Translational Service Research And Design Methodology (TSRDM)
A new Service Research and Design Methodology in EXPLORATION
Cocreated by: Warg, Markus; Spohrer, Jim; Böhmann, Tilo; Neuhüttler, Jens; Gruhn, Volker; Carrubbo, Luca; Burmeister, Marc-Alexander; Schneider, Anne-Marie; Powalla, Christian; Leitner, Christine; Weiss, Peter
Translational Service Research And Design Methodology (TSRDM) is a systematic approach used to transform conceptual service research insights into translational knowledge and services as foundation for the engineering, design and management of service innovations (e.g. trigger for behavior changes) that enhance humen well-becoming.
Why TSRDM?
TSRDM is the response to a key social and economic challenge: accelerating the translation of scientific discoveries into service innovations that enhance human well-becoming.
This challenge intensifies as knowledge and technology continue to advance. Jones (2005) referred to this phenomenon as the “burden of knowledge.” In a related vein, Westfall and colleagues observed that “it takes an estimated average of 17 years for only 14% of new scientific discoveries to enter day-to-day clinical practice” (Westfall et al., 2007, p. 403).
Key Features of Translational Service Research And Design Methodology (TSRDM)
- TSRDM bridges the gap between research and practice by combining service research, translational knowledge & services and the engineering, design and management of service innovations
- Supplementary to existing service research methodologies which focus either on the theoretical / conceptual foundations or on the design of artifacts and solutions, TSRDM focuses on the transfer, the translation of the foundations into the design of practical outputs
- At the core of TSRDM are the linkages and translational services, concepts, structures or frameworks
- Scientific rigor and practical and societal relevance
- Iterative and continuous process
USPs of Translational Service Research And Design Methodology (TSRDM)
USP of TSRDM: It is about building translational knowledge and services to reduce the time to market for bridging the gap between scientific discoveries and translation into practice
USP of TSRDM: It is about applying translational knowledge and services as foundation for the engineering, design and management of service innovations
USP of TSRDM: The engineering, design and management of service innovations is about behavior changes that enhance human well-becoming
USP of TSRDM: Its process consists of three main areas of work with "service research", "translational knowledge & services" and "engineering, design & management of service innovations"
USP of TSRDM: multi-perspective, multi-layered, industry-agnostic...
The TSRDM Process:
1. Objectives definition
2. Methodical considerations
3. Knowledge base
4. Objectives related knowledge
5. Translational knowledge & services
6. Engineering, design & mnagement of service innovations
7. Implementation research
8. Outcomes research, findings and knowledge building
Warg et al. (2025), The TSRDM Process
Origin?
At the Naples Forum on Service 2025 I (Markus Warg) asked Steve Vargo, co-founder of Service-Dominant Logic (S-D L), what he thought needed to be done to make S-D L or Service Science more relevant to practice. He replied that in his opinion this is not the role of base or grand theories.
After repeated reflection, I have come to the conclusion that Steve Vargo is right. The task of a basis or grand theory is to explain social and economic mechanisms in an abstract and holistic way; developing relevance for practice is not its task.
However, this left open my question of how the discoveries of theories can be better transferred into practice. The usual research methods such as conceptual paper, design science research or case studies are either conceptual or practical in nature and if they combine both sides then they usually bridge the gap in a very specific way of object definitions.
Summarized: how to bridge the gap between basic and applied research and how to systematically use scientific knowledge to enhance human well-becoming?
Translational research as the missing piece of the puzzle. The concept of translational research originally comes from clinical research and is intended in bridging two key “gaps” by first moving discoveries from "bench to bedside" and second "into clinical practice" (Sung et al., 2003). Translational research is to bridge basic and applied research to find innovative treatment for societal benefit (Dayal & Heath, 2025; Kong & Segre, 2010; Murdock & Stephenson, 2024). This intention expanded to the translational research continuum, emphasizing the broader process of translating research into practice and community health impact (Woolf, 2008). Khoury et al. (Khoury et al., 2007) introduced a four-phase (T1–T4) model, representing the evolution in how translational research is conceptualized.
Several influential papers are recognized as foundational in defining and shaping the field of translational research. A systematic review identified three main "families" of definitions, each anchored by highly cited original papers:
- Sung et al. (2003): This paper is widely credited with formalizing the concept of translational research as bridging two key “gaps” (T1 and T2) in moving discoveries from bench to bedside and into clinical practice. It is one of the most cited and influential works in the field (Sung et al., 2003).
- Westfall et al. (2007): This work expanded on the translational research continuum, emphasizing the broader process of translating research into practice and community health impact (Westfall & Mensah, 2018).
- Woolf (2008): Woolf’s paper is notable for defining translational research as a continuous process, rather than discrete gaps, and is heavily cited in subsequent literature (Woolf, 2008).
- Khoury et al. (2007): Introduced a four-phase (T1–T4) model, representing a further evolution in how translational research is conceptualized (Khoury et al., 2007; Dayal & Heath, 2025; Khoury et al., 2007)
References
Alexander, C. (1977). A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. Oxford university press.
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. Simon and Schuster.
Avison, D. E., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1991). Information systems development research: An exploration of ideas in practice. The Computer Journal, 34(2), 98–112.
