政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/133457
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113656/144643 (79%)
Visitors : 51764232      Online Users : 523
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/133457


    Title: 槓桿動態：樟宜機場如何以服務設計傳遞開拓性體驗
    Leveraging Dynamics: How Changi Airport Deliver Trailblazing Experience through Service Design
    Authors: 施妉褱
    Shih, Dan-Huai
    Contributors: 蕭瑞麟
    Hsiao, Ruey-Lin
    施妉褱
    Shih, Dan-Huai
    Keywords: 服務設計
    系統思考
    科技賦能
    槓桿效應
    顧客旅程
    Service design
    System thinking
    Technology enabled
    Leverage effect
    Customer journey
    Date: 2020
    Issue Date: 2021-01-04 11:31:03 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 受到服務思維的吸引，企業奮力投入科技以強化顧客體驗，致力於找出他們的痛點。然 而，企業越是發展新服務，就越容易陷入症狀解。如此一來，創新的服務設計反而造成 更多的問題，致使顧客體驗反而不經意地惡化。此外，服務隨創的理論強調，這樣的服 務設計如果缺乏資源的話，最終窒礙難行。雖然找出顧客痛點很重要，但取得資源卻應 該是更優先的順序。解決痛點代表要面對更多的制約，也就是需要更多的資源。然而， 令人困惑的是，創新的服務卻無法於市場帶來正面的體驗，反而造成組織的沉淪。本論 文指出三個服務設計中緊要的議題。第一，太過強調顧客的抱怨，企業很容易頭痛醫頭， 而無法找出根本問題。第二，企業過度執著於顧客旅程，就會忽略旅程背後通常需要的 是組織同步的轉型。第三，服務設計要成功的確需要投入資源，但設計師也許會忽略， 不正確的服務反而會浪費珍貴的資源，最終衍生出更多的問題而讓企業踹踹不安。本研 究透過新加坡樟宜機場的案例來調查這些議題。觀念上，本研究提供一個系統動態的角 度重新檢視服務設計，並提出設計者不應該只看顧客痛點，而忽略透過槓桿點在複雜的 服務系統中尋找根本原因。本研究指出設計者除繪製顧客旅程之外，同時也要留意旅程 如何轉換為新的組織作為。這也引申出科技賦能的觀念，點出科技更重要的任務不只是 增加科技的功能，或促成組織的轉變，而是賦予組織新的能力。實務上，本論文提出一 種運用槓桿效應來發展服務設計的方法。這需要我們體驗到服務設計的複雜度，也點出 設計結合科技的複合模式。服務具系統觀，便可透過設計槓動科技，聚焦資源去解痛的 根源，而不是痛點。如此，企業便可槓動有限資源，讓科技促成複合的能力，發展出開 拓性的解決方案，讓旅客的體驗滿是難忘的經驗。
    Attracted by service thinking, enterprises strive to enhance customer experience by identifying their painpoints. Nontheless, the more enterprises develop new services, the more likely they stuck in symptomatic solutions. As such, creative service designs often cause more problems. Alternatively, theories on service bricolage highlight that service design would reach a stalemate, if resources were limited. Although identifying painpoints is vital, acquiring resources for service innovation should assign higher priorities. Resolving painpoints means facing more constraints, which requires more resources. However, in bewildering ways, innovative services frequently fail to deliver positive experience and rather cause the downfall of organizations. This thesis indicates three tourbling issues facing service design. First, by emphasizing customers’ compliants, enterprises may attack the strawman without paying enough attention to the root-cause. Secondly, as enterprises pivot on customer journey to improve experience, they neglect that building a pleasant journey requires transforming the mode of organizing in tandem. Thirdly, although investing resources is necessary to succeed service design, designers might neglect that inaccurate services could waste valuable resources while generating more problems to haunt organization. This study investigates these issues through the case study of Changi Airport in Singapore. Conceptually, this research provides a service dynamics lens to reexamine service design, and suggests that designers should not attend solely to customer painpoints while ignoring leverage points that recognise the root- cause in the complexity of service systems. Furthermore, it specifies that apart from mapping customer journey, designers should also transform service routines discreetly in order to establish a new mode of organizing. Furthermore, this paper point out IT enabling is not only brings organizational changed but also enable firm new capability.Practically, this thesis proposes a new way of service design by discovering leveraging effect. This is to recognise the sophistication of service design and inspect how feedback effects may reveal fundamental problems underlying customers’ painpoints. By shifting our mindset to service dynamics, enterprises may leverage its limited resources and develop trailblazing solutions to impress their customers.
