Coevolving Innovations

… in Business Organizations and Information Technologies

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • RSS qoto.org/@daviding (Mastodon)

    • New status by daviding April 1, 2019
      Afternoon break in 200-year-old mid-lake pavilion included zhong, quail eggs, kumquats, sesame peanut blocks, preserved plums. Following afternoon visiting two art museums, the snack re-energized us into discussing philosophy, following the tradition of those frequenting Chinese teahouses. (Yuyuan Tea House, Yu Garden, Shanghai, PR China) 20190331 @marcocataffo
    • New status by daviding April 1, 2019
      Here in Shanghai, @marcocataffo has a Thinkpad T430 , which I've now brought up to date with Manjaro Linux (and Kubuntu LTS as a backup) alongside Windows 7. He's now 2 days jet lagged from Italy. Eventually, maybe @antlerboy will meet somewhere.
    • daviding shared a status by antlerboy@mastodon.social February 9, 2019
      @daviding Wittgenstein:"6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)"
    • New status by daviding February 9, 2019
      Dinner with @rms @fsf inviting the activists #CivicTechTO to gain some insight into discussions on privacy concerns #QuaysideToronto. We outlined but didn't delved into the complexity of three levels of government involved in #WaterfrontTO. (Royal Myanmar, Homer Avenue, Etobicoke, Ontario) 20190208
    • New status by daviding January 24, 2019
      Each of us can find different meaning from the same words. > The poetic prose of ancient Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi, for example, is a stunning piece of compressed thought and meaning with a deft touch of humour: ”The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you’ve gotten the fish, you can forget the trap. […]
  • RSS on IngBrief

    • Contextual dyadic thinking (Lee, 2017)
      Contextual dyadic thinking is proposed by Keekok Lee in her 2017 The Philosophical Foundations of Classical Chinese Medicine. This is as a way of appreciating Chinese implicit logic, as an alternative to dualistic thinking that has developed over centuries in Western philosophy.
    • Dao, de, wei, wuwei (Lai 2003)
      Appreciating wei and wuwei has led to the context of dao and de, in the writings of Karyn L. Lai. The scholarly review acknowledges prior interpretations of de and dao.
    • Engineering Resilience vs. Ecological Resilience (Holling, 1996)
      For @theNASciences in 1996, #CSHolling clarified definitions of resilience, with engineering seeking one equilibrium state, while ecology recognizes many. Those who emphasize the near-equilibrium definition of engineering resilience, for example, draw predominantly from traditions of deductive mathematical theory (Pimm,. 1984) where simplified, untouched ecological systems are imagined, or from traditions of engineering, where the motive […]
    • Service coproductions as reciprocal activities
      In addition to extrinsic economic exchange, #JohnMCarroll #JiaweiChen #ChienWenTinaYuan #BenjaminHanrahan @ISTatPENNSTATE say service coproductions relying on all participants to collaborate in both economic exchange and social exchange. Service coproduction is a special case of service provision in which the roles of service provider and service recipient both require active participation. Examples include healthcare, education, and […]
    • Science and Society in East and West | Joseph Needham | 2004
      In researching #SystemsChange, fundamental differences in science and philosophy in the west and the Chinese were surfaced by #JosephNeedham. A useful translation of wéi and wú wéi (i.e. 為 and 無為 , or 为 and 无为) is the ways of "human will" and "nature" as juxtaposed.
    • Wiki as computational platform
      Thinking forward on #federatedwiki, rather than backwards by @wardcunningham. > [Federated wiki] is a computational platform for the collaborative construction of things that work and will continue to work as platform technology evolves underneath it. > Too much thinking about wiki as a note-taking system will just hold it back.
  • RSS on Media Queue

  • RSS on daviding.com

    • 2019/03 Moments March 2019
      Month of intensive lectures and research meetings, in Toronto and then in Shanghai, with social breaks on local excursions to clear minds.
    • 2019/02 Moments February 2019
      Reduced exercise outside with a cold and snowy February, with excursions out of the house to warm places with family, friends and colleagues.
    • 2019/01 Moments January 2019
      January in Toronto has lots of intellectual offerings and artistic exhibitions to attract the curious out of warm homes, through cold and snow.
    • 2018/12 Moments December 2018
      Tried to have a normal month, with a busy social calendar of birthdays, a funeral plus Christmas season, while daily temperatures hovered just above freezing.
    • 2018/11 Moments November 2011
      Mentally busy month with a conference coming to town, and maintaining the regular pattern of local meetings, travel around town only by bicycle.
    • 2018/10 Moments October 2018
      October had more bicycling cross-town as fall temperatures declined, plus a 6-day trip to Portland Oregon for pattern language conferences.
  • Meta

  • Currently Viewing Posts Tagged service sector

    Talent in the (new) service economy: creative class occupations?

