What causes imbalance in complex service networks? Evidence from a public health service

Abstract

Purpose -Service networks are inherently complex as they comprise of many interrelated actors, often driven by divergent interests. This can result in imbalance, which refers to a situation where the interests of at least one actor in a network are not secured. Drawing on the "balanced centricity" perspective, this paper explores the causes of imbalance in complex service networks.Design/methodology/approach -Adopting a qualitative case-based approach, this paper examines a public health service network that experienced imbalance that was detrimental to the lives of its users: the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust, UK. Drawing on service-dominant logic and stakeholder theory, case evidence provides insight into the origin and drivers of imbalance in complex public service networks.Findings -The origin of imbalance stems from competing institutional logics of various actors (patients/public, employees, managers, regulatory bodies, etc.), but the degree to which these competing institutional logics lead to imbalance is moderated by accountability, communication, engagement, and responsiveness within the service network.Research limitations/implications -By uncovering causes of imbalance in complex public service networks, this paper pinpoints important research avenues for developing the balanced centricity perspective.Practical implications -The inherent existence of multiple parallel institutional arrangements makes networks imbalanced, but value creation can be achieved when the appropriate mechanisms are fostered to manage balance between divergent logics. Originality/value -By examining imbalance as the underlying cause of network dysfunction, this research contributes to understanding of the dynamics in, and performance of, complex public service networks.

Service operations: what’s next?

“…One salient characteristic of service supply networks is that they arise from sets of bilateral agreements and ad-hoc solutions. Given the potential for catastrophic failures of such complex systems (see, for example, Verleye et al, 2017), inquiries into network coordination and governance constitute a promising avenue of research. Arguably, SSNs are often not the product of a single designer but emerge organically from the interactions of disparate agents in pursuit of their own individual goals.…”

Toward a public service management: past, present, and future directions

“…This neglect arguably may be driven by pragmatic research implications, such that to capture the service delivery process is in itself uniquely challenging in the public sector context (Verleye et al, 2017). Take the UK National Health Service as an example, there are a range of actors within this complex service network that span across the organizationallevel and network level from hospital management (e.g., board, governors, managers), hospital operators (e.g., clinicians, nursing staff, administrators), commissioning agencies (e.g., support units, regional offices, clinical groups, area teams) regulators (e.g., NICE, Healthwatch, MONITOR, Care Quality Commission, etc.…”

“…), and governmental bodies (e.g., Department of Health, NHS England, etc. ), each of whom can be considered essential resource integrators to service value creation (Vargo and Lusch, 2008), but each with conflicting and diverging needs and wants from the delivery system (Verleye et al, 2017); illustrating the sheer complexity of the public service value network.…”

“…Professor John Bryson elaborates more on this shift from PA and NPM and what it means for public managers: While understanding of public service management has progressed considerably in recent years, the review depicts a level of complexity within the public service management domain where a value network perspective is becoming increasingly necessary to accurately reflect and capture a changing environment, but as yet has been rarely investigated. Three notable exceptions are found in the service management literature: in their application of SDL, Verleye et al (2017) examine the causes of value destruction across a public health network, Enquist et al (2011) examine the relationship between contractual governance and performance measurement in a value network for public transport, while Pareigis et al…”

“…This review contributes to the broader service management literature by highlighting how public service networks differ from private service networks. This responds directly to a call for research to help us better understand how value is created in different service settings and within systemic and fragmented service contexts (Verleye et al, 2017). The aim of the review is to present context-specific insights regarding the development and delivery of public services, offer an interpretation of the shift from goods-dominant to service-dominant thinking within the public sector, and inform service management theory by identifying future directions for research in the area of public services.…”