05.09.09
Posted in Academia, SRII, Service Science at 7:19 am by Doug Morse
Industry, Academia and Government Collaboration…
Does Industry, Academia and Government Collaboration sound like a good idea, especially as it relates to service? It does to me! I can now say that I have seen it in action and working. Check out the center for intelligent maintenance systems at: http://www.imscenter.net/ . I was recently invited to attend one of their industry advisory board meetings to see the results of their research activities that have been going on for over 9 years!
The IMS center is a NSF (National Science Foundation ) sponsored research center. It is an I/U CRC type grant. This means industry / university cooperative research center. These centers are formed in partnership with multiple Universities along with the industrial (company ) sponsors. The idea with multiple universities is to help get cross domain research working together to help solve problems posed by the industry partners. Obviously, the third leg of these support systems is the government who helps to pay some of the costs for running the center because they believe the research and results will be important to the interests of the government. Similar “institutes” are formed in other countries.
For me, getting industry to seek help from academia to drive quantitative, science based research with government sponsorship is a win win win! The IMS Center is a very successful example with University of Cincinnati, University of Michigan and Missouri S&T collaborating with name brand companies to work on specific research areas that will benefit the company sponsors individually and collectively. Patents and other IP can be shared and used to create commercial value. It has been a goal of the SRII to foster service research centers globally. The intent is to make the connections with in the SSME community to advance the education and research for the science of service.
What are the key success factors for a collaborative research center? Well, leadership would be one criteria, someone has to get everyone together and ensure that there are a concrete vision and actionable plans. There is also the art of fund raising. NSF or government institutions cover some administrative costs for the Universities heading this up but do not cover much of the academics time, costs or other expenses. To augment funding industry sponsors are asked to contribute and join the center for some fee. In exchange, the companies are entitled to results that the research can bring, including Intellectual Property rights. More important than just money, is the data and opportunity for academics to research real problems with real data. The sponsoring companies cannot be passive. They must commit to active participation.
Even in a down economy, these centers can be very cost effective. The ROI for this kind of research and development can be very high. So, what are you waiting for? I know that industry and academia both have the needs, the resources and the desire to advance the science of service. Investing now will yield long term results that will put you ahead of the competition.
Take a look at the IMS center. If that research works for you, then join. If not, then reach in the SRII community to find research partners. If you are interested in specific areas and need help getting connected then contact me. Don’t waste the opportunity that we have today.
Permalink
05.05.09
Posted in Academia, Service Innovation, Service Science at 12:45 am by Doug Morse
Applying Science to the Art of Business INFORMS 2009
I recently returned from the INFORMS (Institute for Operations Research and Management Science) that was held in Phoenix. Aside from the Edelman awards and the keynote sessions, there were over 15 tracks for people to attend. One of those tracks was specific to “Service Systems”. I was an invited speaker for a session in the Service Systems track.
The good news was that the conference was well attended, had a great mix of both academics and business practitioners. Most of the presentations dealt with applied research which is excellent. There were specific sessions at lunches etc designed to create networking opportunities for practitioners and academics. I applaud the organizers for putting together a well structured event.
Over my career I have had more training and exposure to operations research (OR ) than I care to admit. I am a recovering math geek so I can find a lot of interest in the subject of operations research. However, I am by no means a practitioner of the science. While I do not practice in the OR field I have an interest in how the techniques might be applied to services. Hence my interest in participating and in attending the full conference was to recruit others into the service realm…. (Spooky music goes here).
My observation is that there are not a lot of folks working in the area of OR for complex services, at least outside of consumer. I would like to say that my presentation overwhelmed them and they are all clamoring to help in services, but I was the last presentation on the last day at 4 pm. Not a great time slot as the only people there were local or, due to the fortunes of OR and airline routing systems, were not able to get an earlier flight home. On the other hand many that I did meet over the few days were intrigued by the problems that service has today for which OR could be an area for innovation.
Drs. Vargo and Lusch in their work on Service Dominate Logic defined service(s) as “The application of skills and knowledge (operant resources) for the benefit of another party .” If we take this simple definition and think of knowledge and skills as critical resources that have to be optimized for the best results then OR is a slam dunk. Professional Services firms work hard at optimizing the resources to get maximum billings and maximum profits but I do not know many that have OR departments or resources focused on this from a science perspective. (yes, there are some… )
Let’s just think about two areas where OR work could immediately benefit companies that provide complex services for products in the B to B environment. The first area is KNOWLEDGE management. If knowledge is an asset used to create value today, how is it optimized in terms of gathering, analyzing, forming and dissemination? Re-use of knowledge is a critical factor in driving profit for most service organizations. This may sound simple, but number of attributes involved could bring a supercomputer to its knees trying to solve the optimization and probability routines.
Another simple example, but a complex problem, is one of human resource management in services. People have complex skill attributes but may also be knowledge repositories at the same time. In remote technical support groups, like software support, models for staffing and workload balancing are not meeting the needs of most organizations. We have things like Workforce Management (WFM ) solutions that help predict trends but do not have dynamic models for optimizing. In most of these organizations that have to run 24 by 7, 365 days a year, the models are not that clever. Optimization becomes labor arbitrage. They buy more labor, but at a lower cost off shore. This is not optimization.