    I had previously written that “the (new) service economy is not the same as the service sector“. There’s an deep problem in trying to define and measure something new, when we have to rely on government statistics that have an anchor point of 1980, 1971, or even 1945. Using old definitions doesn’t necessary invalidate the measurements, but is problem if we’re dealing with a paradigm shift in a scientific revolution.

    In quantifying economic systems, many of the approaches take an output-oriented (i.e. GDP or value-added) approach. Another alternative is to take an input-oriented approach (i.e. labour). Looking into labour has brought me back to Richard Florida’s research. In The Rise of the Creative Class (2002) appears a breakdown of U.S. statistics that contrast to the three-sector view.

    Appendix Table 1 Counting the Classes, 1999 [p. 330]1

    Share Employees (OES data) Percent Share Employees (Emp. & Earnings data) Percent Share
    Creative Class 38,278,110 30.0% 38,453,000 28.8%
      Super-Creative Core 14.932,420 11.7% 14,133,000 10.6%
      Other Creative Class 23.345,690 18.3% 24,320,000 18.2%
    Working Class 33,238,810 26.1% 32.760,000 24.5%
    Service Class 55,293,720 43.4% 58,837,000 44.1%
    Agriculture 463,360 0.4% 3,426,000 2.6%
      Total 127,274,000   133,488,000  

    Why does the view of occupations as super-creative core and other creative class matter? From The Flight of the Creative Class in 2004, creative class occupations are shown to drive disproportionate amounts of wealth generation in the U.S. (Their creative sector I’ll frame as “new” service economy occupations, to contrast from their service sector as traditional service economy occupations).

    I had previously written that “the (new) service economy is not the same as the service sector“. There’s an deep problem in trying to define and measure something new, when we have to rely on government statistics that have an anchor point of 1980, 1971, or even 1945. Using old definitions doesn’t necessary invalidate the measurements, but is problem if we’re dealing with a paradigm shift in a scientific revolution.

    In quantifying economic systems, many of the approaches take an output-oriented (i.e. GDP or value-added) approach. Another alternative is to take an input-oriented approach (i.e. labour). Looking into labour has brought me back to Richard Florida’s research. In The Rise of the Creative Class (2002) appears a breakdown of U.S. statistics that contrast to the three-sector view.

    Appendix Table 1 Counting the Classes, 1999 [p. 330]1

    Share Employees (OES data) Percent Share Employees (Emp. & Earnings data) Percent Share
    Creative Class 38,278,110 30.0% 38,453,000 28.8%
      Super-Creative Core 14.932,420 11.7% 14,133,000 10.6%
      Other Creative Class 23.345,690 18.3% 24,320,000 18.2%
    Working Class 33,238,810 26.1% 32.760,000 24.5%
    Service Class 55,293,720 43.4% 58,837,000 44.1%
    Agriculture 463,360 0.4% 3,426,000 2.6%
      Total 127,274,000   133,488,000  

    Why does the view of occupations as super-creative core and other creative class matter? From The Flight of the Creative Class in 2004, creative class occupations are shown to drive disproportionate amounts of wealth generation in the U.S. (Their creative sector I’ll frame as “new” service economy occupations, to contrast from their service sector as traditional service economy occupations).

    Science of service systems, service sector, service economy

    As Service Science, Management and Engineering (SSME) has been developing, I’ve noticed a refinement of language. Rather than just abbreviating the long clause to service science, I’m now careful to use the phrase of a science of service systems, following Spohrer, Maglio et. al (2007). There’s a clear definition of service system in the final April 2008 revision of the report by the University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing.

    What is a service system?
    A service system can be defined as a dynamic configuration of resources (people, technology, organisations and shared information) that creates and delivers value between the provider and the customer through service. In many cases, a service system is a complex system in that configurations of resources interact in a non-linear way. Primary interactions take place at the interface between the provider and the customer. However, with the advent of ICT, customer-to-customer and supplier-to-supplier interactions have also become prevalent. These complex interactions create a system whose behaviour is difficult to explain and predict. [p. 6]

    I’ve been sorting through the significance of this service system orientation, and have reached the following personal points-of-view.

