Author:
Eissens-van der Laan Monique,Broekhuis Manda,van Offenbeek Marjolein,Ahaus Kees
Abstract
Purpose
– Applying “modularity” principles in services is gaining in popularity. The purpose of this paper is to enrich existing service modularity theory and practice by exploring how services are being decomposed and how the modularization aim and the routineness of the service(s) involved may link to different decomposition logics. The authors argue that these are fundamental questions that have barely been addressed.
Design/methodology/approach
– The authors first built a theoretical framework of decomposition steps and the design choices involved that distinguished six decomposition logics. The authors conducted a systematic literature search that generated 18 empirical articles describing 16 service modularity cases. The authors analysed these cases in terms of decomposition logic and two main contingencies: modularization aim and service routineness.
Findings
– Only three of the 18 articles explicitly addressed the service decomposition by reflecting on the underlying design choices. By unravelling the decomposition in each case, the authors were able to identify the decomposition logic and found four of the six theoretically derived logics: single-level process oriented; single-level outcome oriented; multilevel outcome oriented; and multilevel combined orientation. Although the authors did not find a direct relationship between the modularization aim and the decomposition logic, the authors did find that single-level decomposition logics seem to be mainly applied in non-routine service offerings whereas the multilevel ones are mainly applied in routine service offerings.
Originality/value
– By contributing to a common understanding of modular service decomposition and proposing a framework that explicates the design choices involved, the authors enable an enhanced application of the modularity concept in services.
Subject
Management of Technology and Innovation,Strategy and Management,General Decision Sciences
Reference38 articles.
1. Baldwin, C.Y.
and
Clark, K.B.
(2000),
Design Rules: The Power of Modularity
, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
2. Baldwin, C.Y.
and
Clark, K.B.
(2006),
Modularity in the Design of Complex Engineering Systems
, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg.
3. Bask, A.H.
,
Tinnilä, M.
and
Rajahonka, M.
(2010), “Matching service strategies, business models and modular business processes”,
Business Process Management Journal
, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 153-180.
4. Bohmer, R.M.J.
(2005), “Medicine’s service challenge: blending custom and standard care”,
Health Care Management Review
, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 322-330.
5. Broekhuis, M.
and
van Donk, D.P.
(2011), “Coordination of physicians’ operational activities: a contingency perspective”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management
, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 251-273.
Cited by
41 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献