Service system well-being: conceptualising a holistic concept

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a concept of service system well-being by presenting its collective conceptualisation and ten key domains. Design/methodology/approach Service system well-being domains were established using multi-level theory and a qualitative case study research design. To validate the domains initially developed from the literature, 19 in-depth interviews were conducted across two case studies that represented the service systems of a hospital and a multi-store retail franchise chain. A multi-stakeholder approach was used to explore the actor’s perspectives about service system well-being. Key domains of service system well-being were identified using deductive categorisation analysis. Findings The findings found evidence of ten key domains of well-being, namely strategic, governance, leadership, resource, community, social, collaborative, cultural, existential and transformational, among service system stakeholders. Research limitations/implications Service system well-being is a collective concept comprising ten domains that emerged at different levels of the service system. The propositions outlined the classification of and interlinkages between the domains. This exploratory study was conducted in a limited service context and focussed on ten key domains. Practical implications Service managers in commercial and social organisations are able to apply the notion of service system well-being to identify gaps and nurture well-being deficiencies within different domains of service-system well-being. Originality/value Based on multi-level theory, the study is the first to conceptualise and explore the concept of service system well-being across multiple actors.

Equilibrating resources and challenges during crises: a framework for service ecosystem well-being

“…As a working definition, service ecosystem well-being can be delineated as “a holistic, dynamic, positive state” (Frow et al , 2019, p. 2667), describing an “aggregated perspective of nested actor's assessment of a system's present conditions in terms of fulfilling its needs and contributing to the betterment of itself” (Leo et al , 2019, p. 770), whereby system level–specific well-being can be determined. During positive or negative “shocks” or “critical incidents”, which can cause “service mega-disruptions” (Kabadayi et al , 2020), systems require “being flexible, agile, and fluid” and to have “transformational capability” which is “the system's ability to flexibly adapt and change to altered or new requirements and, if necessary, to reconfigure itself by means of new actor and resource combinations” (Kuppelwieser and Finsterwalder, 2016, p. 97).…”

“…Contrary to the existing approaches relating to service ecosystem well-being (Frow et al , 2019; Leo et al , 2019), this paper builds on recent work by Chen et al (2020) who introduce a framework to conceptualize the dynamics of well-being co-creation. This article's approach extrapolates their use of Dodge et al 's (2012) well-being concept beyond individual well-being and applies it to all system levels to incorporate “individual wellbeing; family wellbeing community wellbeing and societal wellbeing” (La Placa et al , 2013, p. 118).…”

A transformative supply chain response to COVID-19

“…TSR scholars have explored a myriad of topics, including the adoption, impacts and design of transformative services (Anderson et al , 2018; Alkire et al , 2019; Black and Gallan, 2015; Edgar et al , 2017; Leo et al , 2019; Mende and van Doorn, 2015), but have yet to fully address the role of the supply chain in bringing about enhanced individual and collective well-being outcomes (Ostrom et al , 2010). This gap is important to remedy in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has revealed the importance of supply chains in delivering vital goods and services within society.…”

Network well-being from a balanced centricity perspective

“…To describe multi-actor networks, we turn to definitions of value networks as "service beneficiaries' conceptualizations of actor constellations and their value co-creating/destroying dynamics" ( Cai c et al, 2018, p. 180). Our definition of network well-being implies that network well-being depends on the well-being of its individual actors (Leo et al, 2019;Vargo et al, 2017). As noted, individual actor well-being in this study refers to actors' subjective well-being, which is based on actors' experiences.…”

“…Such interrelationships between actors and their respective resources necessitate a holistic view of network well-being, as a complex phenomenon. We propose balanced centricity as an indicator to simplify this complexity (Leo et al, 2019). Gummesson (2002Gummesson ( , 2007 introduced the concept of balanced centricity as a marketing philosophy that stresses the importance for organizations to meet all actors' interests and needs, instead of adopting only a customer-centric approach.…”