    • 1. The definition of a service system as a system is earnest
    • 2. A service system creating and delivering value emphasizes a value constellation perspective over a value chain perspective
    • 3. Research into service systems is muddled in the ideas of coproduction and (value) cocreation
    • 4. A service system creates value with an offering as a platform for co-production
    • 5. The constraints on service systems are changed with advances in technology
    • 6. The (new) service economy is not the same as the service sector

    Each of these points-of-view require some elaboration. (If the content that follow isn’t detailed enough, there are footnotes, too!)

    As Service Science, Management and Engineering (SSME) has been developing, I’ve noticed a refinement of language. Rather than just abbreviating the long clause to service science, I’m now careful to use the phrase of a science of service systems, following Spohrer, Maglio et. al (2007). There’s a clear definition of service system in the final April 2008 revision of the report by the University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing.

    What is a service system?
    A service system can be defined as a dynamic configuration of resources (people, technology, organisations and shared information) that creates and delivers value between the provider and the customer through service. In many cases, a service system is a complex system in that configurations of resources interact in a non-linear way. Primary interactions take place at the interface between the provider and the customer. However, with the advent of ICT, customer-to-customer and supplier-to-supplier interactions have also become prevalent. These complex interactions create a system whose behaviour is difficult to explain and predict. [p. 6]

    I’ve been sorting through the significance of this service system orientation, and have reached the following personal points-of-view.

    • 1. The definition of a service system as a system is earnest
    • 2. A service system creating and delivering value emphasizes a value constellation perspective over a value chain perspective
    • 3. Research into service systems is muddled in the ideas of coproduction and (value) cocreation
    • 4. A service system creates value with an offering as a platform for co-production
    • 5. The constraints on service systems are changed with advances in technology
    • 6. The (new) service economy is not the same as the service sector

    Each of these points-of-view require some elaboration. (If the content that follow isn’t detailed enough, there are footnotes, too!)

    ICT capital and the services sector in OECD reports

    I happened to be looking at the 2007 OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scorecard, and noticed a chart on “Growth Accounts for OECD Countries”. I’ve never thought of a breakdown this way, so I was intrigued by the legend.

    2007_OECD_ScienceTechnologyIndustryScoreboard_legend.jpg

    We naturally think of labour inputs, and capital inputs, but I didn’t realize that there were statistics that break out ICT capital (in blue) from non-ICT capital (in orange). Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) isn’t something that Karl Marx specifically thought about. The OECD reports acknowledges that breaking economic growth down into factors of production is tricky thing.

    Economic growth can be increased by increasing the amount and types of labour and capital used in production, and by attaining greater overall efficiency in how these factors of production are used together, i.e. higher multifactor productivity. Growth accounting involves breaking down growth of GDP into the contribution of labour input, capital input and MFP. The growth accounting model is based on the microeconomic theory of production and rests on a number of assumptions ….1

    Assuming that we really can break down factors contributing to growth by labour, ICT capital, and non-ICT capital — as well as some multi-factor productivity that can’t be broken down — what does it look like? Look at the blue bar in the view of the G7 countries …

    Contributions to GDP growth, G7 countries, 1995-2000 and 2000-05
    (percentage points)

    2007_OECD_ScienceTechnologyIndustryScoreboard_G7.jpg

    I happened to be looking at the 2007 OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scorecard, and noticed a chart on “Growth Accounts for OECD Countries”. I’ve never thought of a breakdown this way, so I was intrigued by the legend.

    2007_OECD_ScienceTechnologyIndustryScoreboard_legend.jpg

    We naturally think of labour inputs, and capital inputs, but I didn’t realize that there were statistics that break out ICT capital (in blue) from non-ICT capital (in orange). Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) isn’t something that Karl Marx specifically thought about. The OECD reports acknowledges that breaking economic growth down into factors of production is tricky thing.

    Economic growth can be increased by increasing the amount and types of labour and capital used in production, and by attaining greater overall efficiency in how these factors of production are used together, i.e. higher multifactor productivity. Growth accounting involves breaking down growth of GDP into the contribution of labour input, capital input and MFP. The growth accounting model is based on the microeconomic theory of production and rests on a number of assumptions ….1

    Assuming that we really can break down factors contributing to growth by labour, ICT capital, and non-ICT capital — as well as some multi-factor productivity that can’t be broken down — what does it look like? Look at the blue bar in the view of the G7 countries …

    Contributions to GDP growth, G7 countries, 1995-2000 and 2000-05
    (percentage points)

    2007_OECD_ScienceTechnologyIndustryScoreboard_G7.jpg

    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
    Theme modified from DevDmBootstrap4 by Danny Machal