A typology of a class of service systems is proposed. The typology links strategic operational objectives to the decision to de‐couple work between the front and back offices of a service system. Four specific ideal types of a strategy/de‐coupling mix are described; each of which has distinct operational, marketing and human resource ramifications. A type that has had significant representation in traditional literature is the “Cost Leader” type, where back‐office activities are de‐coupled from the front office for the purpose of lowering costs. Another traditional type representative of the craftsman legacy is the “Personal Service” type, which retains back‐office tasks in the front office to pursue non‐cost‐oriented strategic goals. Theoretical and empirical evidence is also given for two non‐traditional types: the “Kiosk” type, where all tasks remain in the front office to achieve lower costs, and the “Focused Professional” type, which de‐couples front‐ and back‐office activities to enable front‐office workers to provide higher service, rather than to reduce costs. Empirically, retail bank lending systems are analyzed to support the typology.

The principal-agent theory asserts that public firms' performance is driven by efficient capital and labor markets but is silent about non-listed private companies, which are less permeable to market forces (both capital and labor) than are public companies. We propose and test a 2 × 2 framework distinguishing owner-controlled vs. agent-led firms from firms with a flat vs. multilayer organization. Our findings provide highly contrasted results and raise important issues for further study of private firms.

No abstract

Data envelopment analysis (dea) has become an increasingly popular method to measure performance for service firms with multiple sites. DEA is superior to many traditional methods for firms that have multiple goals. The promise of DEA is that the complex, multi‐objective problem of performance measurement can be reduced to a single number. Unfortunately, the practice of DEA often belies the promise. Misconceptions concerning the purpose and implementation of DEA can cause DEA applications to be less than successful. Here, the technique is explained, and a guide to the implementation of DEA is proposed, utilizing DEA studies of retail bank branches.