Page 1 of 20
VERIFYING CONCEPTS FOR COMPLEX PRODUCT-SERVICE SYSTEM (COPSS) DESIGN
TORSTEN DEHN
Aston University, Operations & Information Management, United Kingdom
dehnt1@aston.ac.uk
DANIEL CHICKSAND
Birmingham University, Operations & Supply Management, United Kingdom d.chicksand@bham.ac.uk
LOUISE KNIGHT
Aston University, Engineering & Applied Science, United Kingdom l.knight2@aston.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
With many complex product/system manufacturers facing intensified global competition, stricter environmental regulation, increased non-conformity risks and demand shifts towards customised life cycle solutions, product bundling with additional services is viewed as a way to support company growth and societal compliance. However, Product-Service Systems (PSS) inherit design complexity because of extended product life cycle, global service operation and modular customisation aspects. This is especially true for Complex Products and Systems (CoPS), facing significant challenges as regards concurrent engineering, system architecture, portfolio management or design collaboration. While some researchers advocate modifying New Product Development (NPD) approaches to include services, others propose PSS specific frameworks. This paper systematically investigates 119 design frameworks concerning CoPS applicability and covering idea-to-launch integrated design. For this purpose, all frameworks are analysed by matching CoPS design characteristics and process scope completeness with nine conceptual frameworks fulfilling both criteria. Moreover, cross framework comparison was completed in light of related topics derived from literature. Findings indicate that 63% of the frameworks are applicable for CoPS also regularly adopting integrated product-service design approaches. However, frameworks often fall short of product/service modularity, portfolio management and network collaboration considerations. Differences between hardware, software and service solution characteristics are further neglected. In addition, most frameworks concentrate on particular tasks, phases or service designs, but do not provide a holistic approach. Although it may be possible to combine frameworks, this is problematic as the research studies investigated represent distinct perspectives, with unique focus points and industry assumptions. Having obtained deeper insights into CoPS peculiarities and PSS development, an advanced conceptual CoPSS design framework is proposed.
Keywords: Complex Products and Systems (CoPS); Product-Service Systems (PSS); New Product
Page 2 of 20
INTRODUCTION
Product-Service System (PSS) design and its underlying processes play a significant role in the success
of both individual projects and long-term company performance. KPMG’s Global Manufacturing
Outlook (2016) and PWC’s Global Innovation 1000 (2017) studies outline significant innovation
investments as well as high attention to design efficiency and effectiveness. In fact, Research and
Development (R&D) expenditures of the top global companies have soared to $US 700bn in 2017,
with GE, as a leading manufacturer alone spending $US 4.8bn or 4.0% of its revenues. To support the pursuit of engineering excellence and technological advancement, the EU has initiated the €77bn
Horizon 2020 programme, which also funds PSS projects. Current initiatives focus on product-service
manufacturing intelligence, life cycle optimisation mechanisms and integrated design collaboration platforms (European Commission, 2017). Baines & Lightfoot (2013A+B) argue that PSS motivation especially arises when manufacturers face fierce competition in saturated markets; adding services is viewed as an effective growth strategy. However, product-service bundling requires substantial design considerations as evidenced by a rapid growth in publications. While Scopus (Elsevier, 2017) lists four relevant articles up to 2004, this figure increased to 82 in 2010 and 346 in 2016.
A great deal of research focused on PSS characteristics and business concepts being associated with organisational requirements, such as service and network capabilities, to create integrated delivery systems for competitive advantage (Mont, 2002; Baines et al., 2009A+B). Efficient and effective PSS designs thereby call for concurrent product and service engineering approaches with consideration of organisational constraints (Pawar et al., 2009; Vasantha et al., 2012). This is particularly important for Complex Products and Systems (CoPS) manufacturers who face extended non-conformity risks or variety of service expectations (Raddats et al., 2016). Design contribution from customers and supply partners is further recommended to align product/service modules, service delivery processes and communication networks (Johnson & Mena, 2008; Meier et al., 2010). To tackle increased design complexity, much attention was therefore given to methodology frameworks like MEPSS (Van Halen et al., 2005; Vasantha et al., 2012).
Within PSS research, it can be argued, that there are few comprehensive design frameworks which can be practically applied. While some approaches cover integrated product-service design from idea generation to market launch and improvement phase, others are limited to particular tasks or phases (Dehn &2, 2016). For example, Sakao et al.’s (2009B) Service Explorer is an add-on module to
Computer-Aided Design (CAD), whereas Berkovich et al. (2011) address Requirements Engineering
only. However, by focusing on specific aspects, critical considerations such as product complexity, customer orientation and network collaboration are regularly ignored (Hobday, 1998; Vasantha et al., 2012; Dehn & Chicksand, 2016). Additionally, research demonstrates distinct terminologies and viewpoints from engineering, informatics or management disciplines (Boehm & Thomas, 2013), and Swejczewski et al. (2015) argue that there is little linkage with New Product Development (NPD). This paper reviews and evaluates the comprehensiveness and appropriateness for CoPS of 119 PSS design frameworks selected through a systematic literature search using Scopus (Tranfield et al., 2003; Chicksand et al., 2012). The analysis also addresses related design integration, modularisation, portfolio, network and sustainability factors. The research questions are:
1) How applicable are identified PSS design approaches for new CoPS development? 2) How should design processes be aligned to more effectively develop related PSS?
Page 3 of 20
BACKGROUND
Complex Products & Systems (CoPS)
CoPS research dates back to the late 1980s with examples of aircraft, ships, air-/seaports, IT networks, transport systems or urban utilities. Davies et al. (2011, P.8) define CoPS as “high value capital goods systems, networks and infrastructural components, designed and produced by firms as one-offs or in small tailored batches to meet the requirements of large business or government customers”. Further characteristics of CoPS are long economic life with investment decisions and solution lead times in months or years (Hobday, 1998+2000; Ren & Yeo, 2006). Complexity arises from the large number of sub-systems and components being hierarchically organised as modules in the system architecture. This modularisation requires consideration of technical interfaces or design interdependencies, along with interdisciplinary system knowledge and management capabilities. Of particular concern are embedded IT and software developments, demanding precautions for future compatibility to prolong product life through later upgrade options (Ren & Yeo, 2006; Sosa et al., 2007). However, customisation might jeopardise standardisation efforts causing technological unpredictability (Ghosh et al., 2006). Davies et al. (2011) add technical norms, safety standards and emission limits as regulatory variance factors. Due to its large scope and social implications, multi-firm coalitions consisting of contractors, authorities, customers, suppliers and service providers are often necessary to achieve CoPS realisation. Such networks are usually managed in projects allowing for flexible concurrent design and production reconfiguration in case of network, technology or market changes (Hansen & Rush, 1998; Hobday et al., 2000).
Besides technology and service collaborations, CoPS design performance regularly depends on the company’s development structures and contribution from business functions. Eppinger & Chitkara (2006) thereby identified local outsourcing and captive offshoring trends globalising development as an important factor. The reasons for these trends are a focus on design cost reduction, development acceleration, information access and facilitated technology integration. However, localisation takes time often starting with simple design tasks before creating modules or entire products. Fostering specialisation, CoPS design organisations are also regularly broken down into component or sub-system teams (Sosa et al., 2004). This requires sub-system architecture competence with standardised processes, transparent design and advanced communication being coordinated by the engineering headquarters (Tripathy & Eppinger, 2011). Observed CoPS design structures are thereby matrix organisations, competence centres or virtual enterprises with project-based approaches (Hobday, 2000; Zhang et al., 2008). To optimise the outcome, Gann & Salter (2000) call for strong engineering linkages and function interactions to effectively harness technological and operational capabilities. For example, Sales might provide insights into customer applications, whereas Procurement assists in partner selection. By following life cycle strategies, Service aspects of time between overhaul, equipment maintainability, retrofit/upgrade options and remote control must also be considered (Baines & Lightfoot, 2013B; Szwejczewski et al., 2015).
Product-Service Systems (PSS)
The concept of PSS was introduced by Goedkoop et al. (1999) and implies the creation of product-service combinations as enhanced value proposition. Separate product and product-service provision means dealing with several providers, and is considered less attractive to customers who prefer to reduce
Page 4 of 20 operational risk and increase overall efficiency (Mont, 2002). Boehm & Thomas (2013, P.252) define PSS as “an integrated bundle of products and services, which aims at creating customer utility and generating value”. Base, intermediate or advanced services thereby extend the manufacturer’s offering. Product-related activities like consultancy, delivery, installation, training and warranty are understood as base services. Whereas intermediate services such as monitoring, helpdesk, overhaul or repair rather attempt to keep the product in condition. Advanced services are concerned with availability or performance measures, while ownership often remains with the manufacturer. Examples of advanced services include product leasing, pay-per-use concept, support agreement or bonus-malus system that potentially reduces resource waste by enhancing utilisation (Tukker, 2004; Baines & Lightfoot, 2013B). Variety in service demand might be explained by divergent operation capabilities, in-/outsourcing preferences, cultural peculiarities, governmental regulations or other geographic circumstances. Flexible service offerings based on modular mass customisation principles are therefore essential, but also increase design complexity (Hatfield, 2010; Yurtkulu et al., 2014). How PSS requirements are fulfilled is a function of manufacturer organisation, corporate capabilities, service network and partner collaboration. Only if customer needs are correctly understood, specific product/service modules selected and process interlinkages aligned, underlying business models can successfully be realised (Johnson & Mena, 2008). For example, when ownership remains with the manufacturer and revenue depends on CoPS utilisation, availability becomes critical, requiring real-time communication and responsiveness in case of breakdowns. Advanced service design therefore often includes ICT concepts optimising inter-firm collaboration (Baines & Lightfoot, 2013A+B; Boehm & Thomas, 2013). To establish value networks, however, co-creation involving customers, suppliers or service providers is indispensable (Aurich et al., 2009; Harrington & Srai, 2012). Contributions from internal business functions are rated equally important. For example, Fischer et al. (2012) and Szwejczewski et al. (2015) emphasise Service input to application/logistics peculiarities, equipment maintainability, component evaluations or spare part solutions. Baxter et al. (2009) hence developed service knowledge management software facilitating PSS design. A central part of our research is to consider the effective coordination of such design projects, with various contributors, and attention to design frameworks and process tools (Vasantha et al., 2012; Boehm & Thomas, 2013; Dehn & Chicksand, 2016).
General Design Frameworks
Systematic approaches are required for the efficient and effective development of complex solutions coordinating various network contributors and concurrent design tasks. Taking market/technology uncertainties and varying customer preferences again into account, modularisation concepts not only enable work division and risk reduction among design partners but also enhance flexibility in service provision (Hatfield, 2010; Meier & Uhlmann, 2012). This becomes particularly relevant in the case of mechanics, electronics and software interdependencies, where life cycle and obsolescence variance affects service delivery and portfolio management (Berkovich et al., 2011; Kernschmidt et al., 2013). Compatibility and interconnectivity are crucial aspects, as shorter product life cycles are widely observed, leading to higher development frequency and exerting pressure on time-to-market efficiency. However, to coordinate network design, established processes are needed providing fundamental project rules, transparency and guidance (Cooper, 2008; Edgett, 2011). Sturm & Bading (2008) assert the need for operations to embrace simultaneous and aligned product-service development to generate intertwining PSS solutions. Although substantial PSS design research has
Page 5 of 20 been conducted, factors of integrated design, concurrent engineering, life cycle orientation, mass customisation and network collaboration are only partially covered (Tukker, 2013; Szwejczewski et al., 2015).
To adequately manage project resources, time-to-market and solution costs, Royce (1970) and Pahl & Beitz (1977) were among the first to highlight the relevance of systematic design. Based on their principles, delineated in Figure 1, numerous frameworks and guidelines have been devised to suit different product and industry settings (Booz Allen Hamilton, 1982; Cooper 1983+2008+2013; Boehm, 1988; VDI 1993+2004; Van Halen et al., 2005; IABG, 2006; Unger & Eppinger, 2011; Pezzotta et al., 2012; Marques et al., 2013). The Stage Gate Model, as depicted in Figure 2, appears to be most commonly applied within B2B manufacturing (Edgett, 2011; Cooper, 2013; Roland Berger, 2013; Szwejczewski et al., 2015). Concerning PSS design, authors such as Meier et al. (2010) and Szwejczewski et al. (2015) recommend NPD framework extensions, whereas Kim et al. (2015) propose New Service Development (NSD) based approaches for service providers transforming to system integrators. Recognised service modelling tools such as ServQual, Service Blueprinting and
Service Explorer facilitate PSS design (Cavalieri & Pezzotta, 2012). However, caution is required when
integrating design tools or combining frameworks as each inherit distinct focus points, assumptions and shortcomings, which might ignore relevant PSS business aspects or mislead product-service design (Vasantha et al., 2012; Dehn & Chicksand, 2016). For CoPS design, solution costs play another significant factor with 80% of product-related costs being fixed during initial design, requiring regular project reviews and sufficient cost control (Hobday, 2000; Roland Berger, 2013+2017).
Figure 1 - Systematic Product Development Approach
Figure 2 - Stage Gate Model for Product Development Product Planning / Task Setting / Requirements Definition
Conceptual Design
Embodiment Design
Detailed Design
Market Preparation
Post-Launch Design
Source: developed from Royce (1970), Pahl & Beitz (1977) and Pahl et al. (2007)
Requirements Specification Document
Principle Solutions / Product Architecture
Module Structures & Preliminary Layout
Layout Verifications & Implementations
Documentation, Manufacturing Setup
Product Upgrades and Improvements
Discovery Stage Stage 1 Scoping Stage 2 Business Case Stage 3 Development Stage 4 Verification Stage 5 Market Launch
Gate 1 Gate 2 Gate 3 Gate 4 Gate 5 Idea Screen 2nd Screen to DevelopDecision
Decision to Test
Decision to Launch
Continuous Exchange and Collaboration with Customers/Users
Source: adapted from Cooper (2008)
(Stage 1+2)
Continuous Improvement New Product Development (NPD) Stage Gate Design Process
Page 6 of 20
METHODOLOGY
Research Strategy & Design
Given the research questions, evaluating PSS development frameworks and their suitability for CoPS, an extensive systematic literature review strategy was chosen. With the PSS field maturing, the purpose was to review, critique and potentially reconceptualise the multi-disciplinary knowledge base on PSS and CoPS design (Torraco, 2005; vom Brocke et al., 2009). In following predefined stages and applying techniques, as suggested by Tranfield et al. (2003), bias and errors were significantly reduced. A panel consisting of three researchers from different disciplines, with further practitioner verification, was established. In contrast, a traditional review was rejected because of its selective approach and lack of transparency. Additional decisions had to be made on article analysis and data synthesis methods. A Narrative Review was considered to be short-sighted and not sufficient to reach the full research potential. Meta-Analysis, even when supported by Realist Synthesis to classify process concerns and design themes for reliable net effect measurement, was equally rated inappropriate as being primarily concerned with statistical analysis and quantitative findings (Cronin et al., 2008). Instead, dealing with qualitative management studies, interpretive and inductive
Meta-Synthesis based on grounded theory principles of open coding and category identification was
deemed to be the most appropriate approach to investigate design frameworks. To provide a holistic account of CoPSS design, ethnographic techniques of Lines of Argument Synthesis and Reciprocal
Translations addressing discipline orientations, journal interests and author motives were partly
applied (Tranfield et al., 2003). Figure 3 illustrates the research design.
Figure 3 - Literature Review Approach Overview
Literature Review Approach
This review builds on Dehn & Chicksand’s (2016) literature analysis which encompassed the search terms product-service systems, hybrid products, servitisation, advanced services, service design and new service development returning 712 journal articles published between 01/2000 and 12/2015. Subsequent shortlisting to 166 articles was achieved through abstract reading, with a further eight articles added from the reference lists of Boehm & Thomas (2013) and Tukker (2013). Strategy formulations, project prioritisations, procedure adjustments, standard design techniques and general knowledge tools were not considered. Also excluded were software products or web services as well as specific articles about non-industrial goods sectors like consumer textile, food & dairy, health care or public services. Analysis was performed using a template within an Excel spreadsheet extracting article purpose, author motives, industry application, research approach,
CoPS Literature Investigation (Def initions, Characteristics, Concerns and Applications)
Literature Investigation on Systematic Design (NPD) def ining Framework Stages
Elaboration of Categorisation Matrix for Clustering Purpose facilitating Framework Analysis
Analysis and Comparison of CoPS Frameworks Selection
- Integrated P-S Design Process - Modularisation/Standardisation - Family Design (Variant Mgmt.) - System Architecture Concepts - Technology Integration - Portf olio Management - Network Collaboration
Panel & Protocol Setup
- Research Questions - Investigation Scope - Techniques/Methods - Flow of Assessment - Dissemination Choice
Review of Literature Base and Data Extraction Form (Dehn & Chicksand, 2016)
CoPSS Framework Creation based on Review Findings
- Framework Layout Selection - Macro-Level Process Setup - Industry/Organisation Impact - Framework Analysis Learning - Systematic CoPSS Matching - Focused Framework Guidance - Research Recommendations
Page 7 of 20 framework scope and study findings (Tranfield et al., 2003; Bazeley, 2009). Whereas the first review examined theory foundations, framework themes, design contributors and interaction levels, this review sheds light specifically upon the applicability for CoPS and targets comprehensive framework design. A revaluation of Dehn & Chicksand’s (2016) framework list revealed minor corrections only, replacing Aifaoui et al. (2006) by Aurich et al. (2006) and reducing Resta et al.’s (2015) design scope to PSS implementation and continuous improvement.
Design Model Categorisation
For CoPSS framework determination, a matrix overview was elaborated as recommended by Abbott (2014). The frameworks were categorised as concerns their appropriateness to general CoPS characteristics, and inherent process stages compared with systematic design approaches (Figure 1). This categorisation enhanced cross-framework analysis, ensuring that only frameworks relevant to CoPS were included and raising our awareness about process specific factors. Additionally, a text and model screening was performed to confirm previous scope assessments, distinguishing between NPD, NSD or PSS frameworks (Cottrell, 2011; Altheide & Schneider, 2013). Froehle & Roth (2007), for example, focused purely on service design, not creating a PSS framework. Referring back, CoPS appropriateness was confirmed where frameworks were tested through equivalent industry cases (Hobday, 1998+2000; Ren & Yeo, 2006; Davies et al., 2011). Proposals providing mere illustrations or studying less complex products were also accepted unless the frameworks violated customer involvement principles or CoPS characteristics of B2B investment goods, extensive product life and small batch manufacturing. Comprehensiveness was acknowledged if the framework covered phases of idea generation, project planning, design conduct, market preparation and post launch upgrade. This approach was chosen as the frameworks reflect study summaries from various disciplines following their own agendas, which further depend on individual writing skills or journal policies. Potential variance in interpretation prevented a stricter framework matrix categorisation (Bryman & Bell, 2007; Altheide & Schneider, 2013).
Design Model Assessments
From analysing the frameworks, it was evident that only few satisfied both criteria. These were investigated in more detail as regards to model purpose, research perspective, underlying concept, design concerns, and whether they applied tools or design techniques. Besides outlining key aspects of the framework, application usefulness was also rated based upon the author’s shortcomings and concerns. In addition, differences between the selected frameworks with varying contexts were investigated (see dark green box Table 1), with further insights gained from focused frameworks (see light green box Table 1). Particular attention was thereby paid to integrated design, modularisation, system architecture, portfolio management, technology integration and network collaboration stated as CoPS relevant. Sustainability aspects of resource efficiency, solution replicability or optimal consumption were also considered (Ghosh et al., 2006; Meier & Uhlmann, 2012). The purpose was to obtain sufficient understanding and research evidence before initiating abductive inference (Schurz, 2008; Thornberg, 2012). Synthesis has therefore been achieved through recasting and completing design or process elements which led to the design of a new conceptual CoPSS development framework for verification within industry and academia. By outlining concerns and gaps neglected to date, this contribution moreover attempts to stimulate the PSS design debate, signpost CoPS research and foster inter-disciplinary collaboration (Hart, 1998; Bryman & Bell, 2007).
Page 8 of 20
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Out of the 119 frameworks investigated, 38 cover NSD or NPD as a potential supplement for PSS. From the remaining 81 frameworks, 75 apply integrated product-service design. Only six frameworks address separate product and service approaches. Thus, the actual divide between integrated PSS design and separate product-service design might be 63% to 37%. The reason for this split might be the selection of service-oriented keywords within Dehn & Chicksand’s (2016) initial review. Their review further refers to Meier et al. (2010) and Szwejczewski et al. (2015) who consider NSD as add-on to extant NPD processes to develop PSS. Acknowledging the manufacturers’ heritage, we agree to this view of advancing NPD approaches but advocate integrated and concurrent product-service development to avoid inefficiencies during design or later operations. Thus, CAD software might be complemented by Service Blueprinting modules covering product life cycle, customer expectation or service delivery evaluations (Komoto & Tomiyama, 2008; Sakao et al., 2009B). However, such modules must be interconnected to directly reflect change implications on product-service design, business model and value generation (Kernschmidt et al., 2013; Windahl, 2015). Baxter et al. (2009) and Vasantha et al. (2012) also demand formal design software ontology for mutual understanding between hardware, software and service fractions.
Such considerations similarly apply to task/phase focused design versus comprehensive frameworks. Only 17 idea-to-launch design frameworks were identified. Decomposing our preceding example, Sakao et al. (2009B) focused on the creation of a service modelling tool allowing for product-service conceptualisation and business model verification. Yet doubts are prevalent as concerns the following questions: Which risks are associated with each business model and how are these to be evaluated? What product or service changes are necessary to enable alternative business models? Which technology/market changes might cause network disruptions? Additional input could clarify module cost versus business value preferences, product life extension potentials, 3D printing and after sales concepts or data/process technology advancements (Davies et al., 2011; Yurtkulu et al., 2014; Roland Berger, 2017). As propagated in the Stage Gate Model literature, cross-functional teams acting in inter-firm collaboration networks and following systematic design processes with defined deliverables and work packages generally address such questions (Cooper, 2008; Edgett, 2011). Zhang et al.’s (2012) framework therefore bundles several knowledge reuse models of Design
Structure Matrix (DSM), Computer-Aided Design (CAD) and Product Data Management (PDM) to
cover the entire product life from early design until its disposal. Sakao et al. (2009B) equally admit design procedure embedment weaknesses.
How applicable are identified PSS design approaches for new CoPS development?
Besides content and scope related concerns, the applicability for CoPS design was research focus. Evaluations based on CoPS examples and characteristics rated 33 frameworks as directly associated and another 42 frameworks suitable for CoPS industries (Hobday, 1998). For example, while Hew et al.’s (2001) airport construction process framework clearly belongs into the former category, Sakao et al.’s (2009B) blueprinting module being applied to washing machine services was also considered applicable for airport or defence industries and therefore counted as suitable for CoPS. Contrarily, 44 frameworks were rejected for violating CoPS characteristics by either focusing on B2C concepts such as car rental services or dealing with mass solutions like machinery tools (Yoon et al., 2012; Chen, 2015). Table 1 separates CoPS applicable frameworks (green boxes) from rejected ones (yellow
Page 9 of 20 boxes) also distinguishing between phase focused and idea-to-launch approaches. As a result, the elaborated matrix confirms Boehm & Thomas (2013), stating PSS opportunities from simple products to complex systems in both B2B and B2C sectors. However, mass PSS design approaches had to be excluded from further analysis, restricting the knowledge pool to 75 frameworks. This is because: first, customer behaviour and decision-making differs in B2B and B2C settings with consumers often valuing fashion trends, life style or artefact control over long term costs and resource incentives (Tukker, 2013), second, there are general differences in product distribution, customer interaction or network collaboration with CoPS representing highly customised solutions (Hobday, 1998), and third because of CoPS inherent technological or structural complexity consisting of numerous sub-systems from various disciplines (Berkovich et al., 2011; Davies et al., 2011).
