THE IMPACT OF SHARED RESOURCES ON SERVICE EFFICIENCY DISCONTENT Claes Gunnarsson and Conny Johanzon, rebro University, Sweden

Keywords service process efficiency, service management, process variability, shared resources Introduction The main research issue addressed here is whether shared resources may influence service process efficiency. This issue is highlighted when top-management attempts to outline generalized schemes of resource allocation, resource dimensioning or resource incentives which solely focus on increasing the resource utilization-ratio (i.e. achieve capacity efficiency) irrespective of considering specific factors of process efficiency. Hence, process efficiency criterias of swift and even flow may not be considered. Indiscriminate actions of increasing the resource utilization-ratio, by the sharing of resources among various operational service processes, can be administrative convenient but my also entail considerable detrimental effects in terms of amplified process variability or increased leadtimes. Based on the four efficiency factors (lead-time, process capability, resource utilization and flexibility), the focus is to analyze and discuss how the rational of increasing resource sharing among various operational service processes may be incongruent with achieving process efficiency. The applied managerial principle of dimensioning the resource capacity based on homogeneous criterion such as costs, the time unit and required competence could actually generate increased process variability and therefore be contra-productive in terms of achieving service process efficiency. Following this line of reasoning, the paper elaborates the notion of various efficiency shortfalls which may be related to the dialectics between the functional approach of increased resource sharing, viewed from a top-management perspective, and the process orientation of the service system. Considering the impact of shared resources on service efficiency discontent, this approach can bridge the gap between the actual and potential efficiency in the process oriented service system. Methodology and empirical cases The methodology applied is characterized as an empirical case study approach (Yin, 1994). The empirical data collection was primarily based on extensive field studies and semi-structured on-site interviews with managers and personnel in two service organizations. The first case is the stroke-careprocess at Karlskoga hospital which consists of service components directly related to patient healthcare. The second case is the passenger ground service delivery process at SAS Ground Services (SGS) which includes the functional service elements related to passenger support, baggage handling, catering, and airplane service. Continuous in-depth dialogue and respondent verification with several organizational representatives has focused the enquiries on issues relevant for managerial concerns in achieving service process efficiency. Theoretical framework From a theoretical point of view, it is assumed that manufacturing concepts and principles are to some extent applicable to a service context in terms of achieving efficiency (Levitt, 1972; Gummesson, 1993; Bowen and Youngdahl, 1998). However, the relationship between service efficiency and capacity management is highly influenced by process variability which is partly introduced by the participating customer (Chase and Tansik, 1983: Gummesson, 1995, 1992; Schmenner, 2004; Grnroos and Ojasalo, 2004). Hence, variability is a significant underlying factor and a prevailing condition which highly influences service process efficiency. This put emphasis on flexibility in terms of requirements for adaptations concerning the fluctuations of the capacity (resource) utilization rate and their predictability as well as the process capability to satisfy customers needs and requirements (Corsten and Stuhlmann, 1998). The efficiency of a service process deals with how parsimoniously it uses organizational resources and a lean philosophy combines a standard approach without sacrificing flexibility (Maleyeff, 2006). From a top management perspective, the level of resource utilization plays an essential role in achieving efficiency but could also introduce process variability. The

operational notion of shared resources could be understood as a scarce common-capacity source in the internal service system which serves various processes. A performance trade-off is apparent since shared resources should be avoided unless the benefits of synergies outweigh adverse efficiencyaspects (i.e. longer lead-times, coordination complexity, reduction of flexibility etc.). This is especially evident if the shared resources constitute a scarce capacity in the service system (van der Vaart and van Donk, 2004). Similarly, capacity leakages (Armistead and Clark, 1994) may be the result of quality failures, scheduling losses, and shortfalls at change-overs associated with achieving flexibility. This aspect put emphasis on the potential capacity restraints which may be the result of process change-overs (i.e. shared resources). Analysis and discussion Considering that the two efficiency-factors of lead-time and process capability reflect the desired result of service processes, it is inevitable that the design of the service system corresponds with service strategy and policy to realize a high fulfilment rate of service process proficiency. In addition, the two efficiency-factors of flexibility and resource utilization, which reflect prerequisites of processes, should correspond to methods applied in governing processes that are characterized by manageable variability. The empirical analysis illuminates how shared resources may trigger dynamism between these four factors and produces efficiency-effects with compound significance across various domains of the service system, see Table 1. The consistency potential outline integrative mechanisms which could form a convex fitness set among processes in the service system. Table 1. The impact of shared resources on service process deficiencies
Context of shared resources: Divergence between resource utilization and convenient process variability: Basis for assessment: Fulfillment rate of service process efficiency: Goal incompatibility between service system design and process orientation Consistency potential:

Service system design

Shortfall 1

Inherent to service strategy or policy

Shared commitment in organizational objectives

Process government in (sub) system interfaces

Shortfall 2

Communication restraints

Distortion of flexibility, lead-time and process capability

Responsiveness and uncertainty absorption

Inter-process contingencies (i.e. process change-overs)

Shortfall 3

Inherent to scheduling routines and budgetary control

Discrepancy between available resources and accessible capacity

Process synergy

Intra-process contingencies

Shortfall 4

Based on recognizing labor lateness or resource absenteeism

Misalignment of customer scripts or skills and competence.

Competence and task assignment prioritization

References Armistead C.G. and Clark. G. 1994. The coping capacity management strategy in services and the influence on quality performance. International Journal of Service Industry Management Vol. 5 No. 2 pp.5-22 Bowen D.E. and Youngdahl W.E. 1998. Lean service: in defence of a production-line approach. International Journal of Service Industry Management. Vol. 9 No. 3 pp.207-225 Chase R. and Tansik D.A. 1983. The Customer Contact Model for Organization Design. Management Science Vol. 29 No. 9 pp.1037-1050 Corsten H. and Stuhlman S. 1998. Capacity management in service organisations Technovation 18 (3) pp.163-178 Gummesson E. 1992. Service Productivity: A Blasphemous Approach. Conference paper at The 2nd International Research Seminar in Service Management. France June 9-12 Gummesson E. 1993. Quality Management in Service Organizations: An Interpretation of the Service Quality Phenomenon and a Synthesis of International Research. International Service Quality Association. Gummesson E. 1995. Truths and myths in service quality. The Journal of Quality and Participation Vol. 18 No. 6 pp.18-24 Grnroos C. and Ojasalo K. 2004. Service productivity: Towards a conceptualization of the transformation of inputs into economic results in services Journal of Business Research 57 pp.414-423 Levitt T. 1972. Production-line approach to services. Harvard Business Review Vol. 50 No. 5 pp. 6374 Maleyeff J. 2006. Exploration of internal service systems using lean principles. Management Decisions Vol. 44 No. 5 pp.674-689 McLaughlin C. P. and Coffey S. 1990. Measuring Productivity in Services. International Journal of Service Industry Management Vol.7 No1 pp.20-41 Schmenner R.W. 2004. Service businesses and productivity. Decisions Sciences Vol. 32 No. 3 pp.333347 van der Vaart T. and van Donk D. P. 2004. Buyer focus: Evaluation of a new concept for supply chain evaluation. International journal of production economics No. 92 pp.21-30 Yin R.K. 1994. Case Study Design Research and Methods. Sage Publications Newbury Park.