The emergence of service analysis, design, architectures and solutions presented in service marketing and software engineering literature has created a need for understanding the nature of services. Services are often considered as possessing characteristics that are assumed to pose specific problems for service providers as opposed to providers of goods. This paper presents an ontological interpretation of the concept of service using a general and upper level ontology with a strong base in natural sciences. The Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) is used to interpret the concept of service, as defined in the Service Dominant Logic approach. The interpretation is demonstrated in an analysis of service characteristics, in relation to goods. The ontological and reductionist approach opens up to a formulation and analysis of service, a social and economical phenomenon, in terms of general natural science oriented concepts. The ontological grounding provides a language that supports alignment of specific service definitions used in different subject fields, as well as alignment with adjacent concepts such as capability. The interpretation and analysis support the conclusions that studied characteristics are relevant to the concept of service, although they cannot be considered as determinant characteristics of service, and from a practical point of view they contribute partially to observed concerns and problems.
This paper revisits the concept of service and explores a novel kind of ontological interpretation that enables a reductionist analysis of the nature of services, its similarities with and differences from goods.
The distinction between, and duality of goods and services have been a vibrant topic
of economical, market, and software engineering research and practices. The word
'service' has been part of natural language since 13th century and subsequently carries
substantial common sense meaning. The topics of services and goods have been
discussed amongst economists [
The search for defining and distinguishing characteristics of service have constituted
a key research topic, however practitioners [
This paper address the question if it is possible to create a formulation, interpretation, of the concept of service, using a higher level ontology, that can be used to explain the differences in argumentation relating to service characteristics, relations between services and goods, and practical consequences of servicing.
This question is part of a design science inquiry into the requirements that influence
the design of a knowledge organisation construct, Ability Perspective, an (Enterprise)
Architecture Viewpoint [
The aim of this paper is to present of an ontological interpretation of the concept of
service in terms of general concepts. The upper-level ontology - Basic Formal
Ontology (BFO) [
The main contributions of this paper are firstly, a novel ontological interpretation of the concept of service using a upper-level ontology that provides a bridge between natural and social sciences, and offers clarifications of the constituent parts of the concept of service. Secondly, conclusions that analysed service characteristics are relevant but not determinant, and that practical implications of the service characteristics depend on specific kinds of services. Thirdly, the introduction, in section 3.2, of the 'lead-to pattern' that provides a novel and flexible approach for informed reasoning about value creation along Result Ladders up to the Service Horizon.
The paper is structure as follows: In section 2 an outline of the objects of analysis, services characteristics and aspects, is presented. In the 3rd section, the theoretical basis is introduced. I section 4 an interpretation of the S-D logic service definition using BFO is presented. The services characteristics are then analysed in section 5. The paper is concluded with sections with future research and conclusions. 2
In this section the service characteristics that are chosen as subject of interpretation and
analysis are presented. They are well known, and often cited as vital and relevant in
service marketing literature by scholars [
The intangibility characteristic of service suggests that the performance, application
of competences don't have material qualities and cannot be experienced, seen, heard,
felt, smelled, or tasted. According to Zeithaml [
The inseparable characteristic suggests that both a producer and consumer that
must be both present at the time of performance of the service; i.e. a service is
produced, delivered and consumed simultaneously, and centralised mass production of
services is difficult [
The heterogeneity (inconsistency, variability) characteristic relates to the
variability, inconsistency, of a service performance. A service may be rendered
differently over time and space, and some qualities may vary across service producers,
e.g. a person could by tired one day and well rested another day, standardisation and
quality control are difficult to achieve [
The perishability (inventory) characteristic relates to that a service, a performance
of services, or application of competences, cannot be stored for future reference,
delivery, or use [
The theoretical basis consists of three parts; the subject of interpretation: a service definition from Service Dominant Logic, an upper level ontology - Basic Formal Ontology, and additional analytical tools.
For clarity the names, designations of previously defined concepts are prefixed with an abbreviation indicating the ontological domain they belong to: sdl: Service Dominant Logic, bfo: Basic Formal Ontology, ext: Analytical tools, extensions. 1.1
As the subject of interpretation and analysis the service definition from Service
Dominant Logic by Stephen L. Vargo and Robert F. Lusch [
The Service Dominant Logic is an approach, perspective, mind-set, and theory about the nature of service, in relation to goods, within the realm of marketing and economic exchange. S-D Logic offers an alternative to the prevailing dominating goods perspective. Instead of focusing on the exchange of goods the focus should shift to a focus to the value that various activities, material and immaterial entities provide, i.e. to the service they provide.