Böhmann, T. (2004). Modularisierung von IT-Dienstleistungen: Eine Methode für das Service Engineering. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.
Brettreich-Teichmann, W., Fähnrich, K.-P., Haischer, M., & Meiren, T. (1998). Service Engineering. Entwicklungsbegleitende Normung (EBN) für Dienstleistungen.
Bryar, C., & Carr, B. (2021). Working Backwards: Insights, Stories, and Secrets from Inside Amazon. Pan Macmillan.
Carrubbo, L., Bruni, R., Cavacece, Y., & Moretta Tartaglione, A. (2015). Service system platforms to improve value co-creation: Insights for translational medicine. Service Dominant Logic, Network and Systems Theory and Service Science: Integrating three Perspectives for a New Service Agenda.
Chandy, K. M., Charpentier, M., & Capponi, A. (2007). Towards a theory of events. Proceedings of the 2007 inaugural international conference on Distributed event-based systems,
Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on Persuasive Technology,
Gamma, E. (1995). Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Pearson Education India.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Univ of California Press.
Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M., & Whatmore, S. (2011). The dictionary of human geography. John Wiley & Sons.
Gruhn, V., & Striemer, R. (2018). The Essence of Software Engineering. Springer Nature.
Gummesson, E. (1995). Relationship Marketing: its Role in the Service Economy. In W. J. Glynn & J. G. Barnes (Eds.),Understanding services management. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60–72.
Hevner, A., & Chatterjee, S. (2010). Design research in information systems: theory and practice (Vol. 22). Springer Science & Business Media.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 75–105.
Hines, P., & Rich, N. (1997). The seven value stream mapping tools. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17(1), 46–64.
Jones, B. F. (2005). The Burden of Knowledge and the'Death of the Renaissance Man': An Analysis of Innovation Costs.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Service-dominant logic: a necessary step. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7/8), 1298–1309.
Matsumura, N. (2013). A Shikake as an Embodied Trigger for Behavior Change. AAAI Spring Symposium: Shikakeology,
Matsumura, N., & Fruchter, R. (2013). Shikake Trigger Categories. AAAI Spring Symposium: Shikakeology,
Matsumura, N., & Leifer, L. (2013). Preliminary considerations on Shikake design process. 2013 Conference on Technologies and Applications of Artificial Intelligence,
Meiren, T. (2006). Service Engineering im Trend. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.
Meiren, T., & Barth, T. (2002). Service Engineering in Unternehmen umsetzen. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press.
Nunamaker Jr, J. F., Chen, M., & Purdin, T. D. (1990). Systems development in information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(3), 89–106.
Nüttgens, M., Heckmann, M., & Luzius, M. J. (1998). Service Engineering Rahmenkonzept. Information Management & Consulting, 13(1998), 14–19.
Papanek, V., & Fuller, R. B. (1972). Design for the real world. Thames and Hudson London.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Gengler, C. E., Rossi, M., Hui, W., Virtanen, V., & Bragge, J. (2006). The design science research process: a model for producing and presenting information systems research First International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2006),
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2008). A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth ofthe firm. New York: Sharpe.
Polese, F., & Carrubbo, L. (2014). A managerial view of translational medicine. Annals of Translational Medicine and Epidemiology, 1(1), 1–3.
Shostack, G. L. (1982). How to design a service. European Journal of Marketing, 16(1), 49–63.
Spohrer, J., Giuiusa, A., Demirkan, H., & Ing, D. (2013). Service science: reframing progress with universities. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30(5), 561–569.
Spohrer, J., & Kwan, S. K. (2009). Service science, management, engineering, and design (SSMED): An emerging discipline-outline & references. International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector (IJISSS), 1(3), 1–31.
Spohrer, J., & Maglio, P. P. (2008). The emergence of service science: Toward systematic service innovations to accelerate co‐creation of value. Production and Operations Management, 17(3), 238–246.
Spohrer, J., Maglio, P. P., Vargo, S. L., & Warg, M. (2022). Service in the AI era: Science, logic, and architecture perspectives. Business Expert Press.
Sung, N. S., Crowley, W. F., Genel, M., Salber, P., Sandy, L., Sherwood, L. M., Johnson, S. B., Catanese, V., Tilson, H., & Getz, K. (2003). Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. Jama, 289(10), 1278–1287.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(January), 1–17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution [10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n1r06pg5l66w7441/
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2018). The SAGE handbook of service-dominant logic. SAGE Publications Limited.
Warg, M. (2020). Architecture and Its Multifaceted Roles in Enabling Value Co-creation in the Context of Human-Centered Service Design. International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics,
Warg, M., Burmeister, M.-A., & Gruhn, V. Service Perspectives on Lean Management Strategies in Dynamic Networks.
Warg, M., Weiß, P., Engel, R., & Zolnowski, A. (2016). Service Dominant Architecture based on S-D logic for Mastering Digital Transformation: The Case of an Insurance Company 26th Annual RESER Conference, Naples, Italy.
Westfall, J. M., Mold, J., & Fagnan, L. (2007). Practice-based research—“Blue Highways” on the NIH roadmap. Jama, 297(4), 403–406.
Woolf, S. H. (2008). The meaning of translational research and why it matters. Jama, 299(2), 211–213.
