Translational Service Research And Design Methodology (TSRDM)

A new Service Research and Design Methodology in EXPLORATION

Cocreated by: Warg, Markus; Spohrer, Jim;  Böhmann, Tilo; Leitner, Christine; Carrubbo, Luca; Gruhn, Volker; Neuhüttler, Jens; Weiss, Peter; Burmeister, Marc-Alexander

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.

Please find below the current working version of the TSRDM White Paper as a PDF.

20251029 DRAFT TSRDM White Paper.pdf (1.72MB)

20251029 DRAFT TSRDM White Paper.pdf (1.72MB)

Why TSRDM?

Translational Service Research and Development Methodology (TSRDM) responds to the social and economic challenges arising from translational gaps (Sung et al., 2003) - that is, the disconnects between scientific discoveries and their effective implementation within cultural or structural contexts such as organizations (e.g. hospitals). TSRDM aims to accelerate the translation of scientific knowledge into service innovations that enhance human well-becoming.

Examples of "translational gaps" are:

- Knowledge-to-Action Gap: Disconnect between (e.g.technological) knowledge (AI, IoT, data analytics) and its integration into business processes and decision-making.
- Innovation-to-Implementation Gap: Many digital initiatives fail to transition from pilot programs to organization-wide adoption due to cultural, structural, or capability barriers .
- Technology-to-Value Gap: Organizations often adopt technologies without achieving measurable strategic or operational gains, creating a gap between digital maturity and impact .
- Socioeconomic and Skills Gap: Differences in digital readiness across organizations, geographies, or social groups that hinder inclusive transformation.

While the term "translational gap“ generally refers to the broad range of challenges of moving scientific discoveries from basic research (often laboratory findings) into practical (e.g. clinical) applications and treatments; the term "valley of death" is more specific (Butler, 2008; Gamo et al., 2017; Meslin et al., 2013). It represents the two obstacles where many promising discoveries fail to progress: first, "the need to restructure education and academic research to cultivate the fertile interface between academia and industry" (Gamo et al., 2017, p. 1) and second " the willingness of the market to invest in the further development and commercialization of a product" (Moser et al., 2023). 

In the following figure, the two “Valleys of Death” are embedded within the "mind–matter interaction" framework established by Eekels and Roozenburg (Eekels & Roozenburg, 1991).

This leads to the three questions that motivated the authors to initiate and co-create the TSRDM approach:
First: In what ways can research activities be systematically organized to serve as a unified epistemic and methodological foundation for both engineering practice and implementation processes?

Second: What conceptual or operational characteristics should such a foundational interface possess to effectively link research outputs with engineering and implementation requirements?

Third: Which strategies or mechanisms can be employed to enhance the willingness of stakeholders to invest resources in the implementation of innovations that are grounded in this integrated foundation or interface?

Key Features of Translational Service Research And Design Methodology (TSRDM)

- TSRDM links service research, design and  engineering,  to bridge gaps and overcome frictions in the process of implementing service innovations. 

- TSRDM develops a "unifying service language" aimed as "shared lexicon"  for the domains of research, design, and engineering to accelerate practical implementation.

- The "unifying service language" builds on "services" as structuring paradigm and the centrality of "service". TSRDM draws on the grand theories (Gregory, Johnston, Pratt, Watts, & Whatmore, 2011; Mills, 1959) of Service-Dominant Logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004) and Service Science (Jim Spohrer & Maglio, 2008) that serve as foundation and overarching “grammar” and guide the meaningful combination of "services".  Here, service (in the singular) is understood as the application of resources - such as knowledge, goods, activities, all carrying services -  for the benefit of others (J Spohrer, Maglio, Bailey, & Gruhl, 2007; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). While "service" provides the grammar and spelling of this language, the "services" themselves are its letters and words.

- 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 and engineering of practical outputs.

- TSRDM establishes a "shared lexicon" of translational services, architectures, and patterns that links the domains of research, design and engineering. 

- Scientific rigor and practical and societal relevance.

- Iterative and continuous process.

USPs of Translational Service Research And Design Methodology (TSRDM)

USP of TSRDM: The methodology is designed to bridge the gap between research and practice, ensuring that advanced insights in service research are effectively mobilized for real-world innovation.

USP of TSRDM: It facilitates communication and knowledge exchange among stakeholders, supporting more agile and evidence-driven development cycles for service innovations.

