Search results

Digital servitization concerns how manufacturers utilize digital technologies to enhance their provision of services. Although digital servitization requires that manufacturers possess new capabilities, in contrast to strategic (or dynamic) capabilities, little is known about how they develop the required operational capabilities. The paper investigates the mechanisms for developing operational capabilities in digital servitization.

This paper presents an exploratory study based on 15 large manufacturers operating in Europe engaged in digital servitization.

Three operational capability development mechanisms are set out that manufacturers use to facilitate digital servitization: learning (developing capabilities in-house), building (bringing the requisite capabilities into the manufacturer), and acquiring (utilizing the capabilities of other actors). These mechanisms emphasize exploitation and exploration efforts within manufacturers and in collaborations with upstream and downstream partners. The findings demonstrate the need to combine these mechanisms for digital servitization according to combinations that match each manufacturer’s traditional servitization phase: (1) initial phase - building and acquiring, (2) middle phase - learning, building and acquiring, and (3) advanced phase - learning and building.

This study reveals three operational capability development mechanisms, highlighting the parallel use of these mechanisms for digital servitization. It provides a holistic understanding of operational capability development mechanisms used by manufacturers by combining three theoretical perspectives (organizational learning, absorptive capacity, and network perspectives). The paper demonstrates that digital servitization requires the significant application of building and acquiring mechanisms to develop the requisite operational capabilities.

The purpose of this paper is to challenge the focal firm perspective of much resource/capability research, identifying how a dyadic perspective facilitates identification of capabilities required for servitization.

Exploratory study consisting of seven dyadic relationships in five sectors.

An additional dimension of capabilities should be recognised; whether they are developed independently or interactively (with another actor). The following examples of interactively developed capabilities are identified: knowledge development, where partners interactively communicate to understand capabilities; service enablement, manufacturers work with suppliers and customers to support delivery of new services; service development, partners interact to optimise performance of existing services; risk management, customers work with manufacturers to manage risks of product acquisition/operation. Six propositions were developed to articulate these findings.

Interactively developed capabilities are created when two or more actors interact to create value. Interactively developed capabilities do not just reside within one firm and, therefore, cannot be a source of competitive advantage for one firm alone. Many of the capabilities required for servitization are interactive, yet have received little research attention. The study does not provide an exhaustive list of interactively developed capabilities, but demonstrates their existence in manufacturer/supplier and manufacturer/customer dyads.

Manufacturers need to understand how to develop capabilities interactively to create competitive advantage and value and identify other actors with whom these capabilities can be developed.

Previous research has focussed on relational capabilities within a focal firm. This study extends existing theories to include interactively developed capabilities. The paper proposes that interactivity is a key dimension of actors’ complementary capabilities.

The purpose of this paper is to critique the adequacy of efforts to capture the complexities of customer experience in a business-to-business (B2B) context using input–output measures. The paper introduces a strategic customer experience management framework to capture the complexity of B2B service interactions and discusses the value of outcomes-based measurement.

This is a theoretical paper that reviews extant literature related to B2B customer experience and asks fresh questions regarding B2B customer experience at a more strategic network level.

The paper offers a reconceptualisation of B2B customer experience, proposes a strategic customer experience management framework and outlines a future research agenda.

This paper is conceptual and seeks to raise questions surrounding the under-examined area of B2B customer experience. As a consequence, it has inevitable limitations resulting from the lack of empirical evidence to support the reconceptualisation.

Existing measures of customer experience are problematic when applied in a B2B (services) context. Rather than adopting input- and output-based measures, widely used in a business-to-consumer (B2C) context, a B2B context requires a more strategic approach to capturing and managing customer experience. Focussing on strategically important issues should generate opportunities for value co-creation and are more likely to involve outcomes-based measures.

Improving the understanding of customer experience in a B2B context should allow organisations to design better services and consequently enhance the experiences of their employees, their customers and other connected actors.