Most follow complex rules for a “follow the Sun” model. That is, you move work around the globe to where the work force is awake during “local” business hours. The assumption is that after normal US business hours, the US activity drops off and it picks up in ASIA. If someone in the US needs support outside of normal business hours, the model calls for the work to flow to a place that is working their local business hours. You hope that you have right skills and language support available. Each regional center is optimized for their time zone based on historical run rates. This is never optimal for the global enterprises that we run today. Operations Research could help us build better optimized global staffing models using the techniques and models in their arsenal. This certainly seems to be an area where we in the services community could benefit from good science and new learning’s. I think that the results of doing this right would be a candidate for the Edelman award for those involved.
Kudos for the finalists this year and to HP for winning the Edelman award. Likewise, kudos to the organizers for having service included as a focus area in this year’s conference. Informs has started up a “Service Section” that is quickly developing a following a community with in the service science community. Check it out at INFORMS.ORG.
Where will you go to find good service science ?
Permalink
Posted in Customer Experience, Service Innovation, Service Science at 12:39 am by Doug Morse
Is Strategic Planning dead?
Is it just my imagination or has strategic planning disappeared in the corporate world? Is it a function of the current economy or is it the constant short term focus on quarterly results? It seems like our world is full of instant access, instant on and instant gratification with little view or concern of the world beyond the immediate horizon. A recent discussion with strategy consultants and strategy professionals has not given me any real hope that strategic planning is still alive or well.
I think that part of the issue is that we have lost sight of how plan in dynamic environments. Executives feel that having a 3-5 year plan is not realistic because quarter by quarter challenges create constant changes in direction. However, it is exactly these environments where a plan is needed. Often the term “vision” is substituted for strategy planning. A vision is needed to define success but does not give you concrete steps that will lead you to achieving the vision. As any strategy professional will tell you, you can’t achieve success without having a way to measure success. Executive dashboards, balanced scorecards or just operational reviews are some of the basics used to track the business.
A longer term strategic plan needs to be flexible and adaptable. It cannot be so flexible as to be nebulous but it must be able to anticipate and handle change without losing sight of the long term intent. Think of this in terms of driving somewhere. We have a plan to drive from point A to point B that should take x amount of time. We plan the steps; leave point A with a few extra minutes (contingency planning) in the planned travel time. It should only take 30 minutes but you allow 45. On your way to point B you are measuring your mileage against the time to check that you are either on plan or off plan. Suddenly, you encounter an unexpected road closure and you need to detour. Given that you have a planned time of arrival, you know the distance remaining etc, you can make decisions as to the best reaction to the situation to ensure that you arrive at point B on time. Alternatively, you might have checked road conditions before you left point A, you might had extra maps or a GPS unit capable of detour routing While the maps or GPS units might direct you anywhere, knowing that you have to be at point B at a certain time focuses the options to the few that will help you reach the intended goal.
The point of the overly simplistic example is that strategic planning means that you have to have a clear destination or goal, a clear understanding of where you are today and where you wish to be at some point in the future. This provides your guiding principles. You also need measurable milestones for the journey which you need to analyze regularly and be prepared for variations. These basics are taught to every business school graduate. The ideas presented by Norton and Kaplan, from Harvard, around strategy maps, balanced score card and organization alignment advanced the art of strategic planning to some degree The challenge here as I see it, is that most of what is taught and principles involved, deal with industrial models and are focused on internally focused goals. So, even if companies were thinking strategically these days, they might still be lacking a viable plan.
What if customers got to define your strategic plan? It might sound farfetched, but in reality your customers kind of do define your strategic plan. The problem is that few vendors are actually listening to them or paying attention. Your customers react to trends in their business and make adjustments. Eventually they expect their vendors to adjust their business models to meet their new value needs. What if your goals and measurements were tied to your customers outcomes? How many companies involve their customers in their own strategic planning? Who teaches a new paradigm around Customer Centric Strategic planning? Truth be told, some of this does exist today. Certainly it is a focus area in our practice and something that we refer to the Service Oriented Enterprise™. The companies that have made a shift largely did so in reaction to an immediate business problem and not because they planned carefully to shift their focus towards a service model. The innovation came from desperation or financial collapse where suddenly they could see the value in transforming their models.
Strategic Planning is not dead but when used, is focused on industrial models and not the realities of the new services economy. Service as a science has many exciting new opportunities for research and discovery in these areas. New models are needed for financial systems, operations research and planning, organization design and change management. As people learn more about service and the effect on the economy today, there are few areas of academic research and education that cannot benefit the services economy. If we are to revive the dying “art” of strategic planning, we need the new tools and science to apply in the service economy. Opportunities abound for researchers and business practitioners to come together and drive innovation around strategic planning.
That’s my view, what is yours?
Permalink
