• Asia pacific journal of information systems
• /
• v.19 no.4
• /
• pp.177-200
• /
• 2009

AIn the advanced - economy, the services industry hasbecome a dominant sector. Evidently, the services sector has grown at a much faster rate than any other. For instance, in such developed countries as the U.S., the proportion of the services sector in its GDP is greater than 75%. Even in the developing countries including India and China, the magnitude of the services sector in their GDPs is rapidly growing. The increasing dependence on service gives rise to new initiatives including service science and service-dominant logic. These new initiatives propose a new theoretical prism to promote the better understanding of the changing economic structure. From the new perspectives, service is no longer regarded as a transaction or exchange, but rather co-creation of value through the interaction among service users, providers, and other stakeholders including partners, external environments, and customer communities. The purpose of this study is the following. First, we review previous literature on service, service innovation, and service systems and integrate the studies based on service dominant logic. Second, we categorize the ten propositions of service dominant logic into conceptual propositions and the ones that are directly related to service provision. Conceptual propositions are left out to form the research model. With the selected propositions, we define the research constructs for this study. Third, we develop measurement items for the new service concepts including service provider network, customer network, value co-creation, and convergence of service with product. We then propose a research model to explain the relationship among the factors that affect the value creation mechanism. Finally, we empirically investigate the effects of the factors on firm performance. Through the process of this research study, we want to show the value creation mechanism of service systems in which various participants in service provision interact with related parties in a joint effort to create values. To test the proposed hypotheses, we developed measurement items and distributed survey questionnaires to domestic companies. 500 survey questionnaires were distributed and 180 were returned among which 171 were usable. The results of the empirical test can be summarized as the following. First, service providers' network which is to help offer required services to customers is found to affect customer network, while it does not have a significant effect on value co-creation and product-service convergence. Second, customer network, on the other hand, appears to influence both value co-creation and product-service convergence. Third, value co-creation accomplished through the collaboration of service providers and customers is found to have a significant effect on both product-service convergence and firm performance. Finally, product-service convergence appears to affect firm performance. To interpret the results from the value creation mechanism perspective, service provider network well established to support customer network is found to have significant effect on customer network which in turn facilitates value co-creation in service provision and product-service convergence to lead to greater firm performance. The results have some enlightening implications for practitioners. If companies want to transform themselves into service-centered business enterprises, they have to consider the four factors suggested in this study: service provider network, customer network, value co-creation, and product-service convergence. That is, companies becoming a service-oriented organization need to understand what the four factors are and how the factors interact with one another in their business context. They then may want to devise a better tool to analyze the value creation mechanism and apply the four factors to their own environment. This research study contributes to the literature in following ways. First, this study is one of the very first empirical studies on the service dominant logic as it has categorized the fundamental propositions into conceptual and empirically testable ones and tested the proposed hypotheses against the data collected through the survey method. Most of the propositions are found to work as Vargo and Lusch have suggested. Second, by providing a testable set of relationships among the research variables, this study may provide policy makers and decision makers with some theoretical grounds for their decision making on what to do with service innovation and management. Finally, this study incorporates the concepts of value co-creation through the interaction between customers and service providers into the proposed research model and empirically tests the validity of the concepts. The results of this study will help establish a value creation mechanism in the service-based economy, which can be used to develop and implement new service provision.

• Journal of Haehwa Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.595-646
• /
• 2000

