Content area
Full Text
An executive summary for managers and executive readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
Scientific exchange and advancement require sound definitions and characterizations of its underlying terms and constructs. For that reason the discipline of services marketing has enduringly tried to define and characterize its core term "services". From the 1980s onward, the acceptance of the so-called IHIP characteristics (intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability and perishability) was widely observable (see [12] Edgett and Parkinson, 1993; [54] Zeithaml et al. , 1985 for an overview).
Later, however, several criticisms on IHIP characteristics were voiced ([34] Lovelock and Wright, 2001; [19] Gummesson, 2000; [50] Vargo and Lusch, 2004). [33] Lovelock and Gummesson (2004, p. 32) poignantly state: "As a paradigm, the notion that the four IHIP characteristics make services uniquely different from goods is deeply flawed." The reasons are twofold. First, the focus of services marketing has changed and secondly the development of information and communication technology has advanced dramatically. The initial conception of services marketing research looked predominantly at personal services ([8] Bowen, 2000) or low-tech, high-touch services. With this services marketing focus, the dichotomous view of manufactured tangible goods and intangible, heterogeneous, inseparable and perishable services was not such a matter of controversy.
Moreover, following [44] Rust (2004), we too perceive more and more changes in general conditions, especially in the development of technology. These changes increasingly water down the applicability of most of the IHIP characteristics of services. Today, the inseparability of production and consumption, as well as the perishability of services can often be overcome by technology-based communications, for example interactive, web-based lectures in distance learning or minimally invasive surgery which allows physicians to perform from a distance. It is therefore not astonishing that dissatisfaction with the IHIP paradigm has grown over the years with this shifting focus and technology development ([4] Beaven and Scotti, 1990; [17] Grönroos, 2000; [18] Grove et al. , 2003; [33] Lovelock and Gummesson, 2004; [50] Vargo and Lusch, 2004; [52] Wright, 1995).
As a consequence, due to a lack of suitable characteristics, the core term "services" remains undefined. This gap in literature is incomprehensible as a whole scientific community bases its capacity and accomplishments on this term. This is also astonishing since half of the...