In S-D Logic, service is defined as the process of using one’s competences (knowledge and skills) through deeds, processes and performances for the benefit of another part.
Alternatively a service focus may be formulated in terms of operants that operate on operands (goods, material and immaterial entities, and other services). 3.1
The Basic Formal Ontology is an upper-level ontology that supports the creation of lower-level domain specific ontologies.
The BFO project [
Key elements of BFO are the support for formal (logical) reasoning enabled by its definition and the inclusion of common formal theories such as mereotopology and qualitative spatial reasoning. As part of the effort to formalize BFO, the BFO is defined using OWL and in first order logic using the CLIF (Common Logic Interchange Format) from ISO.
With respect to other public domain ontologies DOLCE, SUMO and CYC, BFO
aims at, and provides a smaller core that is extendable and adaptable to specific
domains [
Continuant
Entity Independent Continuant
Generically Dependent Continuant
Specifically Dependent Continuant Material Entity
Object
Immaterial Entity
Quality
Realizable Entity
Process Profile Occurrent
Process Role
Disposition
Function cells), or internal physical forces (portions of solid matter such as rocks and lumps of iron), or engineered assembly of components (engineered artifacts such as watches and cars). Objects can be joined to other objects and may include other objects as parts. Examples: cell, organism, grain of sand.
Immaterial Have no material entities as parts.
Entity Examples: surface, line, point Process Has temporal proper parts and for some time t, P s-depends-on some material entity at t. has-participant is an instance-level relation between a process, a continuant, and a temporal region at which the continuant participates in some way in the process. A process do not change, it is the change itself.
Examples: the life of an organism, a process of sleeping.
Process A process that represents a selective cognition or abstraction of mutually Profile dependent sub processes.
Examples: a pair of rumba dancers is moving together across the dance floor form a mutually dependent process pair, the process of temperature changes in John 3.2
For the purpose of analytical convenience we introduce 6 supporting concepts: Performer, Servicing, Result, Lead-to pattern, Result Ladder and Result Horizon.
A Performer is a bfo:Material Entity that can change the world. The ext:Performer concept facilitates an understanding of questions relating to interrogative 'who', 'who is doing what' and sdl:Operants. Examples include; Natural performers (organisms, humans,...), Man Made (machine, information system,...), Social (person, organisation unit, enterprise, ...), and Roles (actor, worker, ...).
The word "service" is often used as a sign for both the act of 'applying competences' and the resulting value, benefit part of (a) service(s). Servicing is a bfo:Process that specifically corresponds to the act of applying competences.
The following Lead to pattern, Result Ladder, and Result Horizon concepts provides the primary vehicles for reasoning about transfers of benefits from providers to beneficiaries.
The general three-part Lead to pattern is a pattern where some source entities lead
to some result entities [
A
source source role
Entity: pattern lead to :Entity
result determinant product role
Entity:
B Entity source
lead to mechanism Servicing result
source Entity
lead to mechanism instrumental / mediating
Result Horizon result
Entity terminal • A Source entity participates in a thematic source role, e.g. source entities are instrumental in bringing about a result. Examples: material and immaterial entities, humans, competence, skills, knowledge, information, and performers. • A Result entity participates in a thematic determinant product role. Examples include; value; benefit; satisfaction of objective; and entity, quality, functioning that comes into being, dies, does not come into being; and a state-of-affair; and a change or no change; and some act that is completed-done-not done. • The Lead-to entity is an entity that provides a link between the source and the result, where results are lead to, brought about, achieved, accomplished, realised, made, generated, etc. Examples of lead-to mechanisms include; a realising process, mechanism, causality, logical entailment, counter factual specification, probabilistic specification, and mathematical formulas.
A Result Ladder is a partially ordered set of ext:Results with ext:Lead-to links inbetween, where a ext:Result may play the role of a ext:Source entity for following ext:Lead to links. A ext:Result Ladder may include intermediary ext:Lead to links that mediate a transfer between source entities and terminal result entities over time and space.
