Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Expanding the nature and scope of requirements for service systems through Service-Dominant Logic: the case of a telemonitoring service

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A renewed understanding of service as a process of resource application and integration, rather than as digital or physical products, shifts the focus of service engineering to the value-creating relationships among entities within complex socio-technical service systems. This understanding is based on Service-Dominant Logic (S-D Logic), a recognized perspective on value creation in modern economies. Goal-oriented modeling, in particular when integrating agent-oriented principles, has been shown to be a suitable method for designing and developing service systems based on S-D Logic principles. Yet, the impact of S-D Logic on the nature and scope of requirements to be elicited and analyzed when designing a service system using goal-oriented modeling has not been clearly articulated. We propose a domain-specific profile of the Goal-oriented Requirement Language, a goal-oriented modeling language part of the User Requirements Notation standard, as well as a set of heuristics for eliciting requirements for service systems. Both are derived from a metamodel of service systems based on S-D Logic principles. Using a case study of a telemonitoring service, we demonstrate that using the heuristics to generate a requirements model for the design of the service results in a more complete set of requirements than existing solutions for telemonitoring services. The results of this study contribute to a better understanding of the impact of S-D Logic on service engineering, pointing toward the need for more research on the impact of operationalized domain theories on requirements engineering.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Spohrer J, Maglio PP, Bailey J, Gruhl D (2007) Steps toward a science of service systems. Computer 40(1):71–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ramirez R (1999) Value co-production: intellectual origins and implications for practice and research. Strateg Manag J 20(1):49–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199901)20:1%3c49:AID-SMJ20%3e3.0.CO;2-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2004) Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J Mark 68(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lopes AJ, Pineda R (2013) Service systems engineering applications. Procedia Comput Sci 16:678–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.01.071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fragidis G, Tarabanis K (2011) Analyzing value co-creation in service systems: contribution from GORE. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM symposium on applied computing, ACM, TaiChung, Taiwan, pp 705–707. https://doi.org/10.1145/1982185.1982338

  6. Demirkan H, Dolk D (2013) Analytical, computational and conceptual modeling in service science and systems. IseB 11(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-012-0189-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2008) Service dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J Acad Mark Sci 36(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Vargo SL, Maglio PP, Akaka MA (2008) On value and value co-creation: a service systems and service logic perspective. Eur Manag J 26(3):145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Böhmann T, Leimeister J, Möslein K (2014) Service systems engineering. Bus Inf Syst Eng 6(2):73–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-014-0314-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bo E, Gloria N, Choo Zhi M, Robert F, Ding Y (2011) Does service-dominant design result in a better service system? J Serv Manag 22(4):540–556. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231111155114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Komssi M, Kauppinen M, Töhönen H, Lehtola L, Davis AM (2015) Roadmapping problems in practice: value creation from the perspective of the customers. Requir Eng 20(1):45–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-013-0186-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Amyot D, Becha H, Braek R, Rossebø JEY (2008) Next generation service engineering. In: Innovations in NGN: future network and services, 2008. K-INGN 2008. First ITU-T Kaleidoscope Academic Conference, 12–13 May 2008, pp 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1109/KINGN.2008.4542266

  13. van der Raadt B, Gordijn J, Yu E (2005) Exploring Web services from a business value perspective. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE international conference on requirements engineering, 29 Aug–2 Sept 2005. pp 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2005.28

  14. Yu E (2002) Agent-oriented modelling: software versus the world. In: Wooldridge MJ, Weiß G, Ciancarini P (eds) Agent-oriented software engineering AOSE-2001 Workshop, vol 2222. Springer, Berlin, pp 206–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-70657-7_14

  15. Lessard L (2015) An intentional approach to the engineering of knowledge-intensive service systems. Procedia Manuf 3:3383–3390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lessard L (2015) Modeling value cocreation processes and outcomes in knowledge-intensive business service engagements. Serv Sci 7(3):181–195. https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.2015.0104

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Durugbo C, Pawar K (2014) A unified model of the co-creation process. Expert Syst Appl 41(9):4373–4387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.01.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Weigand H, Johannesson P, Andersson B, Bergholtz M (2009) Value-based service modeling and design: toward a unified view of services. In: van Eck P, Gordijn J, Wieringa R (eds) Advanced information systems engineering: 21st international conference, CAiSE 2009, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8–12 June 2009. Proceedings. Springer, Berlin, pp 410–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02144-2_33

  19. Cardoso J, Lopes R, Poels G (2014) Conceptual frameworks. In: Cardoso J, Lopes R, Poels G (eds) Service systems: concepts, modeling, and programming. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10813-1_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Poels G (2010) A conceptual model of service exchange in service-dominant logic. In: Morin J-H, Ralyté J, Snene M (eds) Exploring services science: first international conference, IESS 2010, Geneva, Switzerland, 17–19 Febr 2010. Revised papers. Springer, Berlin, pp 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14319-9_18

  21. Ferrario R, Guarino N (2012) Commitment-based modeling of service systems. paper presented at the international conference on exploring services sciences (IESS 2012), Geneva, Switzerland, Februrary

  22. Fragidis G, Tarabanis K (2011) Towards an ontological foundation of service dominant logic. In: Snene M, Ralyté J, Morin J-H (eds) Exploring services science: second international conference, IESS 2011, Geneva, Switzerland, 16–18 Febr 2011, Revised selected papers. Springer, Berlin, pp 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21547-6_16

  23. Mora M, Raisinghani M, Gelman O, Sicilia M (2011) Onto-servsys: a service system ontology. In: Demirkan H, Spohrer JC, Krishna V (eds) The science of service systems. Service science: research and innovations in the service economy. Springer, US, pp 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8270-4_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Amyot D, Mussbacher G (2011) User requirements notation: the first ten years, the next ten years (invited paper). J Softw 6(5):747–768. https://doi.org/10.4304/jsw.6.5.747-768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2016) Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. J Acad Mark Sci 44(1):5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lusch RF, Nambisan S (2015) Service innovation a service-dominant logic perspective. MIS Q 39(1):155–176. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.1.07

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Vargo SL, Lusch RF, Wieland H, Akaka MA (2012) Knowledge service engineering. In: Knowledge service engineering handbook. Ergonomics design & mgmt. Theory & applications, CRC Press, pp 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1201/b12043-7

  28. Vargo SL, Akaka MA (2009) Service-dominant logic as a foundation for service science: clarifications. Serv Sci 1(1):32–41. https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.1.1.32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Vargo SL (2008) Customer integration and value creation: paradigmatic traps and perspectives. J Serv Res 11(2):211–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670508324260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Spohrer J, Vargo SL, Caswell N, Maglio PP (2008) The service system is the basic abstraction of service science. In: 41st Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS 2008), Waikoloa, Big Island, Hawaii, USA, 7–10 Jan 2008. IEEE computer society, pp 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-008-0105-1

  31. Spohrer JC, Maglio PP (2010) Toward a science of service systems: value and symbols. In: Maglio PP, Kieliszewski CA, Spohrer JC (eds) Handbook of service science. Service science: research and innovations in the service economy. Springer, US, pp 157–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1628-0_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Stucky SU, Cefkin M, Rankin YA, Shaw B, Thomas JO (2011) Dynamics of value co-creation in complex IT service engagements. IseB 9(2):267–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-010-0146-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sampson SE (2015) Value paradoxes and the time value of value. Serv Sci 7(3):149–162. https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.2015.0107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rajala R, Pekka T, Hervonen T (2015) Assessing customer-perceived value in industrial service systems. Serv Sci 7(3):210–226. https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.2015.0108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ng ICL, Smith LA (2012) An integrative framework of value. In: Vargo SL, Lusch RF (eds) Special issue—toward a better understanding of the role of value in markets and marketing (review of markering research), vol 9. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 207–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1548-6435(2012)0000009011

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Edvardsson B, Tronvoll B, Skålén P (2012) Service systems as a foundation for resource integration and value co-creation. In: Vargo SL, Lusch RF (eds) Special issue—toward a better understanding of the role of value in markets and marketing (review of marketing research), vol 9. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 79–126. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1548-6435(2012)0000009008

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Object Management Group (2014) Object constraint language, version 2.4. https://www.omg.org/spec/OCL/

  38. Richters M, Gogolla M (2000) Validating UML models and OCL constraints. In: Evans A, Kent S, Selic B (eds) ≪UML ≫ 2000—the unified modeling language. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1939. Springer, Berlin, pp 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-40011-7_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Amyot D, Shamsaei A, Kealey J, Tremblay E, Miga A, Mussbacher G, Alhaj M, Tawhid R, Braun E, Cartwright N (2012) Towards advanced goal model analysis with jUCMNav. In: Castano S, Vassiliadis P, Lakshmanan LV, Lee ML (eds) Advances in conceptual modeling, ER 2012, vol 7518. LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33999-8_25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Amyot D, Horkoff J, Gross D, Mussbacher G (2009) A lightweight GRL profile for i* modeling. In: Heuser CA, Pernul G (eds) Advances in conceptual modeling—challenging perspectives, ER 2009, vol 5833. LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04947-7_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. ITU-T (2018) Recommendation Z.151 (10/18), user requirements notation (URN)—language definition. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.151/en

  42. Lessard L, Yu E (2014) Value cocreation modeling: supporting the analysis and design of B2B service engagements through agent orientation and business intelligence. In: Horkoff J, Dalpiaz F (eds) 7th international i* workshop, thessaloniki, Greece, June 16–17. CEUR workshop proceedings

  43. Yu E (2009) Social modeling and i*. In: Borgida AT, Chaudhri V, Giorgini P, Yu ES (eds) Conceptual modeling: foundations and applications—essays in honor of john mylopoulos vol 5600. LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02463-4_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Souza E, Moreira A, Araújo J (2017) Aligning business models with requirements models. In: Themistocleous M, Morabito V (eds) Information systems. EMCIS 2017, vol 299. LNBIP. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 545–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65930-5_43

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Marosin D, van Zee M, Ghanavati S (2016) Formalizing and modeling enterprise architecture (EA) principles with goal-oriented requirements language (GRL). In: Nurcan S, Soffer P, Bajec M, Eder J (eds) International conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE 2016), vol 9694. LNCS. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39696-5_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Regev G, Wegmann A (2005) Where do goals come from: the underlying principles of goal-oriented requirements engineering. In: 13th IEEE international conference on requirements engineering (RE’05), 29 Aug–2 Sept 2005, pp 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2005.80

  47. Horkoff J, Aydemir FB, Cardoso E, Li T, Maté A, Paja E, Salnitri M, Piras L, Mylopoulos J, Giorgini P (2019) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: an extended systematic mapping study. Requir Eng 24(2):133–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-017-0280-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bakkes S, Morsch R, Kröse B (2011) Telemonitoring for independently living elderly: inventory of needs & requirements. In: 2011 5th international conference on pervasive computing technologies for healthcare (pervasive health) and workshops, IEEE, Dublin, Ireland, 23–26 May 2011, pp 152–159. https://doi.org/10.4108/icst.pervasivehealth.2011.245958

  49. Peirce SC, Hardisty AF, Preece AD, Preece AF, Elwyn G (2011) Designing and implementing telemonitoring for early detection of deterioration in chronic disease: defining the requirements. Health Inf J 17(3):173–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458211409717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Dinesen B, Nonnecke B, Lindeman D, Toft E, Kidholm K, Jethwani K, Young MH, Spindler H, Oestergaard UC, Southard AJ, Gutierrez M, Anderson N, Albert MN, Han JJ, Nesbitt T (2016) Personalized telehealth in the future: a global research agenda. J Med Internet Res 18(3):e53. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hommel KA, Gray WN, Hente E, Loreaux K, Ittenbach RF, Maddux M, Baldassano R, Sylvester F, Crandall W, Doarn C, Heyman MB, Keljo D, Denson LA (2015) The telehealth enhancement of adherence to medication (TEAM) in pediatric IBD trial: design and methodology. Contemp Clin Trials 43:105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2015.05.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rolland C, Kirsch-Pinheiro M, Souveyet C (2010) An intentional approach to service engineering. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 3(4):292–305. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2010.26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Bryl V, Giorgini P, Mylopoulos J (2009) Designing socio-technical systems: from stakeholder goals to social networks. Requir Eng 14(1):47–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-008-0073-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Pineda R, Lopes A, Tseng B, Salcedo OH (2012) Service systems engineering: emerging skills and tools. Procedia Comput Sci 8:420–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2012.01.081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Tien J, Berg D (2003) A case for service systems engineering. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 12(1):13–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-006-0118-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mylopoulos J (1998) Information modeling in the time of the revolution. Inf Syst 23(3–4):127–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Jarke M, Loucopoulos P, Lyytinen K, Mylopoulos J, Robinson W (2011) The brave new world of design requirements. Inf Syst 36(7):992–1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2011.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Feltus C, Lessard L, Verdanat F, Amyot D, Proper EHA (2018) Conceptualization of a value cocreation language for knowledge-intensive business services. In: Ziemba E (ed) Information technology for management: ongoing research and development (LNBIP 311). LNBIP, vol 311. Springer International, Basel, pp 3–23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  59. Bergholtz M, Andersson B, Johannesson P (2010) Abstraction, restriction, and co-creation: three perspectives on services. In: Trujillo J, Dobbie G, Kangassalo H et al. (eds) Advances in conceptual modeling—applications and challenges: ER 2010 workshops ACM-L, CMLSA, CMS, DE@ER, FP-UML, SeCoGIS, WISM, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–4 Novemb 2010. Proceedings. Springer, Berlin pp 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16385-2_14

  60. Nardi JC, Falbo RdA, Almeida JPA, Guizzardi G, Pires LF, van Sinderen MJ, Guarino N (2013) Towards a commitment-based reference ontology for services. In: 17th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference, 9–13 Sept 2013, pp 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOC.2013.28

  61. Lemey E, Poels G (2011) Towards a service system ontology for service science. In: Kappel G, Maamar Z, Motahari-Nezhad HR (eds) Service-oriented computing: 9th international conference, ICSOC 2011, Paphos, Cyprus, 5–8 Dec 2011, Proceedings. Springer, Berlin, pp 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25535-9_17

  62. Av Lamsweerde (2009) Requirements engineering: from system goals to UML models to software specifications. Wiley Publishing, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  63. Liu L, Liu Q, Chi C-H, Yu E (2008) Towards a service requirements modelling ontology based on agent knowledge and intentions. Int J Agent-Oriented Softw Eng 2(3):324–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Liu L, Yu E (2004) Designing information systems in social context: a goal and scenario modelling approach. Inf Syst 29(2):187–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4379(03)00052-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Baslyman M, Almoaber B, Amyot D, Bouattane EM (2017) A ctivity-based process integration in healthcare with the user requirements notation. In: Aïmeur E, Ruhi U, Weiss M (eds) E-technologies: embracing the internet of things. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59041-7_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  66. Georg G, Mussbacher G, Amyot D, Petriu D, Troup L, Lozano-Fuentes S, France R (2015) Synergy between Activity Theory and goal/scenario modeling for requirements elicitation, analysis, and evolution. Inf Softw Technol 59:109–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Liaskos S, McIlraith S, Sohrabi S, Mylopoulos J (2011) Representing and reasoning about preferences in requirements engineering. Requir Eng 16(3):227–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-011-0129-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Mussbacher G (2016) TimedGRL: specifying goal models over time. In: IEEE 24th international requirements engineering conference workshops (REW), 12–16 Sept 2016. pp 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1109/REW.2016.035

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Grant no. 589441). We thank the REJ reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, 55 Ave. Laurier E, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada

    Lysanne Lessard & Oday Aswad

  2. Institut du Savoir Montfort (ISM), 202-745A Montreal Road, Ottawa, ON, K1K 0T1, Canada

    Lysanne Lessard, Daniel Amyot & Alain Mouttham

  3. School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Ottawa, 800 King Edward Ave, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada

    Daniel Amyot

Authors
  1. Lysanne Lessard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Amyot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oday Aswad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alain Mouttham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lysanne Lessard.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 67 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lessard, L., Amyot, D., Aswad, O. et al. Expanding the nature and scope of requirements for service systems through Service-Dominant Logic: the case of a telemonitoring service. Requirements Eng 25, 273–293 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-019-00322-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-019-00322-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation