Stefan Holmlid

Bio: Stefan Holmlid is an academic researcher from Linköping University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Service design & Service (business). The author has an hindex of 19, co-authored 126 publications receiving 1816 citations. Previous affiliations of Stefan Holmlid include Maastricht University.

Design for Value Co-Creation: Exploring Synergies Between Design for Service and Service Logic

Abstract: This paper aims to bridge recent work on Service Logic with practice and research in the Design for Service to explore whether and how human-centered collaborative design approaches could provide a source for interpreting existing service systems and proposing new ones and thus realize a Service Logic in organizations. A comparison is made of existing theoretical backgrounds and frameworks from Service Logic and Design for Service studies that conceptualize core concepts for value co-creation: actors, resources, resource integration, service systems, participation, context, and experience. We find that Service Logic provides a framework for understanding service systems in action by focusing on how actors integrate resources to co-create value for themselves and others, whereas Design for Service provides an approach and tools to explore current service systems as a context to imagine future service systems and how innovation may develop as a result of reconfigurations of resources and actors. Design for Service also provides approaches, competences, and tools that enable involved actors to participate in and be a part of the service system redesign. Design for value co-creation is presented using this model. The paper builds on and extends the Service Logic research first by repositioning service design from a phase of development to Design for Service as an approach to service innovation, centered on understanding and engaging with customers' own value-creating practices. Second, it builds on and extends through discussing the meaning of value co-creation and identifying and distinguishing collaborative approaches for the generation of new resource constellations. In doing so, the collaborative approaches allow for achieving value co-creation in designing.

Bringing Service Design to Service Sciences, Management and Engineering

Abstract: IBM has taken the lead in recognizing that college graduates need new skills to address business and technical issues in a service business environment. Because services depend critically on people working together and with technology to provide value for others, these new skills include the ability to integrate across traditional disciplinary areas to obtain globally effective solutions. Service Science, Management and Engineering (SSME) is one such approach to properly focusing education and research on services, and to preparing tomorrow s graduates to work in an expanding services economy. This contributed volume was developed from the IBM-hosted conference on October 5-7, 2006, designed to discuss the current status and foster the development and advancement of SSME. Contributions explore the ways SSME has been introduced into curricula, services research that is underway or is planned, and recommended actions for academia and governments to establish SSME as its own discipline.

Design for Value Co-Creation: Exploring Synergies Between Design for Service and Service Logics

Abstract: Design for Value Co-Creation: Exploring Synergies Between Design for Service and Service Logics

Participative, co-operative, emancipatory : From participatory design to service design

Abstract: In the discourse of service design; terms such as platforms; transformation and co-creation have become part of what seems to be an emergent lingua franca. In the participatory design discourse; and the surrounding design traditions; related terms and ideas were developed. The development of the discourse of participatory design; during the last three decades of the 20th century; influence the way we understand the provisions for and possibilities of service design. The analysis is performed along three themes collected from the development of participatory design; and examples of how the legacy of participatory design has been appropriated are given. We conclude that the two disciplines share a basic structure consisting of involvement techniques; cooperative approaches; and emancipatory objectives. Moreover; some areas of future research for service design are identified.

Interaction design and service design: expanding a comparison of design

Abstract: While product design and interaction design are establishing themselves as ordinary practices, service design is still largely not well understood. Moreover, interactive artefacts are being introduced into service settings in a larger degree than before. We tend to rely on these artefacts as one, or sometimes the sole, possibility to do banking, to declare our taxes, etc. In this article we seek to identify common ground and differentiation in order to create supportive structures between interaction design and service design. The analysis relies on two frameworks, one provided by Buchanan, defining orders of design, and one provided by Edeholt and Lowgren, providing a comparative framework between design disciplines. The framework of Edeholt & Lowgren is amended through the comparison, to include service design. Comparative dimensions added pertains to all areas of Edeholt & Lowgren’s framework; Design process, design material and deliverable.

Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches

Abstract: หนงสอเรอง การออกแบบการวจย: วธการวจยเชงคณภาพ วธการวจยเชงปรมาณ และวธการวจยแบบผสม (Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches) เปนหนงสอทเรยบเรยงเพออธบายเกยวกบความแตกตางของกระบวนทศนการวจยทง 2 แบบ ไดแก การวจย เชงปรมาณ และการวจยเชงคณภาพ และความจำเปนของประเดนปญหาการวจยทตองนำกระบวนทศนทง 2 มารวมกนหาขอคนพบเพอนำไปสผลการวจยทสามารถนำผลการวจยไปใชประโยชนไดอยางจรงมากยงขน เรยกวา “การวจยแบบผสมผสาน” ซงเปนหนงสอทอธบายวธการวจยทง 2 ประเภทไดอยางชดเจน และการรวมกนของกระบวนทศนการวจยทง 2 แบบอยางลงตว

Service Research Priorities in a Rapidly Changing Context

Abstract: The context in which service is delivered and experienced has, in many respects, fundamentally changed. For instance, advances in technology, especially information technology, are leading to a proliferation of revolutionary services and changing how customers serve themselves before, during, and after purchase. To understand this changing landscape, the authors engaged in an international and interdisciplinary research effort to identify research priorities that have the potential to advance the service field and benefit customers, organizations, and society. The priority-setting process was informed by roundtable discussions with researchers affiliated with service research centers and networks located around the world and resulted in the following 12 service research priorities: • stimulating service innovation, • facilitating servitization, service infusion, and solutions, • understanding organization and employee issues relevant to successful service, • developing service networks and systems, • leveraging service design, • using big data to advance service, • understanding value creation, • enhancing the service experience, • improving well-being through transformative service, • measuring and optimizing service performance and impact, • understanding service in a global context, and • leveraging technology to advance service. For each priority, the authors identified important specific service topics and related research questions. Then, through an online survey, service researchers assessed the subtopics’ perceived importance and the service field’s extant knowledge about them. Although all the priorities and related topics were deemed important, the results show that topics related to transformative service and measuring and optimizing service performance are particularly important for advancing the service field along with big data, which had the largest gap between importance and current knowledge of the field. The authors present key challenges that should be addressed to move the field forward and conclude with a discussion of the need for additional interdisciplinary research.