In marketing and in services research numerous examples of ladders are found, e.g.
Means-End Theory where product attributes (A) lead to consequences in product use
(C), to individuals’ values (V) [
The ext:Result Ladder concept enable a detailed analysis of a number of benefit related aspects and questions: What is valued, which value is attributed to whom? Where and when are ext:Results observed and measured? How many ext:Result Ladders exist simultaneous (customer, provider, worker, owner, society, ...)? Is there a single terminal end point, or multiple? If so, does the value ladder terminate in some universal value space (“everything”), or at some value attributed to some single entity (“the”), or in societal values (“we”), or in experiential values of (all) sentient beings (“i”), or in some values that evolve over time?
A Result Horizon specifies the time, space and end result(s) of ext:Result Ladders. As such it is analogous to an investment horizon.
The ext:Result Horizon concept enables a detailed analysis of questions and aspects that influence design, management and governance of services: Where does a ext:Result Ladder ends, or should end? Is it at servicing completion, or at the exchange of service performance for money, or should/must the horizon be longer? Higher order values such as dignity, justice or gender equality may be assumed to be even (qualitative) better than money, or emotional values. 4
In this section the interpretation of the service definition using the Basic Formal
Ontology (BFO), is presented. The following S-D Logic definition constitute the base
for interpretation and subsequent analysis:
"the application of competences for the benefit of another" [
The service definition involves two agentive entities that play two roles, the applyer
(producer, provider) and, another (consumer, beneficiary). From a systems
perspective the two entitles may be considered as two (hard or soft) systems [
In the following diagram the rectangles represent concepts, the ovals represent concept relations, and the lines represent arguments of a concept relation. <bfo:Continuant> <participation> applyer <bfo:Continuant> competence
performer <bfo:Continuant>
... operand <participation> source
<bfo:Quality> <ext:Performer> ...
operant <participation>
source operates on <ext:Servicing> application of competences <bfo:Entity>
… <participation>
lead-to <bfo:Occurrent> ...
<bfo:Continuant> attributed to <bfo:Entity>
benefit <participation> <participation> result another <bfo:Occurrent>
...
<bfo:Process or bfo:Process Profile> application of competences for the benefit of another 1. The applyer entity that is attributed to the ‘application of competence for the benefit of another’, is interpreted generally as a bfo:Continuant. For specific kinds of service a more suitable subtype may be defined, e.g. a Human being can be represented as a bfo:Material Entity. 2. An applyer incorporates of at least one entity that can perform the "application of competences", i.e. change the world and deliver benefits. This entity is interpreted as a ext:Performer, that is competent (have requisite or adequate ability or qualities). In many cases the applyer and performer are the same entities, e.g. a human. In other cases they are different, e.g. an organisation consist of persons performing the servicing. 3. Competences are for the purpose of brevity interpreted as bfo:Continuant qualities of a ext:Performer. 4. The S-D Logic service definition do not explicitly include references to entities other than competences it is however implicitly understood in S-D Logic that more entities can participate in a ext:Servicing process, such as material and goods. These additional entities are added to the interpretation as participating bfo:Continuants. 5. The application of competences occurrence is interpreted as a ext:Servicing process in which the applyer participates, together with at least one ext:Performer and possibly one or more bfo:Continuant in source roles.
The "the benefit of another" is interpreted as consisting of three constructs: 1. An another entity that is interpreted as a bfo:Continuant. 2. The benefit entity is interpreted as an bfo:Entity attributed to the another entity. 3. Both another and the benefit entities participate in an bfo:Occurent where the benefit comes (or not) into being. The benefit entity participates in a result role and the another entity in an another role.
The last part of the definition to interpret is the "for" part that links the "application of competences" with the "benefits of another". The separation of the two (or more) agentive entities implies that some form of transfer of results, must exist, directly or through intermediary entities and/or over time and/or space. Here the ext:Lead to pattern is applied to represent linking and transfer aspects between applyer and another. The competent ext:Performer, and additional entities attributed to the applyer corresponds to entities playing the source role, the benefits attributed to another corresponds to result role entities, and the overall application of competences for the benefit of another process corresponds to the ext:Lead to part.
