Service science elevates the capacity consideration with its new value proposition. Rather than pushing on a price-volume continuum it provides a tool for negotiating value in additional ways. The stylist might achieve higher rewards and his clients’ greater value from a negotiation of service terms. Through this process both may achieve a more meaningful long run mechanism for creating lasting value. This is a more meaningful response to surplus capacity than increasing sales which could in fact hurt the value of the provider to busy CEOs. Accounting research is also pointing in this direction as evidence in Brignall’s (1996) deepening of the link between utilization strategies and performance measurement. Synchronized vocabulary could release awesome collaboration. The greatest problem to resolve is the approach to issues arising when capacity of a scare resource is reached. An accounting approach is to pull out the theory of constraints. Management is encouraged to promote the services that make the most contribution per containing factor—for example the stylist’s facility. In the longer term, investment is directed towards the constrained factor until a new constraint becomes binding on the firms ability to serve clients. This approach encourages accounting and operations professionals to push those in contact with clients towards a prescribed mix of services and products to offer. It is a classic power struggle that occurs whenever capacity limits are reached. Adoption of a service science approach will increase this struggle. The concept of co-producing value will have to be integrated with the prevailing theory of constraints if practioners wish to have lasting success. Settling service rules to reduce capacity conflicts is an easier administrative solution than negotiation of a relationship with clients as envisioned by a service science approach.
VB+SQLServer2000物流管理系统 Financial Reporting
Research into the 5 areas of concern will help the discipline of service science decrease organizational resistance to their ideas. There is a great number of accounting scholars that would argue that contribution of other disciplines are irrelevant to the 本文来自辣.文,论^文·网原文请找腾讯752018766 employed, investors want to receive information about their investments in the familiar format of financial statements. The stewardship mandates leads to highly reliable information in the narrow accounting definition of reliable. This reliability creates an unavoidable temptation to extend accountability into performance evaluation. Scholars have thoroughly explored and explained the problems with this approach and have been largely ignored. I do not foresee anything about service science that will allow it to escape this situation either. Valuation issues tend to fall into the realm of management accounting. Most of the comments in the previous section are managerial topics. Management accounting has created some powerful performance evaluation tools that do reflect the valuation aspect of information usefulness. Standard costing, economic value added (EVA), and the Balanced Scorecard are all techniques aimed at creating a measurement balance. I do think that service science will achieve greater acceptance if research in the field contributes to these evaluation techniques that supplement financial statement information. Oliva and Sterman (2001) were on a useful track when they created a 2 by 2 taxonomy for classifying service firms. They classified service firms by considering whether they use human systems or mechanical systems. On the other axis they classified service firms by the extent to which they help their clients—do some if it or do all of it. This provides a useful way to view how the parties create value for each other. For example a firm offering to meet all of a client needs for a service through human systems is delegating work through outsourcing. They distinguish this from a similar situation were the service is all provided by a tool system—an automated, self service solution. This is useful because the types of measures needed to achieve accountability are obviously different. So while service firms cannot expect financial accounting statements to reflect the valuation advantages service science is offering they can address the issue through insightful contributions to the performance evaluation methods deployed in managerial accounting reports. Service science can gain increased rates of recognition by connecting with management accounting practices outlined here. The value creation proposition of service science presents opportunities for better models of capital
上一页 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] 下一页
服务科学与会计英文文献和翻译+外文参考文献 第7页下载如图片无法显示或论文不完整，请联系qq752018766