I. Introduction Bi(痺) means blocking. BiJeung is one kind of symptoms making muscles, bones and jonts feel pain, numbness or edema. For example it can be gout or SLE etc. says that Bi is combination of PungHanSeup. And many doctors said that BiJeung is caused by food, fatigue, sex, stress and change of weather. Therefore we must treat BiJeung by character of patients and characteristic of the disease. Many famous doctors studied medical science by their fathers or teachers. So the history of medical science is long. So I studied ${\ll}Bijeungjujip{\gg}$. II. Final Decision 1. JoGeumTak(趙金鐸) devided BiJeung into Pung, Han, Seup and EumHeo, HeulHeo, YangHeo, GanSinHeo by charcter or reaction of pain. And he use DaeJinGyoTang, GyegiGakYakJiMoTang, SamyoSan, etc. 2. JangPaeGyeu(張沛圭) focused on division of HanYeol(寒熱; coldness and heat) in spite of complexity of BiJeung. He also used insects for treatment. They are very useful for treatment of BiJeung because they can remove EoHyeol(瘀血). 3. SeolMaeng(薛盟) said that the actual cause of BiJeung is Seup. So he thought that BiJeung can be divided into PungSeup, SeupYeol, HanSeup. And he established 6 rules to treat BiJeung and he studied herbs. 4. JangGi(張琪) introduced 10 prescriptions and 10 rules to cure BiJeung. The 1st prescription is for OyeSa, 2nd for internal Yeol, 3rd for old BiJeung, 4th for Soothing muscles, 5th for HanSeup, 6th for regular BiJeung, 7th for functional disorder, 8th for YeolBi, 9th for joint pain and 10th for pain of lower limb. 5. GangSeYoung(江世英) used PungYeongTang(風靈湯) for the treatment of PungBi, OGyeHeukHoTang(烏桂黑虎湯) for HanBi, BangGiMokGwaTang(防己木瓜湯) for SeupBi, YeolBiTang(熱痺湯) for YeolBi, WoDaeRyeokTang(牛大力湯) for GiHei, HyeolPungGeunTang(血楓根湯) for HyeolHeo, ToJiRyongTang(土地龍湯) for the acute stage of SeupBi, OJoRyongTang(五爪龍湯) for the chronic stage of SeupBi, and so on. 6. ShiGeumMook(施今墨) devided BiJeung into four types. They are PungSeupYeol, PungHanSeup, GiHyeolSil(氣血實) and GiHyeolHeo(氣血虛). And he introduced the eight rules of the treatment(SanPun(散風), ChukHan(逐寒), GeoSeuP(, CheongYeol(淸熱), TongRak(通絡), HwalHyeol(活血), HaengGi(行氣), BoHeo(補虛)). 7. WangYiYou(王李儒) explained the acute athritis and said that it can be applicable to HaneBi(行痺). And he used GyeJiJakYakJiMoTang(桂枝芍蘂知母湯) for HanBi and YeolBiJinTongTang(熱痺鎭痛湯) for YeolBi. 8. JangJinYeo(章眞如) said that YeolBi is more common than HanBi. The sympthoms of YeolBi are severe pain, fever, dried tongue, insomnia, etc. And he devided YeolBi into SilYeol and HeoYeol. In case of SilYeol, he used GyeoJiTangHapBaekHoTang(桂枝湯合白虎湯) and in case of HeoYeol he used JaEumYangAekTang(滋陰養液湯). 9. SaHaeJu(謝海洲) introduced three important rules of treatment and four appropriate rules of treatment of BiJeung. 10. YouDoJu(劉渡舟) said that YeolBi is more common than HanBi. He used GaGamMokBanGiTang(加減木防已湯) for YeolBi, GyeJiJakYakJiMoTang or GyeJiBuJaTang(桂枝附子湯) for HanBi and WooHwangHwan(牛黃丸) for the joint pain. 11. GangYiSon(江爾遜) focused on the internal cause. The most important internal cause is JeongGiHeo(正氣虛). So he tried to treat BiJeung by means of balance of Gi and Hyeol. So he ususlly used ODuTang(烏頭湯) and SamHwangTang(三黃湯) for YeolBi, OJeokSan(五積散) for HanBi, SamBiTang(三痺湯) for the chronic BiJeung. 12. HoGeonHwa(胡建華) said that to distinguish YeolBi from Hanbi is very difficult. So he used GyeJiJakYakJiMoTang in case of mixture of HanBi and YeoBi. 13. PiBokGo(畢福高) said that the most common BiJeung is HanBi. He usually used acupuncture with medicine. He followed the theory of EumYongHwa(嚴用和)-he focused on SeonBoHuSa(先補後瀉). 14. ChoiMunBin(崔文彬) used GeoPungHwalHyeolTang(祛風活血湯) for HanBi, SanHanTongRakTang(散寒通絡湯) for TongBi(痛痺), LiSeupHwaRakTang(利濕和絡湯) for ChakBi(着痺), CheongYeolTongGyeolChukBiTang(淸熱通經逐痺湯) for YeolBi(熱痺) and GeoPungHwalHyeolTang(祛風活血湯) for PiBi(皮痺). 15. YouleokSeon(劉赤選) introduced the common principle for the treatment of BiJeung. He used HaePuneDeungTang(海風藤湯) for HaengBi(行痺), SinChakTang(腎着湯), DokHwalGiSaengTang(獨活寄生湯) for TongBi(痛痺), TongPungBang(痛風方) for ChakBi(着痺) and SangGiYiMiTangGaYeongYangGakTang(桑枝苡米湯加羚羊角骨) for YeolBi(熱痺). 16. LimHakHwa(林鶴和) said about TanTan(movement disorders or numbness) and devided TanTan into the acute stage and the chronic stage. He used acupuncture at the meridian spot like YeolGyeol(列缺), HapGok(合谷), etc. And he also used MaHwangBuJaSeSinTang(麻黃附子細辛湯) in case of the acute stage. In the chronic stage he used BangPungTang(防風湯). 17. JinBaekGeun(陳伯勤) liked to use three rules(HwaHyeol(活血), ChiDam(治痰), BoSin(補腎)) to treat BiJeung. He used JinTongSan(鎭痛散) for the purpose of HwalHyeol(活血), SoHwalRakDan(小活絡丹) for ChiDam(治痰) and DokHwalGiSaengTang(獨活寄生湯) for BoSin(補腎). 18. YimGyeHak(任繼學) focused on YangHyeolJoGi(養血調氣) if the stage of BiJeung is chronic. And in the chronic stage he insisted on not using GalHwal(羌活), DokHwal(獨活) and BangPung(防風).

