Suppose the bins were energy, time and space. It eliminates the notion that information creates stuff. Actually making stuff starts with stuff that moves through a process. Information makes the process require less time and energy. But without the input of stuff, we still don’t get to more stuff.

In this schema, re energy, we get people power. Tool assisted people power. Then biomass based power. The next stage would be solar or renewable power sources. Input stuff might be framed as time/energy that has been fixed in space. The system structure can then be framed as the emergent structure of time/energy in time/space.

Three variables make for much simpler models.

“producer services, the providers of information and support for the increase in the productivity and efficiency of firms.”

Distributive services combine transportation and communication with wholes and retail trade.

Personal services.

Social service.
He then does a pretty rigorous cross national comparison to follow how the interaction plays out in America, German, France and Japan.

From my very quick read of this post, my sense is that you and Castells would agree on many things.

Thanks for the blog and your comments in SEM2008.

I noticed that you had used the definition for service system from page 6 of the IfM&IBM report. In their executive summary, they however provide a definition which includes also “other stakeholders” which “create and deliver calue”. Further analysed, I think these two definitions are fundamentally different when considering the “co-creation”.

best regards, Valtteri

I do think making the distinction between value co-production and value-cocreation is an important distinction. Perhaps saying “there is only value in interaction” is a clearer way of expressing the core idea in value-cocreation. Normann describes value-cocreation between current-self and future-self, as what many people mean by creating value while interacting with the environment or things.