An Ideation Framework for Service Process Improvement

Abstract

Service delivery processes play a key role in the competitiveness of modern organizations. Their effectiveness and efficiency are a consequence of successful design of new processes and improvement of existing processes. Improvement methodologies commonly focus on generic steps serving as a road map for moving a process from its current state along a guided path to better performance. However, these methodologies ignore the crucial step of methods for modifying processes, which often necessitate the generation of new improvement alternatives; generally based on “randomized” brainstorming rather than on systematic triggering of new ideas and reusing past improvements. The authors’ framework comprises and integrates 21 goal determinants to be achieved through process redesign, 32 best practices describing possible process modifications, 40 TRIZ inventive principles for generating new improvement ideas, and case-based reasoning (CBR) for retaining and reusing past improvements. This paper illustrates the application of the proposed methodology using an example of an inbound telesales process.

Determinants of value creation and customer value in the IPS² operations phase

“…Value-in-use quality of the customer's functional and/or hedonic outcome, purpose or objective that is directly served through product/service consumption [10] Efficaciousness ability to achieve the business goal posited for the process [40] Effectiveness appropriateness of the service product or outcome as perceived by the customer of the process [40] Experience capability of the process to evoke customers' emotions, sensations, imagination, feelings and perceptions [40] Emotional potential to arouse emotions believed to accompany the use of a product [37] 6 Robustness and evolution of the Human agents minimisation of salaries and expenses surrounding the process performer(s) [40] Facilities minimisation of costs of facilities such as workspaces and utilities [40] Failure costs minimisation of costs of poor system performance or unacceptable outcomes [40] Product quality of advice by provider in order to maximize product availability and use at minimum cost over the product's life time [3] [23]…”

“…Service competencefitness or appropriateness of the provider service process, verified by monitoring and analysis, as perceived by the customer [7][40] Responsiveness (multi-skill) availability and turnaround of professional support in all fields of expertise, promptness in solving customer complaints[7] [18] [**]3 Operations/customer process/usage processRecovery ability of the provider to quickly return assets to operable status and thus minimise disruption which could cause undesirable consequences for the customer…”

“…Process competencefitness or appropriateness of the usage process, verified by monitoring and analysis, as perceived by the customer, performance quality[4] [24][40] Adaptability capability to adapt to new, different, or changing requirements or needs, ability to cope with customer design changes during production provider at all levels of the organisation and the individual Shared responsibility active involvement of the provider in product and service contributions to performance and business success [**]…”

An Investigation of Logistical Service in Franchising System

“…The review of competitive strategies driven in the retailing industry since the 1980s clearly shows that the supply chain performance of a large retailer allows to increase its market shares, to reduce the stores' supply costs and very rapidly adjust the product assortment to unexpected variations of the demand (Fernie & Sparks, 2014). We can therefore imagine that the franchising system, as a component of the retailing industry, can also be sensitive to the supply chain performance, in particular by strongly improving the service delivering process, which Kaner & Karni (2010) highlighted its central character in the competitiveness of modern organisations. By being able to offer a high level of service in stores, reducing their level of out-of-stock, the franchisor probably increases the level of satisfaction of consumers, and consequently of the franchisee.…”