Service Exchange Framework


We have map the basic service workflow specifying two business roles -customer and performer-, four commitments events -request/offer, mutual promises, report of completion, report of satisfaction. , and four processes that evolve from emerging possibilities to specific commitments with clear deliverables -Preparing/Listening, Negotiation, Execution, Satisfaction). The diagram bellow shows a representation of the framework.
Picture_2.png
The distinctions and graphic conventions to represent service process were originally articulated by Fernando Flores, Chauncey Bell and a group of BDA's collaborators in the early 90s.

The beauty of this simple modeling of a service exchange is that put together basic human practices for creating value. As an illustration, In the first quadrant we have distinguished six levels of resolution: to address customers' moods and dissatisfactions, to articulate customers' concerns, to unsettle customers' wasteful presuppositions, to sketch possibilities relevant to customers, to declare priorities on opportunities (the "golden quadrant"), to make a specific offer to the customer. Every quadrant can be articulated as a set of process and bussiness practices that creates succesive levels of resolution, again, from conversations of possibilities to conversation for action in which specific promises will be delivered. Q2, for instance will include articulation of objections, possibilities of expanding collaboration, possibilities of reducing costs, possibilities of simplifying conditions of satisfaction, etc. There is a four phased service flow in which there is a smooth transition from unarticulated possibilities to specific value promises that -in the happy path- enrich the customer/provider bound.

Articulation of the Service Exchange


The service exchange requires a basic setup that define the context in which customers and performers can collaborate. The setup should be defined so it can create a zone of explicit conditions of satisfaction for coordination (cos) and a zone of dealing-with-breakdown [contingencies]. The right balance between both of them it is a practical matter. In general too little explicit cos will produce a big room for mis-coordination, and too much explicitly defined cos will produce too much bureaucracy and costs, with marginal value added.

The service exchange it is a unity that has two components: Service Conditions of Satisfaction (CoS), and Compensations for CoS (CcoS). This exchange is illustrated in the next diagram.

Picture_7.png



The above diagram illustrates roles, action states and action flows. We propose to use a methodological approach in which we can make visible the explicit areas of consensual agreement between customers and performers as well as the background that support it. The next diagrams are aimed to capture that approach.

Service Condition of Satisfaction's Table:










Investor A playing Customer

Middle Ground

Investor B playing Performer

Concerns'
Stories


Customer's stories of concerns: What do I need to take care of? Why caring about it is meaningful and economically valuable for my customers? Why is it valuable for me?
[shared future: from commoditization to singular value added]
Resource allocation, planing and scheduling service deadlines, risks to be addressed, opportunities for improvements and collaboration w/customers.
Service Promise to be delivered

Conditions of Satisfaction + Expectations.
Conditions of Satisfaction explicitly defined.

Engagement Contract.
Conditions of Satisfaction + Expectations.
Contingency Management


Shared declaration of issues to be addressed in the commercial relation.
Shared declaration of issues not to be addressed in the commercial relation.

MIS

KPI:
Customer's role in improving SWF
KPI:
Indicators supporting assessments on the exchange value for the customer.
KPI:
Performer role in improving SWF
Technological Environment

Required Data Linkages with customer's systems.
Platform(s) supporting coordination, completion, recording and traceability of transactions.
Required Data Linkages with performer's systems.


Analogously, the second workflow of the service exchange can be specified as follow:

Compensation for Fulfilled Service Condition of Satisfaction's (Terms & Conditions)Table :





Investor B playing Customer

Middle Ground

Investor A playing Performer

Concern's Stories

Customer's stories of concerns: What do I need to take care of? Why caring about it is meaningful and economically valuable for my customers? Why is it valuable for me?
[shared future: from commoditization to singular value added]
Cashflow management.
Management of the Value Exchange conversation
Service Promise to be delivered

Conditions of Satisfaction + Expectations.
Conditions of Satisfaction [Ts&Cs] explicitly defined. Engagement Contract.
Conditions of Satisfaction [Ts&Cs] + Expectations.
Contingency Management


Shared declaration of issues to be addressed in the commercial relation.
Shared declaration of issues not to be addressed in the commercial relation.

MIS
KPI:
Customer's role in improving SWF
KPI:
Indicators supporting assessments on the exchange value for the customer.
KPI:
Performer role in improving SWF
Technological Environment

Required Data Linkages with customer's systems.
Required Data Linkages with customer's systems.
Required Data Linkages with performer's systems.