ABSTRACT
This paper investigates service classification schemes in order to understand how to increase productivity in services. A useful model for this purpose is the one proposed by Schmenner in 2004. However, this model is limited to traditional services, and it does not consider the unique characteristics of e-commerce business, which create new trends in productivity management. Accordingly, we conduct a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) to develop a classification scheme, which would be suitable for e-commerce services. Based on this research, a multidimensional model is proposed splitting the Schmenner’s ‘degree of variation’ dimension into two axes: degree of interaction with customers and degree of customisation for customers. In addition to these theoretical contributions to Schmenner’s matrix, the SLR complements the previous reviews presented by authors such as Cook, D. P., Goh, C., & Chung, C. H. (1999. Service typologies : A state of the art survey. Production and Operations Management, 8(3), 318–338) and Van der Valk, W., & Axelsson, B. (2015. Towards a managerially useful approach to classifying services. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 21(2), 113–124). The value of this paper to managers is the recognition of differences in productivity management between these two types of services: managers can overcome the traditional trade-off cost versus customisation and explore e-commerce to increase their profits while increasing customisation for their customers. Moreover, the model proposed in this paper can be used to assist organisations in strategic planning and service portfolio management.
摘要
为了了解如何提高服务的生产率,本文对服务分类方案进行了研究。 对于此目的有用的一个模型是由Schmenner在2004年提出的。然而,该模型仅限于传统服务,并没有考虑电子商务业务在生产率管理方面创造了新的趋势的独特特征。因此,我们进行了系统的文献回顾 (SLR),以开发适用于电子商务服务的分类方案。 在此基础上,提出了一个多维模型,将Schmenner的‘变异程度’维度分为两个轴:与客户互动程度和客户的定制程度。除了这些对Schmenner矩阵的理论贡献之外,SLR还补充了如Cook、Goh和Chung(1999年)以及Valk和Axelson(2015年)等作者之前提出的评论。本文对管理者的价值在于认识到这两种服务在生产率管理上的差异:管理者可以克服传统的权衡成本与定制,并探索电子商务以增加利润,同时增加客户的定制。此外,本文提出的模型可用于协助组织进行战略规划和服务组合管理。
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.