    Reference: 中文文獻
    王嘉珍、陳美如，2016，「丹堤咖啡的服務創新之路—行動點餐的下一步」，《管理評論》，第 35 期，第 2 卷，第 95-96 頁。
    邱文宏、張震冬、紀慧如、陳世良，2014，「探討雲端服務創新模式與演進:中華電信為例」，《管理評論》，第 33 期，第 4 卷，第 67-88 頁。
    姚成彥，2015 ，「虛實整合:特力屋電子商務的服務創新」，《中山管理評論》 ，第 23期，第 1 卷，第 377-409 頁。
    張德鵬、林萌菲、陳曉雁、張馥麗，2015，「顧客參與創新對口碑推薦意願的影響研究:心理所有權的中介作用」，《管理評論》，第 12 期，第 131-140 頁。
    歐素華，2019，「精準分眾以創新:由使用者行為引導媒體服務設計」，《中山管理評論》，第 27 期，第 1 卷，第 11-56 頁。
    蕭瑞麟，2017，《不用數字的研究:質性研究的思辨脈絡》， 台北: 五南學術原創專書系列。
    蕭瑞麟，2019，《服務隨創:少力設計的邏輯思維》，台北:五南書局學術專書。
    蕭瑞麟、徐嘉黛，2020，「境隨心轉:服務隨創中的認知轉移與資源轉換」，《組織與管 理》，即將發表。
    蕭瑞麟、歐素華、吳彥寬，2017，「逆勢拼湊:化資源制約為創新來源」，《中山管理評 論》，第 1 期，第 25 卷，219-268 頁。
    蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳煥宏，2019，「負負得正:相依性如何促成負資源轉換」，《組織與管理》，第 12 卷，第 1 期，第 127-171 頁。
    蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳蕙芬，2014，「劣勢創新:梵谷策展中的隨創行為」，《中山管理評論》，第 2 期，第 22 卷，323-367 頁。

    英文文獻
    Antorini, Y. M., Muniz, J. A. M., & Askildsen, T. 2012. Collaborating with customer communities: Lessons from the Lego Group. Sloan Management Review, 53(3): 73-79.
    Attewell, P. 1992. Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business computing. Organization Science, 3(1): 1-19.
    Baden-Fuller, C., & Haefliger, S. 2013. Business models and technological innovation. Long Range Planning, 46(6): 419-426.
    Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. 2005. Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3): 329-366.
    Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. 2007. Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. California Management Review, 50(1): 25-56.
    Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. 2008. Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3): 66-94.
    Bloomfield, B. P., & Hayes, N. 2009. Power and organizational transformation through technology: Hybrids of electronic government. Organization Studies, 30(5): 461-487.
    Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Managing power in the multinational corporation: How low-power actors gain influence. Journal of Management, 34(3): 477-508.
    Brown, T. 2008. Design thinking. Hardvard Business Review, June: 85-92.
    Brown, T. 2009. Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and
    inspires innovation. New York: Harper Collins.
    Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y., & Rahman, M. 2013. Competing in the age of Omnichannel
    retailing. Sloan Management Review, 54: 23-29.
    Christensen, C. M. 1997. The innovation dilemma: When new technologies cause great
    firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
    Claussen, J., Kretschmer, T., & Mayrhofer, P. 2013. The effects of rewarding user engagement: The case of Facebook Apps. Information Systems Research, 24(1): 186- 200.
    Cozzolino, A., Verona, G., & Rothaermel, F. T. 2018. Unpacking the disruption process: New technology, business models, and incumbent adaptation. Journal of Management
    Studies, 55(7): 1166-1202.
    Desa, G., & Basu, S. 2013. Optimization or bricolage? Overcoming resource constraints in
    global social entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(1): 26-49. Dyer, W. G., & Wilkins, A. L. 1991. Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better
    theory: a Rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3): 613-619. Forrester, J. W. 1994. System dynamics, system thinking, and soft OR. System Dynamics
    Review, 10(2-3): 245-256.
    Gamble, J. R., McAdam, R., & Brennan, M. 2019. How user-centric innovation is affecting stakeholder marketing strategies: Exploratory findings from the music industry. European Management Review, 16(4): 1175-1193.
    Hammer, M. 1990. Reengineering work: Don`t automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review, 68(4): 104-112.
    Helkkula, A., Kelleher, C., & Pihlström, M. 2012. Characterizing value as an experience: Implications for service researchers and managers. Journal of Service Research, 15(1): 59.
    Hienerth, C., Keinz, P., & Lettl, C. 2011. Exploring the nature and implementation process of user-centric business models. Long Range Planning, 44(5–6): 344-374.
    Hsiao, R. L., & Ormerod, R. J. 1998. A new perspective of the dynamics of IT-enabled strategic change. Information Systems Journal, January(8): 21-52.
    Idoughi, D., Seffah, A., & Kolski, C. 2012. Adding user experience into the interactive service design loop: A persona-based approach. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(3): 287-303.
    Kumar, K., van Dissel, H. G., & Bielli, P. 1998. The merchant of Prato revisited: Toward a third rationality of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 22(2): 199-226.
    Lele, M. M. 1986. How service needs influence product strategy. Sloan Management Review, 28(1): 63-70.
    Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. 2016. Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6): 69-96.
    Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. 2015. Service innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective. MIS Quarterly, 39(1): 155-176.
    Magidson, J., & Brandyberry, G. 2001. Putting customers in the `Wish Mode`. Harvard Business Review, 79(8): 26-28.
    Michel, S., Brown, S. W., & Gallan, A. S. 2008. Service-logic innovations: How to innovate customers, not products. California Management Review, 50(3): 49-65.
    Mikalef, P., & Pateli, A. 2017. Information technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their indirect effect on competitive performance: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. Journal of Business Research, 70: 1-16.
    Morecroft, J. D. W. 1985. The feedback view of business policy and strategy. System Dynamics Review, 1(1): 4-19.
    Morgan, A., & Barden, M. 2015. A beautiful constraint: How to transform your limitations into advantages, and why it’s everyone’s business. London: Wiley.
    Newman, M., & Noble, F. 1990. User involvement as an interaction process: A case study. Information Systems Research, 1(1): 89-113.
    Oliveira, P., & von Hippel, E. 2011. Users as service innovators: The case of banking services. Research Policy, 40(6): 806-818.
    Orlikowski, W. J. 2002. Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3): 249-273.
    Perlow, L. A., Okhuysen, G. A., & Repenning, N., P. 2002. The speed trap: Exploring the relationship between decision making and temporal context. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5): 931-955.
    Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1(3): 267-292.
    Pettigrew, A. M. 1998. Success and failure in corporate transformation initiatives. In R. Galliers, & W. Baets (Eds.), Information Technology and Organizational Transformation. Chichester: Wiley.
    Phillips, N., & Tracey, P. 2007. Opportunity recognition, entrepreneurial capabilities and bricolage: Connecting institutional theory and entrepreneurship in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3): 313-320.
    Quinn, J. B., Doorley, T. L., & Paquette, P. C. 1990. Beyond products: Services-based strategy. Harvard Business Review, 68(2): 58-67.
    Rai, A., & Tang, X. 2014. Information technology-enabled business models: A conceptual framework and a coevolution perspective for future research. Information Systems Research, 25(1): 1-14.
    Repenning, N. P., & Sterman, J. D. 2001. Nobody ever gets credit for fixing problems that never happened: Creating and sustaining process improvement. California Management Review, 43(4): 64-88.
    Robey, D., & Sahay, S. 1996. Transforming work through information technology: A comparative case study of Geographic Information Systems in county government. Information Systems Research, 7(1): 93-101.
    Salunke, S., Weerawardena, J., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. 2013. Competing through service innovation: The role of bricolage and entrepreneurship in project-oriented firms. Journal of Business Research, 66(8): 1085-1097.
    Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
    Shu, E., & Lewin, A. Y. 2016. A resource dependence perspective on low-power actors shaping their regulatory environment: The case of Honda. Organization Studies, 38(8):
    1039-1058.
    Snihur, Y., Thomas, L. D. W., & Burgelman, R. A. 2018. An ecosystem-level process model of business model disruption: The disruptor`s gambit. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7): 1278-1316.
    Sterman, J. 1989. Modeling Managerial Behaviour: Misperceptions of Feedback in Dynamic Decision Making Experiment. Management Science, 35(3): 321-339.
    Sterman, J. D. 2001. System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Review, 43(4): 8-25.
    Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. 1997. The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organization Science, 8(5): 458-474.
    Tan, F., Pan, S. L., & Zuo, M. 2019. Realizing platform operational agility through information technology-enabled capabilities: A resource-interdependence perspective. Information Systems Journal, 29(3): 582-608.
    Tax, S. S., McCutcheon, D., & Wilkinson, I. F. 2013. The service delivery network: A customer-centric perspective of the customer journey. Journal of Service Research, 16(4): 454-470.
    van Maanen, J. 1979. The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 539-550.
    Venkatraman, N. 1994. IT-enabled business transformation: From automation to business scope redefinition. Sloan Management Review, 35(2): 73-87.
    von Hippel, E. 2001. Innovation by user communities: Learning from open-source software. Sloan Management Review, 42(4): 82-86.
    Whittington, R. 2006. Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5): 613-634.
    Willcocks, L., & Smith, G. 1995. IT-enabled business process reengineering: Organizational and human resource dimensions. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 4(3): 279- 301.
    Witell, L., Gebauer, H., Jaakkola, E., Hammedi, W., Patricio, L., & Perks, H. 2017. A bricolage perspective on service innovation. Journal of Business Research, 79: 290- 298.
    Yetton, P. W., Johnston, K., D., & Craig, J. F. 1994. Computer-aided architects: A case study of IT and strategy change. Sloan Management Review, Summer: 57-67.
    Yin, R. K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    科技管理與智慧財產研究所
    107364129
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107364129
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202001834
    Appears in Collections:[Graduate Institute of TIPM] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    412901.pdf11426KbAdobe PDF20View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback