An Interactive Model for the Synthesis of Service Functions Through Use Processes

Abstract

Service use processes have assumed a significant role in recent service development. In response to a need for the development of a service Computer Aided Design (CAD) with use-oriented design method, this paper examines the relationship among use processes, functions, and service provision based on Yoshikawa’s study on function in engineering and service-dominant logic in marketing. We extend a service model between a provider and a receiver to represent dynamic synthesis of functions through use processes. Design operations executed on the model can include contributions by both the provider and receiver in terms of effectiveness, adaptation, and creation. Finally, we apply the model to two case studies from different industries and verify its effectiveness.

1 Introduction

Service use processes have assumed a significant role in recent service development. The relationship between “design” and “use” has become a core issue in user-centered design approaches [1]. This implies a holistic view of design as tightly coupled with practical use that continues during the life cycle of the artifact [2]. The use phase must be incorporated into the design phase, and the design must be adapted to users; manufacturers and users must collaborate in the design of a product or service. A variety of use situations, which can display design-like characteristics, can become realistic sources of innovation and material for further designs [3]. Based on a study on service Computer Aided Design (CAD) [4], this paper develops a model that facilitates computerized design operations with respect to function, service, and use.

An earlier study by the authors [5] suggested that an ecosystem consisting of different types of designs can link design and use. Design-of-use and design-in-use by the customer can function as a bridge between different types of value creation: providing value, adapting value, and co-creative value [6]. Design-from-use, which is amplified by accumulated use data, contributes to value co-creation for the manufacturer and the customer community. Although this study provides an overview of the relationship between design and use, the content of design activity is absent. In the process of conceptual design, the concept of function is crucial to represent design objects and to describe human intention.

In response to a need for the development of a use-oriented design methodology, this paper explores an interactive model for the synthesis of service functions through use processes. The remainder of this paper is composed of the following:

• 1. Section 2 reviews previous studies in the design and marketing field that discuss the threefold relationship of function, service, and use processes. Human use is defined as the binary opposite of function by service or individuals. Service can be a medium by which function and use are interconnected.

• 2. Section 3 explains an earlier study on a service model and elaborates on the model’s capacity as an interactive service model between a provider and a receiver. An elaborated model defines design operations during use processes.

• 3. In Sect. 4, we present a case study from the construction industry to demonstrate the proposed model.

• 4. Section 5 concludes the paper.

2 Related Study

2.1 Yoshikawa’s Study on Function, Service, and Use

Yoshikawa proposed a synthetic-type engineering curriculum [7] based on his function studies including the general design theory. The curriculum includes the theory of function, the theory of service, and the theory of use. The relationship between function, service, and use that comprises this curriculum is as follows and is derived from the literature [8]:

• All entities have functions, and a function has value or meaning to individuals.

• Individuals possess an ability to manifest function.

• A function is latent and manifests gradually through action or use. However, a different function may manifest depending on the mode of the action or use.

• A service is a manifest function, which implies that the function services the individual.

• The speed at which a latent function becomes apparent represents a time measure for service delivery, and general service is included in this category.

Figure 1 represents the relationship between function, service, and use. This study emphasizes the relationship between function and service, whereas use represents the extract effect of latent function (i.e., service delivery). The variety of manifested functions caused by the different mode of action or use has not yet been discussed in the relevant literature.

Fig. 1

The relationship between function, service, and use

2.2 Service-Dominant Logic

Service-dominant logic (S-D logic) (e.g., [9, 10]) is concerned with the relationship between service and use (i.e., value-in-use), although design objects, such as functions, are not detailed in the related literature. S-D logic has emerged as, arguably, the most important scholarly marketing debate in the last decade [11]. S-D logic is based on ten foundational premises (FPs). The following FPs are particularly relevant to this paper:

• FP1: Service is the fundamental basis of exchange.

• FP3: Goods are a distribution mechanism for service provision.

• FP4: Operant resources (i.e., knowledge and skills) are the fundamental source of competitive advantage.

