

Analysis and discussion of the proposed frameworks lead to the overarching conclusion that strategies to improve service productivity, enhance service quality or implement service innovations, are likely to be suboptimal if pursued in isolation. As such, it is important for companies to consider the inter‐linkages among service productivity, quality and innovation when formulating and implementing strategies pertaining to any of them.

The integration of conventional productivity concepts with key insights from the rich literature on service quality is novel. The resulting expanded service productivity framework and service innovation typology have important managerial implications and also offer several potentially fruitful avenues for further research.

It is surprising that little empirical research has been conducted in the area of service productivity given its impact on organisational costs. In order to try to encourage such research, this paper provides a structure for analysing productivity in service organisations by distinguishing between operational and customer productivity. The paper also clarifies the meaning of “productivity” and differentiates it from efficiency and utilisation. The authors identify some of the problems in measuring productivity, especially in a service setting, and then use a few examples to illustrate the sometimes counterintuitive relationship between operational and customer productivity.

Firmly press the “hold” button on those predictions that the post‐industrial society is nigh. Given current trends, another scenario can be developed for the future, an alternative that might well be termed the self‐service society.

The purpose of this article is to elucidate the concept and measurement of productivity in the service sector. The concept of service productivity is divided into quantity and quality dimensions, and further into output and input elements. Moreover, the issue of measurement is analysed to show the problems related to the elaborated concept of productivity. The content and measurement of the dimensions of service productivity are illustrated through a case study focusing on the second largest insurance group in Finland. The various elements of quantity and quality dimensions were distinguished in the target firm, but especially the quality elements seem to require more serious attention in the future. The article ends with a plea for more interdisciplinary research between scholars on service productivity.

In today’s global marketplace, the mantra of many service firms is enhanced efficiency and productivity. To increase their bottom line, firms must also expand revenue. They thus face the challenge of ways to increase revenue through customer satisfaction while also achieving productivity gains. The current study aims to offer insight into the role of various resources that encourage frontline employees (FLEs) to become engaged in the pursuit of achieving organisational goals, ultimately enhancing service productivity and customer satisfaction.

A total of 252 customer-FLE dyadic data were collected at a medium-sized retail bank in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

Results show that personal (self-efficacy) and organisational resources impact FLE productivity directly and indirectly through employee engagement. Importantly, service productivity is then positively associated with customer satisfaction.

Extending previous investigations based on the job demands-resources model and theories of self-efficacy and conservation of resources, this study’s findings empirically support anecdotal accounts of the positive productivity–customer satisfaction relationship.

The results also highlight the importance of the management of human and organisational resources to attain this two-pronged goal.

Using dyadic data (customers and FLEs) collected at a medium-sized retail bank, the authors refute the trade-off effect between attaining employee productivity and customer satisfaction in the service industry. This paper further fills research need to study how various resources available to FLEs can achieve desirable organisational outcomes in service firms – the improvement of both service productivity and customer satisfaction.

The purpose of this paper is to measure service productivity using the Service Enterprise Productivity in Action (SEPIA) model. The research operationalises only one of the five stakeholder groups, the customer interface which incorporates service complexity (SC), customer interactions, customer channel, customer loyalty (CL) (new) as inputs, and CL (referred and repeat) and willingness to pay as output measures.

The research extends our understanding of existing service productivity models with the development of the SEPIA model. Data were collected from 14 organisations operating in the Australian travel and tourism industry, which was analysed using a data envelopment analysis input oriented variable return to scale method as applied to the SEPIA model customer interface.

Four key findings from the research include: customer choice and their ability to pay is a determinant of service productivity; service productivity is a two stage process when measured; SC is not categorical; and quality business systems do impact service productivity.

A limitation of this research is that only one (customer) of the five key stakeholders, customer, employee, manager, supplier and shareholder, was operationalised in this research paper.

The operationalisation of the SEPIA customer interface using transactional data and measuring non-financial, intangible factors of productivity provide managers with insights on what services to offer, when to invest in or promote the use of technology and whether to spend marketing effort on customer acquisition or customer retention.

The SEPIA model positions service firms within a social and service value network and provides a range of customer measures that extend the current capital (K), labour (L), energy (E), materials (M) and service (S), KLEMS measure of productivity and can be used to show the impact customers have on service productivity.

The purpose of this article is to draw the reader’s attention to service productivity and its connection to service quality and eventually to profits. In service operations the customer plays an active role in influencing productivity and quality. Furthermore, contemporary companies are networks, not delimited hierarchies, and the productivity and quality issues affect all members of a network, not just the provider and the customer. This is clear from the new developments in relationship marketing and imaginary (virtual) organizations. In order to assess the financial outcome, the concept of return on relationships is introduced based on the notions of intellectual capital and the balanced scorecard. The article ends with challenging questions as well as recommendations for practising managers.

Notes that the nature of the service process makes the measurement of productivity and quality more difficult. In this paper a methodology to delineate relevant indicators of productivity and quality for services is developed. For both types of indicators, process analysis is a starting point. Insights from activity‐based management are introduced to work out productivity indicators. An approach based on quality function deployment is used to delineate relevant quality indicators. Both approaches are illustrated with case study material. During the process of developing these indicators, it became clear that realizing quality and productivity simultaneously within the service delivery process might imply a trade‐off. Implications and further extensions of this dynamic relationship are discussed within a larger service strategy framework.

Service productivity continues to receive ever‐greater amounts of attention as service covers a greater portion of the economy. As competition increases, service productivity becomes increasingly important. This study aims to explore the applicability of lean principles in a service context and to conceptualize how these principles impact service productivity.

This paper presents a conceptual analysis of the six most commonly used lean principles in manufacturing and their applicability to a service context for different types of services. Using this analysis, six propositions are developed to examine the influence of lean on service productivity.

This study suggests promising synergies, as well as important obstacles, for applying lean principles in services. Standardizing services and increasing reliability in service processes through lean principles can increase efficiency. However, the customer's active role in certain services and, simultaneously, high diversity make the application of lean principles increasingly difficult. Also, customer satisfaction must be considered when improving service productivity, otherwise the positive long‐term effects of a lean approach in service will be absent.

These findings are useful for organizations aiming to improve their service productivity. Particularly, lean principles are invaluable to increase efficiency and customer satisfaction for services with low diversity and low customer participation. This paper suggests a direction for the proper use of lean principles for different service types, and how efficiency and customer satisfaction are affected through a lean approach.

This study contributes to the research on service productivity and continues the discussion on prototypic characteristics of service and manufacturing orientations.