USP of TSRDM: As a result of TSRDM, organizations can more rapidly design, engineer, and implement new services grounded in robust research and a unified operational language.

USP of TSRDM: It is about building a "shared lexicon" of translational knowledge  and services to reduce the time to market for bridging the gaps between scientific discoveries and the implementation of service innovations into practice.

USP of TSRDM:  The research, design and engineering of service innovations is about (behavior) changes that enhance human well-becoming.

USP of TSRDM: Its process consists of three main areas of work. It is grounded in "service research", elaborates "translational knowledge & services" as "shared lexicon" for accelerating the  design and engineering of service innovations.

USP of TSRDM: multi-perspective, multi-layered, industry-agnostic.

Doing Research, Design & Engineering with TSRDM

Drawing on the centrality of service as basis for social and economic exchange and on "services" as structuring paradigma, TSRDM focuses on: "Three Pillars", an "Eight-Step Process" and the "Linkages and Transitions" within this process.

1. The Three Pillars of "Service Research", "Translational Services and Architectures" and "Service Design and Engineering". 

2. The Eight-Step TSRDM Process

1. Objectives definition
2. Perceptions, methodical considerations
3. Knowledge base
4. Objectives related knowledge
5. Translational services & architectures
6. Service design, service engineering, software engineering 
7. Implementation research, definite design
8. Outcomes research, findings and knowledge building

Warg et al. (2025), The TSRDM Process

3. Linkages, Frictions and Transitions of TSRDM Process

"Linkages" and "transitions" are key concepts in research on systemic change, social innovation, and transformation studies. They describe interconnected processes of change and the connections between different actors, systems, or events (Wittmayer et al., 2024).

• Linkages describe the connections, interactions, or relationships between different systems, sectors, or actors. These can be material (physical infrastructure), institutional (rules, policies), or social (networks, collaborations).

• Transitions refer to gradual, substantial changes in societal systems, such as a shift from one technological, social, or ecological regime to another. Transitions are typically processual, unfolding in stages and involving multiple actors, institutions, and domains.

What is a "Friction"?
Sutton (Sutton & Rao, 2024) describes organizational friction as anything that impedes progress, saps energy, and consumes time unnecessarily, like poorly designed procedures, burdensome communications, or lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities. He also cautions that many leaders are not aware of their “cone of friction,” meaning the unintended difficulties they create for others through their decisions or organizational design.

Not all friction is negative; Sutton distinguishes between “bad friction” (bureaucratic hurdles, inefficiency, wasted effort) and “good friction” (processes that slow action for valid reasons, like promoting thoughtful deliberation or preventing reckless decisions). While bad friction should be minimized, good friction can foster creativity, safeguard ethical behavior, and support better outcomes by encouraging reflection and deeper problem solving.

A Discussion at the Naples Forum on Service as a Starting Point of TSRDM

Translational Reseach

Translational research as a 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:

1. 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).
   
2. 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).
   
3. 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).
   
4. 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

Abraham, E., Marincola, F. M., Chen, Z., & Wang, X. (2012). Clinical and translational medicine: Integrative and practical science. Clinical and translational medicine, 1(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1186/2001-1326-1-1
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as Structure:An Actionable Construct for Strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451
Alexander, C. (1977). A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. Oxford university press.
Alter, S. (2012). Challenges for service science. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 13(2), 22–37.
Andersson, R. (2012). Clinical and translational medicine in Europe – horizon 2020 and beyond. Journal of translational medicine, 10(Suppl 2), A5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-10-S2-A5
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. Simon and Schuster.
Barile, S., Pels, J., Polese, F., & Saviano, M. (2012). An introduction to the viable systems approach and its contribution to marketing. Journal of Business Market Management, 5(2), 54–78.
Barile, S., & Polese, F. (2010a). Linking the viable system and many‐to‐many network approaches to service‐dominant logic and service science. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2(1), 23–42.
Barile, S., & Polese, F. (2010b). Smart service systems and viable service systems: Applying systems theory to service science. Service Science, 2(1/2), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.2.1_2.21
Baskerville, R., Baiyere, A., Gregor, S., Hevner, A. R., & Rossi, M. (2018). Design Science Research Contributions: Finding a Balance between Artifact and Theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(5), Article 3.
Basole, R., & Rouse, W. (2008). Complexity of service value networks: Conceptualization and empirical investigation. IBM Systems Journal, 47, 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.471.0053
Blümel, C., Gauch, S., Hendriks, B., Krüger, A. K., & Reinhart, M. (2015). In search of translational research. Report on the Development and Current Understanding of a New Terminology in Medical Research and Practice. iFQ-BIH-Report. Berlin institute of health.
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.
Butler, D. (2008). Translational research: crossing the valley of death. In: Nature Publishing Group UK London.
Chalofsky, N. E. (1996). Professionalization Comes from Theory and Research: The" Why" Instead of the" How to.". New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 72, 51–56.
Constantin, J. A., & Lusch, R. F. (1994). Understanding Resource Management: How to Deploy Your People, Products, and Processes for Maximum Productivity. Oxford, OH: The Planning Forum.
Davis, D., Davis, M. E., Jadad, A., Perrier, L., Rath, D., Ryan, D., Sibbald, G., Straus, S., Rappolt, S., Wowk, M., & Zwarenstein, M. (2003). The case for knowledge translation: Shortening the journey from evidence to effect. BMJ, 327, 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7405.33
Dayal, S., & Heath, J. (2025). What is Translational Research? https://www.leicabiosystems.com/de-de/educational-resources/articles/what-is-translational-research/
De Santo, M., Pietrosanto, A., Napoletano, P., & Carrubbo, L. (2011). Knowledge based service systems. In E. Gummesson, C. Mele, & F. Polese (Eds.),The 2011 Naples Forum on Service – Service dominant logic, network & system theory and service science: Integrating three perspectives in a new service agenda. Giannini. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1903954
Demirkan, H., & Spohrer, J. (2015). T-shaped innovators: Identifying the right talent to support service innovation. Research technology management, 58(5), 12–15. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5805007
Dubin, R. (1976). Theory building in applied areas. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 17, 39.
Eekels, J., & Roozenburg, N. F. (1991). A methodological comparison of the structures of scientific research and engineering design: their similarities and differences. Design studies, 12(4), 197–203.
Ellis, G. (2006). On the Nature of Emergent Reality,(w:) P. Clayton/P. Davies (red.), The Re-Emergence of Emergence. In: Oxford.
Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on Persuasive Technology,
Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., & Vlissides, J. (1995). Design Patterns - Elements of reusable object-oriented software. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Gamo, N. J., Birknow, M. R., Sullivan, D., Kondo, M. A., Horiuchi, Y., Sakurai, T., Slusher, B. S., & Sawa, A. (2017). Valley of death: a proposal to build a “translational bridge” for the next generation. Neuroscience research, 115, 1–4.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Univ of California Press.
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of management Review, 15(4), 584–602.
Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49–72.
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.
Gummesson, E. (2004). From one-to-one to many-to-many marketing. Service Excellence in Management: Interdisciplinary Contributions, Proceedings from the QUIS 9 Symposium, Karlstad University Karlstad, Sweden,
Gummesson, E. (2008). Total Relationship Marketing Third edition. In: Elsevier Ltd.
Gummesson, E., & Polese, F. (2009). B2B is not an island! Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 24(5/6), 337–350.
Haile, M. (2022). Bridging the Gap: The Benefits of Scientific communication for Scientists and Society by Mulatwa Haile.  https://newkirkcenter.uci.edu/2022/05/31/bridging-the-gap-the-benefits-of-scientific-communication-for-scientists-and-society-by-mulatwa-haile/
Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2021). A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: Insights and implications for strategy and organizational change. Journal of management studies, 58(5), 1159–1197.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 75–105.
Holland, J. H. (1992). Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus, 121(1), 17–30.
Jones, B. F. (2005). The Burden of Knowledge and the'Death of the Renaissance Man': An Analysis of Innovation Costs.
Katzan, H. (2008). Foundations of service science concepts and facilities. Journal of Service Science, 1(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.19030/jss.v1i1.4297
Khoury, M. J., Gwinn, M., Yoon, P. W., Dowling, N., Moore, C. A., & Bradley, L. (2007). The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention? Genetics in Medicine, 9(10), 665–674.
Kieliszewski, C. A., Spohrer, J. C., Lyons, K., Patrício, L., & Sawatani, Y. (2018). Handbook of Service Science (Vol. 2). Springer.
Kjellberg, H. (2018). Attending to actors and practices: Implications for service-dominant logic. In (pp. 466–482): Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kong, H. H., & Segre, J. A. (2010). Bridging the translational research gap: a successful partnership involving a physician and a basic scientist. The Journal of investigative dermatology, 130(6), 1478.
Ladyman, J., Lambert, J., & Wiesner, K. (2013). What is a complex system? European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3, 33–67.
Littman, Bruce H., Di Mario, L., Plebani, M., & Marincola, Francesco M. (2007). What's next in translational medicine? Clinical Science, 112(3-4), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1042/CS20060108
Löbler, H. (2013). Service‐dominant networks. Journal of Service Management.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2008). The service-dominant mindset. InService science, management and engineering education for the 21st century (pp. 89–96). Springer.
Lynham, S. A. (2000). Theory building in the human resource development profession. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(2), 159–178.
Lynham, S. A. (2002). The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Advances in developing human resources, 4(3), 221–241.
Maglio, P. P., Srinivasan, S., Kreulen, J. T., & Spohrer, J. (2006). Service systems, service scientists, SSME, and innovation. Communications of the ACM, 49(7), 81–85.
Mankoff, S. P., Brander, C., Ferrone, S., & Marincola, F. M. (2004). Lost in translation: Obstacles to translational medicine. Journal of translational medicine, 2, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-2-14
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Marincola, F. M. (2003). Translational medicine: A two-way road. Journal of translational medicine, 1(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-1-1
Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2012). Forms of emergence and the evolution of economic landscapes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 82(2-3), 338–351.
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,
McLaughlin, B. P. (1997). Emergence and supervenience. Intellectica, 25(2), 25–43.
Meiren, T. (2006). Service Engineering im Trend. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.
Meiren, T., & Barth, T. (2002). Service Engineering in Unternehmen umsetzen. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.
Mele, C., & Polese, F. (2011). Key dimensions of service systems: Interaction in social & technological networks to foster value co-creation. In H. Demirkan, J. Spohrer, & V. Krishna (Eds.),The Science of Service Systems (pp. 37–59). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8270-4
Meslin, E. M., Blasimme, A., & Cambon-Thomsen, A. (2013). Mapping the translational science policy ‘valley of death’. Clinical and translational medicine, 2(1), 14.
Michel, S., Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Reconfiguration of the conceptual landscape: a tribute to the service logic of Richard Normann. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 152–155.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press.
Moser, L. B., Nehrer, S., Angele, P., Aurich, M., Dyrna, F., Hackl, W., Hess, S., Neubauer, M., Niemeyer, P., & Rupp, M.-C. (2023). Herausforderungen der Translation von innovativen Produkten und Technologien in die klinische Praxis. Arthroskopie, 36(3), 187–193.
Murdock, L., & Stephenson, R. (2024). Advancing Translational Research. Journal of Translational Research, 1(1), 2432753.
Nadkarni, S., & Prügl, R. (2021). Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research. Management Review Quarterly, 71, 233–341.
Ng, I. C. L., Maull, R., & Yip, N. (2009). Outcome-based contracts as a driver for systems thinking and service-dominant logic in service science: Evidence from the defence industry. European Management Journal, 27(6), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2009.05.002
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things. MIT Press.
Norman, D. (2023). Design for a better world: Meaningful, sustainable, humanity centered. MIT Press.
Norman, D., & Heuer, S. (2024). A Tete-a-Tete with Don Norman. Think:Act by Roland Berger, 09/2024(43), 75–77. https://www.rolandberger.com/de/Insights/Publications/Don-Norman-über-menschheitszentriertes-Design.html
Normann, R. (2001). Reframing business: When the map changes the landscape. John Wiley & Sons.
Normann, R., & Ramirez, R. (1993). From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy. Harvard business review, 71(4), 65–77.
Nüttgens, M., Heckmann, M., & Luzius, M. J. (1998). Service Engineering Rahmenkonzept. Information Management & Consulting, 13(1998), 14–19.
Papanek, V. (2019). Design for the Real World. Thames & Hudson. https://books.google.de/books?id=7tedwwEACAAJ
Papanek, V., & Fuller, R. B. (1972). Design for the real world. Thames and Hudson London.
Passmore, D. (1997). Ways of seeing: Disciplinary bases of research in HRD. Human resource development research handbook, 114–137.
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.
Polese, F., Barile, S., Loia, V., & Carrubbo, L. (2018). The demolition of service scientists’ cultural-boundaries. In P. P. Maglio, C. A. Kieliszewski, J. C. Spohrer, K. Lyons, L. Patrício, & Y. Sawatani (Eds.),Handbook of Service Science, Volume II (pp. 773–784). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98512-1_34
Polese, F., Russo, G., & Carrubbo, L. (2009). Service Logic, Value Co-Creation and Networks: Three Dimensions Fostering Inter-Organizational Relationships: Competitiveness in the Boating Industry. Proceedings of the 12th QMOD and Toulon-Verona Conference,
Safin, S., Delfosse, V., & Leclercq, P. (2010). Mixed-reality prototypes to support early creative design. The Engineering of Mixed Reality Systems, 419–445.
Scannell, J. W., Blanckley, A., Boldon, H., & Warrington, B. (2012). Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nature reviews Drug discovery, 11(3), 191–200.
Spohrer, Vargo, S. L., Caswell, N., & Maglio, P. P. (2008, 2008). The service system is the basic abstraction of service science. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008),
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 and references. International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector, 1(3), 1–31.
Spohrer, J., Maglio, P., Bailey, J., & Gruhl, D. (2007). Steps toward a science of service systems. Computer, 40(1), 71–77.
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.
Spohrer, J. C., Vargo, S. L., & Maglio, P. P. (2008). The Service System is the Basic Abstraction of Service Science Proc. 41st Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Science, Big Island.
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.
Sutton, R. I., & Rao, H. (2024). The friction project: How smart leaders make the right things easier and the wrong things harder. Random House.
Swanson, R. A. (1997). Human resource development research handbook: Linking research and practice. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23.
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. (2004). The four service marketing myths: remnants of a goods-based, manufacturing model. Journal of Service Research, 6(4), 324–335.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). It's all B2B... and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 181–187.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2018). The SAGE handbook of service-dominant logic. SAGE Publications Limited.
Vargo, S. L., Lusch, R. F., & Akaka, M. A. (2010). Advancing service science with service-dominant logic. InHandbook of Service Science (pp. 133–156). Springer.
Vargo, S. L., Peters, L., Kjellberg, H., Koskela-Huotari, K., Nenonen, S., Polese, F., Sarno, D., & Vaughan, C. (2022). Emergence in marketing: an institutional and ecosystem framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1–21.
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144.
Wang, X. (2012). A new vision of definition, commentary, and understanding in clinical and translational medicine. Clinical and translational medicine, 1(5), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1186/2001-1326-1-5
Warg, M., & Deetjen, U. (2021a). Human Centered Service Design (HCSD): Why HCSD Needs a Multi-level Architectural View. InInternational Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (pp. 249–256). Springer.
Warg, M., & Deetjen, U. (2021b, 2021). Why co-creation in service ecosystems needs an architectural view 30.th RESER International Congress and Coval Conference, Alcala, Spain.
Warg, M., & Frosch, M. (2023). Human-Technology Interaction and Future of Work: Science, Logic and Architecture Perspectives on Designing Service Platforms for Future Work. AHFE (2023) International Conference., Hawaii.
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., & Mensah, G. A. (2018). T4 translational moonshot: making cardiovascular discoveries work for everyone. Circulation research, 122(2), 210–212.
Westfall, J. M., Mold, J., & Fagnan, L. (2007). Practice-based research—“Blue Highways” on the NIH roadmap. Jama, 297(4), 403–406.
Wittmayer, J. M., Hielscher, S., Rogge, K. S., & Weber, K. M. (2024). Advancing the understanding of social innovation in sustainability transitions: exploring processes, politics, and policies for accelerating transitions. In (Vol. 50, pp. 100805): Elsevier.
Woolf, S. H. (2008). The meaning of translational research and why it matters. Jama, 299(2), 211–213.
Yee, L., Chui, M., Roberts, R., & Smit, S. (2025). Technology Trends Outlook 2025. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-top-trends-in-tech#/
Zerhouni, E. A. (2005). Translational and clinical science — time for a new vision. New England Journal of Medicine, 353(15), 1621–1623. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb053723