The morphology of service bundling settings

The purpose of this paper is to advance our understanding of what contextual factors influence the service bundling process in an organizational setting.

Although previous literature contains insights into the mechanisms underlying bundling and the artefacts for performing the bundling task itself, the body of knowledge seems to lack a comprehensive framework for analysing the actual scenario in which the bundling process is performed. This is required as the scenario will influence the bundling method and the IT support. We address this need by designing a morphological box for analysing bundling scenarios in different organizational settings. The factors featured in the box are systematised into a set of four categories of bundling layers which we identify from reviewing literature. The two core layers in the framework are the service bundling on a type level and on an instance level (i.e. configuration).

To demonstrate the applicability and utility of the proposed morphological box, we apply it to assess the underlying differences and commonalities of two different bundling scenarios from the B2B and G2C sectors which stress the differences between bundling on a type and instance level. In addition, we identify several prospects for future research that can benefit from the proposed morphological box.

See here for more information.

Government services and business models

Mostly business models are discussed in relation to private firms (and electronic business), but can business models be useful for public firms (and electronic government)?

I think so. While there are large differences between public and private firms, they both have to deliver services to citizens or customers in an effective and efficient manner.

For (new) government services it is also relevant to discuss who the target users and,for example, differentiate between individuals/families and businesses. These services also require discussing the benefits of the services for the users, even when the services are obligatory. Moreover, for the delivery of government services the cooperation between different public organizations is also an important issue. This gets even more complicated when it involves public-private cooperation. Finally, while revenue models are different for government services, it is still important to get value for money.

The ‘business model’ and the ‘service concept’

For a while now I have been studying service management and marketing literature (for example, Grönroos). This made me think more and more about the relation between the service concept (and customer benefit concept) and the business model. However, because literature is often as vague about the service concept as it is about the business model, it is hard to come to a clear view.

My initial thoughts are that the business model includes the service concept (and customer benefit concept) via the service perspective. The business model extents the service concept by linking it explicitly to related choices with respect to the organization, financial, and technological aspects.

Linking the service concept to the organization perspective of the business model is particularly relevant when the service requires the cooperation of other firms, that is a business network is required. Linking the service concept to the financial perspective of the business model is particularly relevant when (new) revenue models are needed. Linking the service concept to the technological perspective of the business model is particularly relevant when technological innovation is the driver or enabler of new services.

Business models for mobile health care: A service or product perspective?

With the advances in information, communication and sensor technology a new breed of mobile applications become possible that offer new opportunities for health care. These mobile health applications enable monitoring and treatment of the patient in his/her personal environment. I am currently involved in a project were we develop business models for mobile health as a follow-up to a technological R&D project.

What in my opinion is a very crucial decision is whether one should base these business models on a product or service perspective. My first impression is that often a product perspective is taken while a service perspective may be needed. While both perspectives can take the user/patient experience as starting point they differ in how the user/patient is supported in his/her health activities.

A business model for mobile health based upon a product perspective puts the mobile device (phone, PDA, special device) and/or the health software central and has a device or software supplier as focal actor in the supply network. It focuses on buying/selling health devices and/or software.

A business for mobile health based upon a service perspective puts the monitoring and treatment services central and has a mobile health service provider as focal actor in the delivery network. It focuses on the subscription to and delivery of health services.

The choice for a service perspective is not only having a core service instead of a core product, it also forces one to think of facilitating and support services (see a previous post) that increase the user experience and convenience. Facilitating services are, for example, regular updates of the software or in-depth analysis of health data on a remote server. Supporting services are, for example, access to consultation by health professionals or sharing data in communities.

Probably the best option is to have a high-level evaluation of both perspectives before having an in-depth analysis of one of them (or a mix). What do you think of this? Do you perceive these differences? Have you encountered examples of one of these approaches, or maybe a mixed approach?

Electronic Offering Model

In the early days of e-commerce there was considerable attention to understanding the phenomena. Nowadays, there is less attention for this in the research community. In the mean time business presence on the web is still extending, both in a traditional (Web1.0) and new way (Web2.0). Therefore, it is still important to preserve and develop our understanding of doing business on the Internet.

While working on new service development and service design I studied the NetOffer model of Grönroos. It is a model of Internet offerings based upon the Grönroos Augmented Service Offering model. Grönroos refers in the notes at the end of the article to the ICDT model of Angehnr (article). I was not very enthusiastic about the way the NetOffer model deals with information and communication. Therefore, I had the idea of combining the Netoffer model and the ICDT model into the Electronic Offering model, as presented below. I hope to soon write more about it and evaluate the model with a case study.