Reconfiguring the service system for resilience: lessons learned in the higher education context

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic started a new era in understanding the topic of resilience and adaptability. The human society has not faced such a widespread global challenge until now. This paper aims to address a context change influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, using a case study in high education. While the character of the issues emerging is the same as in any other domain, in high education, the principles and consequences can be more directly studied and analyzed. Design/methodology/approach This paper describes a framework to evaluate how the context of the tertiary education service has been disrupted and the influence on the adherence of the students to the educational process, via primary quantitative data collection. This paper tackles the problem of distinguishing the change in context and context change and the possibility of system reconfiguration. Findings To properly face the evolving conditions induced by the pandemic, the education service system must be aligned to the imposed emergency situations, trying to “find” where the changes have emerged, i.e. what kind of reconfiguration is, whether it appears in the goals or in the service system itself. Furthermore, this study discusses how the findings can be valuable and applied to situations beyond the pandemic, in other cases of context disruption to highlight how general the service activities are within our reconfiguration approach. Originality/value From a theoretical point of view, this work is in line with main assumptions of system thinking, by confirming several insights of service systems’ behavior, even in a logic of B2B interactions (from the offer side); first in terms of openness and adaptation, in addition to readiness to change and – when and how – this change can occur. From a practical point of view, this paper’s contribution is directed toward achieving the more successful change management process, as reached together by motivated partners working hard for a common final goal. Realizing that the pandemic has brought a completely new context of education, managers should focus now on monitoring all aspects of the education business, not only directly affected projects and processes.

[1]  B. Edvardsson,et al.  Crisis behaviors as drivers of value co-creation transformation , 2021, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences.

[2]  Carol K. K. Chan,et al.  Pedagogical Transformation and Teacher Learning for Knowledge Building: Turning COVID-19 Challenges into Opportunities , 2021, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology.

[3]  A. Al-Adwan,et al.  Technology Integration in Higher Education During COVID-19: An Assessment of Online Teaching Competencies Through Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model , 2021, Frontiers in Psychology.

[4]  Nabil Carrubbo Luca Ruberto Margherita Georges Badr Responding to COVID – 19: Insight Into Capability Re-Configuration of Healthcare Service Ecosystems? The Use Case of Hospitalization at Home , 2021, Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability.

[5]  Sorin N. Ciolofan,et al.  COLLABORATIVE SMART SERVICE DESIGN FOR TVET RESOURCE MANAGEMENT , 2021, EDULEARN21 Proceedings.

[6]  Weiping Hu,et al.  Curriculum Innovation in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Thinking-Based Instruction Theory and Its Application , 2021, Frontiers in Psychology.

[7]  Luca Carrubbo,et al.  AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLEX EDUCATION SERVICE FOR RESILIENCE IN A MULTI-CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK , 2021 .

[8]  Manisha Paliwal,et al.  Teacher readiness for online teaching-learning during COVID - 19 outbreak: a study of Indian institutions of higher education , 2021, Interact. Technol. Smart Educ..

[9]  Byeongwoo Kang How the COVID-19 Pandemic Is Reshaping the Education Service , 2021, The Future of Service Post-COVID-19 Pandemic, Volume 1.

[10]  L. Ewing Rethinking Higher Education Post COVID-19 , 2021, The Future of Service Post-COVID-19 Pandemic, Volume 1.

[11]  Byunghak Leem An effect of value co-creation on student benefits in COVID-19 pandemic , 2021, International Journal of Engineering Business Management.

[12]  Leonard Walletzký,et al.  Management of Smart City in Lens of Viable System Approach , 2021, AHFE.

[13]  Leonard Walletzký,et al.  Modelling for Ethical Concerns for Traceability in Time of Pandemic "Do no Harm" or "Better Safe than Sorry!" , 2021, HICSS.

[14]  Lessons for Education from COVID-19 , 2020 .

[15]  V. Braun,et al.  The online survey as a qualitative research tool , 2020, International Journal of Social Research Methodology.

[16]  Mouzhi Ge,et al.  Multi-contextual View to Smart City Architecture , 2020, AHFE.

[17]  A. Payne,et al.  Viability mechanisms in market systems: prerequisites for market shaping , 2020, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing.

[18]  Kevin M. Roessger,et al.  COVID-19 and the Future of Adult Education: An Editorial , 2020, Adult Education Quarterly.

[19]  Luca Carrubbo,et al.  Is There a Relationship of Interdependence Between Resilience, Viability and Competitiveness? Ditron Ltd. Case-Study , 2020, IESS.

