1. AUTHORS: RHIAN SILVESTRO, LIN FIZGERALD,AND ROBERT JOHNSTON UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK, COVENTRY AND CHRISTOPHER VOSS, LONDON BUSINESS SCHOOL, LONDON, UK (1992) PRESENTED BY: IDA ALKHOJA 1 Towards a Classification of Service processes

2. Objective/Aim 2 Objective To look for clusters of features, which may lead to an integrated typology, which can be used as a basis for developing an understanding of management issues in service organizations across industry boundaries. Aim To develop an understanding of a company’s competitive strategies, service processes/tasks and service managers challenges.

3. Previous works (Mainly by production/operations authors) 3  The five generic process types (Sasser et al)(1982) Project: Management consultancy, banqueting Jobbing: Management development program, design & installation of a computer system Batch: computer Bureau Line: preparatory operation in fast food restaurants Continuous process; not used in service operations

4. Authors in the Service Management Field’s response: 4 Six service dimensions that became widely recognized and used in the service operations management literature: Equipment/people focus Length of customer contact time Extent of Customization Extent to which customer contact personnel exercise judgment in meeting individual needs. Source of value added, front office or back office. Product/process focus

5. Review of literature by service management authors: 5 Thomas and Kotler (1975): Thinking away from product oriented terms to characteristics which make services unique. Chase (1978): Classiflying services from high to low contact Maister and Lovelock (1982): On one extreme, customized activities; on the other extreme, standardized activities. Johnston & Morris (1985): degree of product vs. degree of customization.

6. Continued review by service management authors: 6 Hanes(1990) Schmenner and Schostack (1987): Complexity vs. mechanistic or organic. Wemmerlov (1990): Customer contact and degree of “routinization” ranging from fluid to rigid. The results were two-by-two matrices proposed by the various authors.

7. Lessons learned: 7 The review of service classifications is a miscellany of different approaches lacking a cohesive framework. As a result no single classification scheme has proved to be robust. Strengths of the manufacturing process model:  Multidimensional Several different manufacturing process dimensions are unified in a single model against production volume.

8. Unfortunately, 8 In service operations, services are Heterogeneous & Intangible. The measurement of it is less straightforward. PROPOSALS: A more appropriate measure of volume of service: The number of customers processed by an individual service unit per day. This measure to be used to integrate the different service classifications into a single service process model.

9. Application of Service Classifications 9 A research project drawn from 11 in-depth case studies carried out as a part of a research project funded by the Chartered Institute Management Accountants in the UK. Service Classifications Dimensions were redefined. Proposal for a more appropriate measure of volume of service activity (Number of customers processed by an individual service unit per day). To include customer business which may or may not require the presence of the customer. Objective: To find clusters of features, to lead to an integrated typology.

10. Methodology 10 1). Rank by volume of customers processed per day. 2). Rank against the six classification dimensions. Volume measure and customer contact time. 3). For qualitative measures a Delphi approach was adopted.

11. Results 11 The clustering of features and correlation of volume, suggest three service types, 1. Professional 2. Service shop 3. Mass services Together in a multidimensional and cohesive framework. Volume measure can be used to integrate the previously disparate service typologies.

12. Results, continued 12 A pattern emerged along the diagonal. o As the number of customers processed by a typical unit per day increases, the general trend tends to be:  Focus moves from a people to an equipment orientation.  Length of contact time moves from high to low.  Degree of customization moves from high to low.  Level of employee discretion moves from high to low.  Value added moves from front office to back office.  Focus moves from a process to product orientation.

13. New definitions of service archetypes 13 “1.Professional Services: organizations with relatively few transactions, highly customized, process oriented, with relatively long contact time, with most value added in the front office, where considerable judgement is applied in meeting customer needs.“ “2. Service Shops: a categorization which falls between professional and mass services with the levels of the classification dimensions falling between the other extremes.” “3. Mass Services: organizations where there are many customer transactions, involving limited contact time and little customization. The offering is predominantly product-oriented with most value being added in the back office and little judgement applied by the front office staff.”

14. Conclusion 14 Three types of service process, 1. Professional service 2. Service shop 3. Mass service will give rise to different management concerns, and that service strategy, control and performance measurement will differ significantly between the three. Each service type is characterized in terms of six dimensions. The six dimensions correlate with volume of customers, per unit, per day.