This paper critiques the current approach to measuring customer experience in a B2B context, drawing on contemporary ideas of value-in-use, outcomes-based measures and “Big Data” to offer potential solutions to the measurement problems identified.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how product‐centric businesses (PCBs), operating in a business‐to‐business environment, configure their organizations to align services strategy with structure. PCBs are companies whose businesses were historically based on the products, rather than services, they sold.

A UK‐based study was undertaken which comprised 40 interviews with managers in 25 PCBs from 11 sectors.

The main parameter which determines the appropriate organizational configuration for services within the PCB's structure is strategy. A new framework is developed from the empirical research which identifies a number of PCB configurations, based on PCBs' services strategies (services engagement, extension, penetration and transformation) and organizational structures aligned to strategic business units (SBUs), i.e. combined product and services, independent services and customer‐focused. The framework is used to show how organizational structure changes in response to changes in strategy. For certain strategies, the degree of product differentiation (services engagement) and future product sales potential (services transformation) also plays a part in determining strategy/structure configurations.

Future research could confirm and compare the effectiveness of the identified structural configurations.

Managers in PCBs can identify appropriate organizational structures based on their services strategies and products. They can configure organizational design in light of evolving strategies that enable services‐led growth.

The paper presents a large pan‐sector study of organizational design for services as it related to PCBs, providing a new framework through which appropriate strategy/structure configurations can be identified and investigated as services‐led growth takes place.

The purpose of the paper is to investigate how product‐centric businesses (PCBs), operating in a business‐to‐business environment, develop industrial services to align with their services strategies and sources of market differentiation. PCBs are companies whose businesses were historically based on the products, rather than the services, that they sold.

This was a UK‐based study that included interviews with 40 managers in 25 industrial companies for whom services are a market differentiator.

The empirical results show that PCBs' industrial services are aligned with their services strategies and sources of market differentiation and can be categorised, i.e. “discrete services”, closely linked to PCB‐supplied products, either their own or those of other suppliers; “product lifecycle services”, concerned with product‐related activities throughout the lifecycle of a PCB's products; “output‐based solutions”, providing solutions to customers' operational issues. Modularity in design means that service categories are often backward compatible, meaning that PCBs supplying output‐based solutions can also supply product lifecycle and discrete services.

The main limitation is the focus on the perspective of suppliers, with customers likely to impact which service offerings PCBs provide.

PCBs should align industrial services with their resources that provide market differentiation, for example related to their products or relationships with other parties. Whilst it can be valuable to increase the range and depth of services provided to customers, creating modular offerings will ensure that customers are able to find an appropriate level of services engagement with their product suppliers.

The study provides a new typology of PCB service categories that are related to services strategies and sources of market differentiation.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the commonalities and differences in manufacturers’ motivations to servitise.

UK study based on interviews with 40 managers in 25 companies in 12 sectors. Using the concept of product complexity, sectors were grouped using the Complex Products and Systems (CoPS) typology: non-complex products, complex products and systems.

Motivations to servitise were categorised as competitive, demand based (i.e. derived from the customer) or economic. Motivations to servitise vary according to product complexity, although cost savings and improved service quality appear important demand-based motivations for all manufacturers. Non-complex product manufacturers also focus on services to help product differentiation. For CoPS manufacturers, both risk reduction and developing a new revenue stream were important motivations. For uniquely complex product manufacturers, stabilising revenue and increased profitability were strong motivations. For uniquely systems manufacturers, customers sought business transformation, whilst new service business models were also identified.

Using the CoPS typology, this study delineates motivations to servitise by sector. The findings show varying motivations to servitise as product complexity increases, although some motivational commonality existed across all groups. Manufacturers may have products of differing complexity within their portfolio. To overcome this limitation the unit of analysis was the strategic business unit.

Managers can reflect on and benchmark their motivation for, and opportunities from, servitisation, by considering product complexity.