[20]  Mouzhi Ge,et al.  Service Design for Resilience: A Multi-Contextual Modeling Perspective , 2020, IEEE Access.

[21]  Mouzhi Ge,et al.  Modelling Service Design and Complexity for Multi-contextual Applications in Smart Cities , 2019, 2019 23rd International Conference on System Theory, Control and Computing (ICSTCC).

[22]  Joseph F. Hair,et al.  When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM , 2019, European Business Review.

[23]  O. Pavlov,et al.  Using the Service Science Canvas to Understand Institutional Change in a Public School System , 2018, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[24]  Exploring complex service design: Understanding the Diamonds of Context , 2019 .

[25]  F. Hoy,et al.  Toward the Service Science of Education , 2018, Handbook of Service Science, Volume II.

[26]  Ned Kock,et al.  Minimum sample size estimation in PLS‐SEM: The inverse square root and gamma‐exponential methods , 2018, Inf. Syst. J..

[27]  D. Kıran,et al.  Emotional Intelligence and Achievement Motivation Among College Students , 2018 .

[28]  Arthur Lupia,et al.  How to Improve Coding for Open-Ended Survey Data: Lessons from the ANES , 2018 .

[29]  Roberto Bruni,et al.  The viable system perspective of actors in eco-systems , 2017 .

[30]  Rajendra Mulye,et al.  The role of embeddedness for resource integration , 2015 .

[31]  Robert P. Vecchio,et al.  of the Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness , 2015 .

[32]  Francesco Caputo,et al.  From ‘Ego’ to ‘Eco’ in B2B Relationships , 2013 .

[33]  Juha J. Hinkkanen,et al.  CONCEPTUALIZING THE CO-CREATION OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN TECHNOLOGY-INTENSIVE B2B MARKETS: AGENT-BASED MODELING APPROACH , 2013 .

[34]  Hongchang Wang,et al.  Resource-based modelling of B2B information systems' effect on achieving supply chain ambidexterity: a focus on dynamic heterogeneity , 2012, Int. J. Netw. Virtual Organisations.

[35]  Irene C. L. Ng,et al.  Viable Service Systems and Decision Making in Service Management , 2012 .

[36]  Francesco Polese,et al.  An Introduction to the Viable Systems Approach and its Contribution to Marketing , 2012 .

[37]  Irene C. L. Ng,et al.  S-D logic research directions and opportunities , 2012 .

[38]  James C. Spohrer,et al.  Ten Reasons Service Science Matters to Universities. , 2012 .

[39]  Roberto Parente,et al.  Strategie di co-evoluzione nei sistemi locali innovativi , 2011 .

[40]  Amy Schweinle,et al.  Success and motivation among college students , 2011 .

[41]  Stephen L. Vargo,et al.  It's all B2B…and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market , 2011 .

[42]  Stephen L. Vargo,et al.  From Repeat Patronage to Value Co-creation in Service Ecosystems: A Transcending Conceptualization of Relationship , 2010 .

[43]  Matti J. Haverila,et al.  Customer complaint behavior and satisfaction in a B2B context: a longitudinal analysis , 2010 .

[44]  M. S. Khan,et al.  Customer satisfaction and loyalty in B2B services: directions for future research , 2009 .

[45]  J. Kotter Leading change: why transformation efforts fail , 2009, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[46]  Francesco Polese,et al.  B2B is Not an Island , 2009 .

[47]  Pauline V. Smith,et al.  Management and Technology , 2008 .

[48]  P. Maglio,et al.  The Emergence of Service Science: Toward Systematic Service Innovations to Accelerate Co‐Creation of Value , 2008 .

[49]  K. Blois,et al.  B2B `Relationships' - A Social Construction of Reality? , 2003 .

[50]  Alexander Backlund The definition of system , 2000 .

[51]  B. Mark Organizational culture. , 1996, Annual review of nursing research.

[52]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Explaining Development and Change in Organizations , 1995 .

[53]  Mark S. Granovetter Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[54]  J. Kotter,et al.  Choosing strategies for change. , 1979, Harvard business review.

[55]  M. Hannan,et al.  The Population Ecology of Organizations , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[56]  F. Sieverts Student Motivation. , 1963, Science.

[57]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  General System Theory , 1962 .

[58]  W. Dill Environment as an Influence on Managerial Autonomy , 1958 .

[59]  K. Boulding General Systems Theory---The Skeleton of Science , 1956 .