• FP6: The customer is always the primary co-creator of value.

• FP7: The enterprise cannot deliver value, but only offers value propositions.

• FP10: Value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary.

2.3 Comparison and Problem Setting

An additional explanation for FP3 is that “goods (both durable and nondurable) derive their value through use and the service they provide.” Here, let the term “goods” in S-D logic be rephrased as “entities in which latent functions are embedded.” Given this perspective, we find common ground between Yoshikawa’s study [8] and S-D logic in terms of function, service, and use. Operant resources, referred to in FP4, are similar to the concept of function. Value proposition is considered a set of latent functions from the provider.

S-D logic considers value co-creation to be based on a customer’s contribution to integrating proprietary knowledge and skills in service, as described in FP6. Although value co-creation may be central to a sustainable society, S-D logic represents contribution on a conceptual level or describes the mindset of individuals. S-D logic development as operational knowledge is necessary so that designers or practitioners realize the practical synthesis in a real-world context. Thus, based on a study on service CAD [4], this current study develops a model that facilitates computerized design operations with respect to function, service, and use.

3 The Synthesis of Service Functions Through Use Processes

3.1 A Basic Definition of Service

The authors defined a service as “an activity that changes the state of a service receiver” [12]. A change in state refers to a physical change (e.g., state, place), body/physiological change (e.g., recovery from exhaustion), or cognitive change (e.g., an increase in knowledge). To define the change in the receiver, we introduced a receiver state parameter (RSP) [4, 12], which is assumed to be observable and controllable. The method of “persona” is useful to specify a receiver’s RSPs, which are relevant to the value provided to the customer. A receiver’s lifestyle and behavioral patterns are described in terms of personal characteristics, such as occupation and social status. This definition of service represents a one-way directional expression but may include a receiver’s reactions to the activity of the provider.

3.2 Procedural Representation for Preparation and Activation

This paper introduces servset, a concept defined as “a set of functions that may cause state change in the receiver.” The term servset is derived from the combination of service and set. A servset represents the total delivery of service content from the provider to the receiver. With the introduction of RSP and servset, service is modeled as a prepared and activated servset that may change RSP(s). The following is the procedural representation of service:

• 1. A provider designs and manufactures a servset as a set of latent functions SS_L composed of material and nonmaterial factors.

• 2. The provider delivers the servset SS_L as a value proposition to the receiver. At this point, all functions are latent, and the receiver evaluation of the functions is irrelevant.

• 3. The receiver receives the servset, and the receiver use manifests some servset functions SS_M.

• 4. Among the manifested functions, SS_M, the receiver evaluates only the functions that affect RSP(s) indirectly or directly to the extent that the receiver’s state changes.

For clarity, the remainder of this paper considers service to represent the structure of activity as a whole, as in S-D logic or as shown in Fig. 2, whereas service delivery represents each manifested function to a receiver as shown on the right-hand side of Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Procedural representation of preparation and activation of service

3.3 Bidirectional Aspect of Service: Contribution by Receiver

If we consider the opposite direction of service delivery, from the receiver to the provider, use action occurs. In this case, as described in FP1, because “service is exchanged for service” in the context of S-D logic, it is natural to think that the receiver also provides knowledge and skills in receiving service, which enhances the value-in-use of the service. From this perspective, however, the above (3) process resembles value-in-exchange of the service within the evaluation of the value proposition prior to use. This could result in misplaced emphasis on value-in-exchange as the traditional goods-dominant logic, rather than value-in-use. Therefore, the next section revises the above process (3) from the perspective of the receiver’s contribution and value-in-use.

3.4 Structural Transformation of Function and Service Through Use Processes

We define value-in-exchange and value-in-use as follows:

• Value-in-exchange: the value of service when the value proposition offered at the time of purchase is performed as planned.

• Value-in-use: the value of service obtained by a receiver through various situations (including interactions with other service systems) during the use process after purchase.