• Korean Journal of Agricultural Science
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.85-100
• /
• 2008

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) funded collaborative project on The Economic Feasibility Analysis of Crop Cultivation Practice Project in Pirganj and Kurigram Districts in Bangladesh will started during 2008-2012, for 4 years with total project cost of US$ 571,270. The project will be implemented in 6 villages; has 1,097 hectares areas which is divided into 948 hectares of agricultural land, 52 hectares of forest land and 345 hectares of other land, covered 1,059 households equal to 5,305 persons in Pirganj and Kurigram districts The project has proposed to be implemented in joint collaboration by Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC), Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI) and Rangpur Dinajpur Rural Service (RDRS) Bangladesh with full participation of the farmers' groups of respective project site. The specific objectives of the project are: (1) to estimate the productivity of paddy, wheat, maize, tobacco and sugarcane (2) to determine the cost of production and returns to the above mentioned crops (3) to study the interrelationship between inputs and output of the above mentioned crops and (4) to examine the resource utilization patterns at farm level. In this project analysis, the net incremental profit is US$33,028. The expected incremental project benefit and incremented production cost are estimated as US$ 219,959 and US$ 186,931 respectively. The financial decision making criteria would be followed in this crop cultivation practice project. After the project implementation, the expected project benefits are assumed to be continued for 15 years. The benefit cost ratio (B/C) of the project is estimated at 1.077 (table 11) when using discount rate of 10% as an opportunity cost of capital in Bangladesh. FIRR of project is estimated at 26.15% which is bigger than the opportunity cost by more than double. So this project is financially feasible and acceptable. Therefore, this project should be extended to other areas to increase the farm income and economic growth of marginal poor farmers in Bangladesh.