Depending the specific kind service defined or analysed, the overall “application of
competence…” bfo:Process can be represented as one large bfo:Process, or as a group
of smaller bfo:Processes, or as a bfo:Process Profile in alignment with soft systems
thinking [
For a specific kind of service it is possible to consider both the applyer and another as causally united bfo:Objects and then associate a bfo:Process with each, possibly together with intermediary bfo:Occurrents, or bfo:Processess, that mediate the transfer of benefits. This kind of separation opens up to ext:Result Ladder and ext:Result Horizon reasoning.
A Service horizon is defined as a ext:Result Horizon that determines the scope of service benefits ext:Result Ladder(s) to consider. It should be noted that the applyer and another entities may value intermediary results and terminal benefits differently.
The Triple-O service constructs: sdl:Operant is interpreted as a ext:Performer, and sdl:Operant as additional bfo:Continuants participating in a bfo:Occurent. 5
This section presents an analysis of service characteristics based on the Basic Formal Ontology based interpretation of service as defined in S-D Logic. The analysis focuses on exploring the following questions: Is the characteristic relevant to the definition of the concept of service? Is the characteristic determining/distinguishing service from goods? Does the characteristic impact practical considerations? 5.1
In the service interpretation three sources of intangibility are identified: • bfo:Occurrent, the occurrence of “application of competences.”, e.g. hair cutting. • participating source intangible bfo:Immaterial Entities, e.g. hair style. • resulting benefit bfo:Entity at the end of a Service Horizon, e.g. customer value. In the service interpretation Tangible phenomenons are identified: • • ext:Performers, sdl:operants, e.g. hairdresser and customer. bfo:Material entities, sdl:operands, e.g. chemicals, pair of scissors and hair.
What could be argued is that goods, in an opposite sense, can be seen and tasted, e.g. a cake, hair cut. However some goods are intangible; e.g. hairstyle, news, patents and intellectual properties.
The relevance of tangibility depends on one or more Service horizons, e.g. an intangible hairstyle, lead to a tangible hair cut, which leads to emotional intangible values at a later dinner. One argument for intangibility is that all Service horizons finally end up in sentient beings or humans with resulting intangible terminal emotional values. This argument is problematic, from a practical point of view, since service agreements often are specified in terms of shorter Service horizons and tangible results, such a cut hair or other functional qualities. Furthermore the actual ext:Result Ladders and Service horizons relevant to the provider, and beneficiary are in general different.
From a practical point of view, the qualities of a service depend on the mix of participating tangible bfo:Performers, and bfo:Continuants (material or immaterial).
Goods produced in manufacturing processes can be viewed as the sum of processing
steps, or a historical embodiment of ext:Servicing [
Based of the analysis I find that intangibility is a relevant characteristic of a service, although not a determinant characteristic. From a practical point of view intangibility is relevant, however a focus on intangibility may obfuscate the relevance of tangible entities along ext:Result Ladder and at the Service horizon. 5.2
In a hairdressing service case, a hairdresser (applyer) and consumer (another) meets, rendezvous directly in several bfo:Processes, ‘wash hair’, ‘modify hair’, etc. where the application of competences lead to benefits (cut hair) for the consumer, i.e. a direct transfer ext:Lead to mechanisms are present. However benefits may materialise at a later stage, in some other location, possibly at a dinner, mediated by the hair and the mental state of the consumer. The ext:Result Ladder (and Service horizon) may be longer than the time and space where hairdresser and consumer rendezvous, or the period of ext:Servicing, or the duration of a service agreement.
When buying a tree in order to facilitate clean air for our children; the transfer (leadto) processes between the tree buyer, planter and future beneficiaries are many and separated by time and space.
Based on the analysis I find that inseparability is a relevant characteristic of service, although not a determinant characteristic. From a practical point of view, reasoning about inseparability could be replaced by reasoning about ext:Lead to processes, ext:Result Ladders and Service horizons. 5.3
Two separate services, applications of competence, implies two distinct bfo:Processes, leading to differences in the quality. Three sources of variability in servicing are identified in participating bfo:Continuants: • • • ext:Performer, e.g.hairdresser, numerically controlled machine, computer. bfo:Material entity, e.g. pair of scissors, shampoo.
bfo:Immaterial entities, e.g. hair style.
