Search results

The purpose of this paper is to show how modularity manifests in a service context, more specifically in the provision of care and services to independently living elderly.

Four case studies provide insight into the specification of relevant components and their subsequent assembly into a customized package of care and services.

In all cases, component specification and package construction take place in two phases: partly before and partly during care delivery. Early client involvement allows for a combination of standard components that have a lower level of customization, whereas late client involvement allows for adaptation of these components resulting in a higher level of customization. The paper proposes that modularity theory should distinguish between the creation of modular offerings in care provision versus their creation in goods production, since the findings are the exact reverse of the state‐of‐the art knowledge in manufacturing modularity.

The empirical part of this paper is limited to providers of elderly care and services in The Netherlands and is exploratory in nature. However, the newness of care and service modularity justifies the exploratory research approach.

This paper offers elderly care organizations in‐depth understanding of their complex and multi‐faceted specification process. The insights help both care and service providers to make well‐considered decisions as to what level of client involvement to allow and the type of modularity to apply.

This paper contributes to the emerging literature on service modularity.

Despite the current focus on demand-based care, little is known about what clients consider important when they have a request for formal long-term care services. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

Questions about the access process to care services were added to the “Senior Barometer”, a Dutch web-based questionnaire that assesses the opinion of older people about different aspects in life. The questionnaire surveyed both people who already requested care services (“users”), and people that did not (“future clients”).

The results show a significant difference in what people expect to be the first step from what users actually did, when requesting formal care services. In addition, there was a significant difference on how “users” and “future clients” rated several access service aspects.

The results give valuable information on how both “users” and “future clients” value the access process. The findings also provide valuable input for organizations providing long-term care for older clients about the important issues that have to be considered when organizing the access process.

This study shows what older people in the Netherlands find important during the access process to care and this has not been explored before. The difference between what “users” and “future clients” find of importance in the care access process suggests that it is difficult for people to foresee what will be important once the need for care arrives, or where they will turn to with a request for care services.