Learning and relearning effects with innovative service designs: An empirical analysis of top golf courses

• Author: Michael E. Ketzenberg,Gregory R. Heim
• Published date: 01 July 2011
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.11.011
• Date: 01 July 2011

Journal of Operations Management 29 (2011) 449–461

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Operations Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jom

Learning and relearning effects with innovative service designs: An empirical

analysis of top golf courses

Gregory R. Heim∗, Michael E. Ketzenberg 1

Department of Information and Operations Management, Mays Business School at Texas A&M University, 320 Wehner Building |4217 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4217,

United States

article info

Article history:

Available online 25 November 2010

Keywords:

Service operations

Service development

Innovation

Learning curve

Window of opportunity

abstract

This paper examines learning and relearning effects for initial service designs and later service redesigns.

We analyze an experience-based service where external design firms typically perform service design

and implementation tasks, while local service personnel manage daily operations. We examine whether

the quality of service during routine operation periods exhibits learning effect patterns. We also examine

window of opportunity effects after major redesigns. Examining yearly data on top Texas golf courses, we

observe learning across the lifespan of golf courses and relearning after golf course redesigns. The findings

contribute to the literature on learning and experience-based services. The study provides managerial

insight by demonstrating the extent of learning, illustrating how redesigns can affect service outcomes

negatively, showing how relearning occurs, and discussing tactics for success when redesigning services.

© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Many service managers today must redesign services period-

ically to keep their offerings fresh, competitive, and desirable to

customers. Indeed, deliberate periodic refreshment of experience-

based services may enhance repeat business (Voss et al., 2008;

Zomerdijk and Voss, 2010). Periodic service refreshment drives

alternating periods of exploration for and implementation of new

service designs, followed by improvement and exploitation of the

new service. After each redesign, personnel must relearn to operate

a modified service system to deliver high quality customer expe-

riences. Prior research shows service firms exhibit learning (Darr

et al., 1995; Baum and Ingram, 1998; Ingram and Baum, 1997;

Lapré and Tsikritsis, 2006). However, the push for deliberate service

refreshing motivates a key follow-up question: After major service

redesigns, how do service firms relearn to improve their performance

again?

Success with service redesign cycles depends upon employee

abilities to learn within a new service facility, as well as to adapt and

improve new service systems. Existing service design exploitation

ensures a service firm’s present survival, while exploratory inno-

vation activities may ensure future survival (Jayanthi and Sinha,

∗Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 979 845 9218; fax: +1 979 845 5653.

E-mail addresses: gheim@mays.tamu.edu (G.R. Heim),

mketzenberg@mays.tamu.edu (M.E. Ketzenberg).

1Tel.: +1 979 845 1616; fax: +1 979 845 5653.

1998). Managers must find a balance between exploration and

exploitation, so firms can benefit from both activities (Jayanthi

and Sinha, 1998). The most effective companies carefully man-

age both “spurts of adaptation and periods of routine operation”

(Tyre and Orlikowski, 1993, p. 18). Involving relevant parties in

both exploration and exploitation activities may improve innova-

tion outcomes (Jayanthi and Sinha, 1998). Yet, questions remain

about when to engage personnel, which parties to involve, what

they should do, and where their activities should occur (Tyre and

von Hippel, 1997; Jayanthi and Sinha, 1998).

Prior innovation research also finds that adaptation of ser-

vice innovations may take place in discontinuous patterns (Tyre

and Orlikowski, 1993, 1994). Although often chaotic (Jayanthi and

Sinha, 1998), many view innovation implementation to involve

a gradual process of continuous improvement. However, post-

innovation adaptations often occur discontinuously, with a few

bursts of improvement taking place during a short window

of opportunity immediately after an innovation implementation

(Tyre and Orlikowski, 1993, 1994). After this period, routine oper-

ating practices preclude further dramatic improvements.

We examine the impact of service design and redesign using

two theoretical lenses: the learning curve and the window of oppor-

tunity. These literatures contain little empirical work related to

managing new services or service redesigns (Zomerdijk and Voss,

2010). Most prior learning curve literature concentrates on man-

ufacturing rather than service operations (Darr et al., 1995) and

examines internal performance metrics rather than external cus-

tomer metrics (Lapré and Tsikritsis, 2006). As such, more research

0272-6963/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.11.011