In goods production processes the qualities of participating ext:Performers have an impact on the variability in the qualities of goods. Labour intensive production processes involve variability patterns that differ from processes executed by high quality man-made machines, or computers. In cases where the supply of goods are demand driven and engineered-to-order, the production process may involve higher variability due to re-tooling, configuration of machines, and human creative activities that cannot fully benefit from being repeatable and standardised.
Analogous to production of goods, the same ext:Performer and bfo:Material entities may participate in two different ext:Servicing processes, which may lead to lower expected variability. Variability in service availability may be mitigated by sourcing and dynamic capacity management of participating bfo:Continuants.
In the case of a custom-made toy making service, a company may choose to manufacture toys with high performance man-made machines, using steel as material, or human craftsmen that carves toys out of wood. Here an interesting questions arise, what is more relevant, the variability of servicing or the variability of the participating material? Depending on how variability is measured a highly variable, man made, old and ragged, toy made out of wood may be considered as more (emotionally) valuable than a durable, hard, cold and low variable steel toy.
Based on the analysis I find that heterogeneity is a relevant characteristic of service, although not a determinant characteristic. From a practical point of view all sources of variability should be considered along relevant ext:Result Ladders. 5.4
In the service interpretation four sources of perishability are identified: • bfo:Process ("application of competences"), e.g. cutting of a hair, • ext:Performer, e.g. hair dresser that gets older and forgets, • source bfo:Entities, e.g. shampoo and pair of scissors that degrades over time. • resulting bfo:Entity, e.g. emotional values of a haircut that diminish over time.
An “application of competences” (bfo:Process) cannot be stored for future use. On the other hand, ext:Performers and participating bfo:Material entities (pair of scissors, rental facilities) can be stored, and they can be acquired or produced in advanced for later participation in delivery. Neither ext:Performers and bfo:Material entities need to be owned or controlled. In a sourcing scenario they can be accessible (in mint condition) and thus replace inventory.
Goods (interpreted as bfo:Material entities), as well as ext:Performers and bfo:Material entities that participate in manufacturing processes may perish over time; people and machines get old, material decompose, chemicals degrade, etc. bfo:Immaterial entities such as hair styles, songs, digital and reproducible material exist over time without diminished capacity, although they may be forgotten.
Based on the analysis I find that perishability is a relevant characteristic of service, although not a determinant characteristic of service. From a practical point of view the temporal and inventory aspects of participating ext:Performers, bfo:Material entities and bfo:Immaterial entities are highly relevant for both services and goods. 6
Through a formalization of the service definition, using the same first order logic construct used in the formalisation of BFO, a domain specific service extension to BFO can be created. Such formalisation provides a platform for detailed analytical comparisons between a wider range of service definitions, service aspects, such as cocreation of value, and inquiries into larger systems based on services and goods.
The use of BFO as an ontological grounding (language) can be used to integrate a
service construct with adjacent constructs such as capability. In the paper “What
Capability Is Not” [
The BFO interpretation together with the Triple-O concepts (operant, operand, occurrence) suggests that a simplified, socially oriented, definition of service may be possible, e.g. “use of effort (energy, material) leading to a result of another”. 7
In this paper, I have revisits the concept of service and presented an interpretation of the concept of service as defined by the Service Dominant Logic framework, using a higher level ontology - Basic Formal Ontology. The use of BFO enables an intertheoretical reduction and a bridge between social and natural sciences.
Based on the interpretation and analysis I argue that the use of BFO provides clarifications, of the constituent parts of the concept of service (as defined in S-D Logic), and of similarities and differences between goods and services. However the interpretation and analysis of a single service definition reduces the possibility for making more general conclusions.
Furthermore I conclude that the studied characteristics are relevant to the concept of service, although they cannot be considered as determinant characteristics. From a practical point of view the studied characteristics contribute partially to observed concerns and problems.
In order to obtain a complete understanding for, both services and goods, it is necessary to consider the nature of all participating bfo:Material Entities, bfo:Immaterial Entities, and ext:Performers along one or more ext:Result Ladders up to the relevant or desired Service horizon.
These findings are consistent with studies [