The first study to categorise servitisation motivations by product complexity. Identifying that some customers of systems manufacturers seek business transformation through outsourcing.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate which resources and capabilities are most important to enable large manufacturers undergoing servitization to develop and deliver successful services.

A survey of 155 UK-based manufacturers provided the basis for the study. Data analysis was undertaken using confirmatory factor analysis and multiple regression.

In total, five constructs (“resource configurations”) which enable the development and delivery of successful services and a construct to measure services performance (“Success of Services”) were developed from the literature. A measurement model based on these constructs was empirically tested and verified. Two resource configurations; “Leaders and Services Personnel” and “Services Methods and Tools” were found to make a unique and statistically significant contribution to “Success of Services.”

The study highlights the importance of corporates leaders and service employees in developing and delivering success. Service-specific methods and tools are important for developing compelling customer offerings. The study demonstrates the utility of a resource-based perspective in terms of understanding the factors that enable successful services, but also exposes the limitations of using such broad measures, with common lower order resources underpinning multiple resource configurations. The study was conducted from the manufacturer’s perspective, and future studies could also include the customer’s perspective.

The research identifies important factors in developing a greater service orientation in manufacturing companies.

This is one of the first studies to develop and test a model of services success, generalizable to the population of large manufacturers.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the resources and capabilities required by manufacturers to develop and deliver multi-vendor solutions.

A multi-case design comprising six UK-based manufacturers: two from each of the aerospace/defence, information technology and telecommunications sectors.

Manufacturers can be characterized by their propensity to include products from other vendors in their solutions; single vendor solution providers (SVSPs) focus on solutions comprising their own products, while multi-vendor solution providers (MVSPs) fully embrace products from other manufacturers. Three capabilities were identified which distinguish MVSPs from SVSPs given the complexity of multi-vendor solutions (expertise specifying the solution, engineers trained in implementing/supporting the solution, partnerships with component suppliers of the solution). These capabilities are underpinned by both technical capability and impartiality in solution specification.

MVSPs need to be impartial when specifying customer solutions. They should be guided by the best interests of the customer rather than the interests of the product-based SBUs. Achieving impartiality can conflict with some manufacturers' product heritage. The research has focused on three sectors; further research is needed to test whether the findings are applicable beyond these sectors.

Solutions are a valuable approach in creating market differentiation, although not all manufacturers will possess the resources/capabilities to be successful.

A continuum of solution providers is proposed; SVSPs at one extreme and MVSPs at the other. The operant resource-based capability “impartiality” was identified as being particularly important to MVSPs in creating value for customers.

This paper addresses the growing fragmentation between traditional and digital service innovation (DSI) research and offers a unifying metatheoretical framework.

Grounded in service-dominant (S-D) logic's service ecosystems perspective, this study builds on an institutional and systemic, rather than product-centric and linear, conceptualization of value creation to offer a unifying framework for (digital) service innovation that applies to both physical and digital service provisions.

This paper questions the commonly perpetuated idea that DSI fundamentally changes the nature of innovation. Instead, it highlights resource liquification—the decoupling of information from the technologies that store, transmit, or process this information—as a distinguishing characteristic of DSI. Liquification, however, does not affect the relational and institutional nature of service innovation, which is always characterized by (1) the emergence of novel outcomes, (2) distributed governance and (3) symbiotic design. Instead, liquification makes these three characteristics more salient.

In presenting a cohesive service innovation framework, this study underscores that all innovation processes are rooted in combinatorial evolution. Here, service-providing actors (re)combine technologies (or more generally, institutions) to adapt their value cocreation practices. This research demonstrates that such (re)combinations exhibit emergence, distributed governance and symbiotic design. While these characteristics may initially seem novel and unique to DSI, it reveals that their fundamental mechanisms are not limited to digital service ecosystems. They are, in fact, integral to service innovation across virtual, physical and blended contexts. The study highlights the importance of exercising caution in assuming that the emergence of novel technologies, including digital technologies, necessitates a concurrent rethinking of the fundamental processes of service innovation.