A complete process, summarized in Fig. 2, is divided into several processes: the exchange process and several use processes. Figure 3 illustrates the sequential transformation of functional structure in service according to separate processes. This transformation is caused by the provider’s actions and the receiver’s use. The effects of the receiver’s actions, which may create new value, are also uniformly represented as a transformation of functional structure. Based on this model, Table 1 summarizes design operations that can be executed on the model including contributions by the provider and receiver in terms of effectiveness, adaptation, and creation. Operation (p0) occurs in the process of exchange for which value-in-exchange is determined as a value proposition. Operations (p1)-(p4) and (r1)-(r4) occur in the use process and transform the function structure in a complete service. Therefore, we extended the existing model by focusing on the three-way relationship among function, service, and use.

Fig. 3

An interactive model for synthesis of functions through use processes (partial operations)

Table 1 Operations on the interactive model for synthesis of functions through use processes

4 Illustrative Examples

4.1 Komatsu KOMTRAX

4.1.1 Rationale for Selection

Komatsu’s services are example of a business to business (B2B) process. It represents a case of servitization in a manufacturing company and is a suitable case study to demonstrate the proposed model and operations concerning the synthesis of service functions through use processes.

4.1.2 Overview of Komatsu KOMTRAX

A Japanese construction machinery supplier, Komatsu Company Limited, is renowned as the first company to introduce technologies such as GPS (global positioning systems) for construction businesses [13, 14]. Komatsu has developed a system called KOMTRAX that gathers product usage information using GPS for each of the construction machines it has sold worldwide, which number over 200,000. Komatsu can now provide customers with the operation status of construction equipment, and customers can check the progress of work, run maintenance checks, and locate vehicles at each construction site [13]. However, when Komatsu introduced this system in the 1990s, the system’s original purpose was only to locate construction machines for repair and maintenance work. As KOMTRAX diffused and usage information was accumulated, Komatsu and customer companies gradually realized the system’s potential and jointly developed the aforementioned emerging services including antitheft, management support, and insurance [13, 14].

4.1.3 The Modeling Results

Table 2 summarizes the results of the obtained model and operations. Figure 4 focuses on transformation of functions in the model. We describe Komatsu’s business, starting with selling “L₁: basic functions of construction machines (CM).” “L₃: maintenance (repair)” is supported by “L₂: monitor the position of CM.” In use process number 2, by holding dialogs with customers in a real world, Komatsu utilizes the function of “L₂: monitor the position of CM” as a different function “M’₂: prevent theft of CM” by quickly locating a stolen CM. The customer company (i.e., receiver) uses the same function “L₂: monitor the position of CM” as a different function “M”₂: monitor usage of CM.” After the provider notices the emerging function “M”₂: monitor usage of CM” by the receiver, in use process number 3, the function is embedded as a new latent function offered by the provider. As the provider and the receiver interact in this way, use collaboratively transforms and synthesizes the function structure through service provision and improvements in use. In this case, the interactive processes expand KOMTRAX’s services in terms of productive construction to business management.

Table 2 Obtained model and operations on a B2B case study of construction industry: KOMTRAX

Fig. 4

Transformation of Komatsu KOMTRAX functions

4.2 Twitter

4.2.1 Rationale for Selection

Twitter is an example of a business to consumer (B2C) service. As the literature review in the following paragraph would indicate, Twitter’s service presents a very good example of how user innovations [3] lead to temporal changes in the entire service or product. Such innovations have been treated as manifestations of original latent functions of Twitter in our research. New twitter features, driven by user innovation, have been designated as new latent functions derived from manifestations. The details have been described in the following sections. Hence this is an apt example to demonstrate the proposed model and operations concerning the synthesis of service functions through use processes.

4.2.2 Overview of Twitter Service

Twitter, launched in 2006, has grown to become an important social networking platform with 140 million active users by 2012 [15]. Its key features differ markedly from Facebook in a number of important aspects, which have also led to its widespread use especially for public discussion and during acute events, along with resulting in several user innovations to enable such usage. Twitter messages, like SMS, are restricted in character limit (140 per tweet) which leads to economical use of characters in tweets. Also, most Twitter users maintain a public profile (except when set to private), so people, even outside Twitter, can see tweets without needing user permission, leading to a “flat” social network. Such design features and constraints have led to various user innovations in Twitter usage [16]. Examples include #hashtags, @reply and RT (ReTweet), business or advertising usage, and dissemination of news or events [16, 18, 19]. Initially, Twitter’s creators were not very clear on its definition and could realize its potential as an information network only with time and diverse usage [15, 17]. Popularity of some of these user-driven innovations led to their incorporation as features, causing changes in Twitter’s functionality. Examples include introduction of replies column, retweet button, hashtag tracking, promoted tweets, and promoted accounts [16, 18, 19].

4.2.3 The Modeling Results

Table 3 summarizes the results of the obtained model and operations. Figure 5 shows transformation of functions in the model. Definition of RSPs in the case study is as follows:

Table 3 Obtained model and operations on a case study of a B2C service: Twitter

Fig. 5

Transformation of Twitter functions (simplified)

• Change in social outreach (R₁): It refers to the social connectivity of the person (e.g., joining a social network expands the social outreach or connectivity of a person).

• Addition/change in content availability (R₂): It refers to change in amount of content available to the user. Content refers here to online and multimedia content like news, trends, images, and videos.

• Simplification/addition/change in communication method (R₃): It refers to new communication technique/syntax options/new characters imparted with a meaning which become available to the user, often with the purpose of simplifying the communication process.

• Change in third-party tool usage (R₄): This refers to third-party tools available online which augment/compliment Twitter usage.

Starting with the Twitter website as it was in 2006, we have described Twitter’s basic features, starting with “L₁: creation of a unique profile and a username on a flat social network” and “L₀: public API of Twitter” and “L₂: personal expression on a social network (Twitter) within 140 alphanumeric/special characters.” These constitute the latent functions of the exchange phase. Here, two RSPs are getting simultaneously affected by one manifest function (M₂) which is a major difference in comparison to Komatsu. In use process number 2, the users devise several innovative manifestations of latent functions L₂ and L₀ such as @reply (M_2a), RT or ReTweet (M_2b), using Twitter to spread news (M_2d), spreading business information, or doing advertising on Twitter (M_2f). Note that these have been treated as innovative manifestations as these were not originally intended by Twitter’s designers (providers) as mentioned in the literature review in the previous paragraph. In use process number 3, Twitter’s designers or providers, after considering the growing popularity of such user-driven manifestations, either incorporate or provide support for these manifestations in some form or other, causing changes in Twitter’s functionality. Hence, in use process number 3, new latent functions, derived from user manifestations (like L_3<-2a, L_5<-2c, L_10<-0′), emerge which are offered in service set SS_L2. Except for the case of M_4’, all manifestations, as seen in operations in Table 3, are as per provider intentions. As the provider and the receiver interact in this way, use collaboratively transforms and synthesizes the function structure through service provision and improvements in use. In this case, the interactive processes expand Twitter’s services in terms of changes in communication methods for users to change in content availability for them.

5 Comparison of the Two Case Studies

After going through modeling results of the two cases, notable differences can be pointed out between them. Comparisons have been made on the parameters of customer communications, characteristics of customer base, scope for user innovation, relationships with RSPs, and possible reasons behind such differences. The discussion has been summarized in Table 4. The reasons for such differences need to be established through future studies on even more cases.

Table 4 Comparison of Komatsu and Twitter services

6 Conclusion

This paper developed the interactive model that facilitates computerized design operations with respect to function, service, and use by integrating views of the S-D logic into engineering studies on function. Two case studies in different industries with the model were illustrated, and it was demonstrated that use collaboratively transforms and synthesizes the function structure through service provision and improvements in use. The differences between B2B and B2C cases were also discussed. Future work includes development of a use-oriented design method based on the proposed interactive model and operations.