Examining service triad operations: Formation, functioning, and feedback exchanges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study service triads by examining the member‐to‐member exchanges underpinning service formation, functioning, and feedback. A service triad comprises two serviced customers from the supplier's standpoint and two service providers from the end user's standpoint, which can cause operational complexity and challenges. We view the service triad as an operating entity and study four information‐rich cases to improve our understanding of this operational complexity. Leveraging scholarly knowledge related to service operations management and ecosystems theory, we uncover several interesting patterns related to the formation, functioning, and feedback exchanges. First, the formation exchanges depend on the value creation goal of the service triad. Second, the service buyer engages in operational coordination, despite delegating the delivery of services to the supplier. Third, feedback exchanges allow the service triad to monitor service performance for further improvement and innovation. Our qualitative inquiry focusing on the visualization and codification of members’ participation in exchanges advances our collective understanding of service triads beyond the dominant focus on structure and governance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".