Table 1 – Product Complexity and Process Scope Categorization of PSS Design Literature
Despite being categorised as CoPSS comprehensive idea-to-launch approaches, there are significant differences and shortcomings among the nine shortlisted frameworks. Except for Harrington & Srai (2012) and Zhang et al. (2012), all frameworks aim for PSS design, but vary in process ideology and solution novelty. Maltzman et al. (2005) and Alonso-Rasgado & Thompson (2006), for example, generate functional solutions from extant portfolios not necessarily creating products or services. In contrast, Aurich et al. (2006) propose a service design built on stage gate based modular product design, whereas Wang et al.’s (2011A+B) W-model realises step-by-step aligned functional product-service modules. However, due to pre-fixed product specifications, it is arguable whether the first three frameworks named still represent integrated PSS design. Pezzotta et al. (2012) alternatively
Alonso-Rasgado et al. (2004), Aurich et al. (2009), Baines & Lightfoot (2013A), Baines et al. (2009B), Baines et al. (2009C), Baxter et al. (2009), Berkovich et al. (2011),Berkovich et al. (2014), Bertoni et al. (2013), Chen et al. (2015A), Chen et al. (2015B), Chirumalla et al. (2013), Copani & Rosa (2015), Doultsinou et al. (2009), Durugbo (2014), [Femminella et al. (2011)], Geng & Chu (2012), Geng & Liu (2015), Geng et al. (2010), Geng et al. (2011), Geum & Park (2011),Geum et al. (2011), [Gliatis & Minis (2007)], 2x [Goldstein et al. (2002)],Hara et al. (2009), Hew et al. (2001), Hussain et al. (2012), Komoto & Tomiyama (2008), Komoto et al. (2012), Lee & Abuali (2011), Lee et al. (2015B), Li et al. (2012), Lindström et al. (2012), Maussang et al. (2009), Meier et al. (2010), Morelli (2003), Nemoto et al. (2015), Pawar et al. (2009), Peruzzini et al. (2015), Resta et al. (2015), Roy & Cheruvu (2009), Sakao et al. (2009B), [Sakao et al. (2009C)], [Shen et al. (2012)], Shen et al. (2015), Sheng et al. (2015A), Sheng et al. (2015B), Sheng et al. (2015C), Song et al. (2013), Song et al. (2014), Spring & Araujo (2013), [Trkman et al. (2015)],Tu et al. (2013), [Wagner et al. (2013)], Wang & Xiong (2011), [Watanabe et al. (2012)], Windahl (2015), Windahl & Lakemond (2010), Xing et al. (2013), Zhu et al. (2015)
[Adamopoulos et al. (2002)], Alonso-Rasgado & Thompson (2006), [Aurich et al. (2004)], Aurich et al. (2006), Clayton et al. (2012), [Froehle & Roth (2007)], Harrington & Srai (2012), Maltzman et al. (2005), [Marinkovic et al. (2011)], [Meier (2004)], Pezzotta et al. (2012), Song et al. (2015), Wang et al. (2011A+B), Zhang et al. (2012)
[Abramovici & Lindner (2011)], Afshar & Wang (2011), [Aggarwal et al. (2013)], Alix & Zacharewicz (2012), Amaya et al. (2014), Chalal et al. (2015), [Chou et al. (2012)], [Dragoicea et al. (2015)], Fornasiero & Sorlini (2010), [Hemilä & Vilko (2015)], Joore & Brezet (2015), [Karwan & Markland (2006)], Kernschmidt et al. (2013), [Kim (2008)], [Kim & Yoon (2014)], Kim et al. (2015), Kimita et al. (2009A), [Kimita et al. (2009B)], Kuo (2013), [Lee et al. (2010)], [Lee et al. (2012)], Lee et al. (2015A), [Lehoux (2013)], [Levy (2005)], [Lo (2011)], Manzini & Vezzoli (2003), Maxwell et al. (2006), [Moon et al. (2011)], [Moon et al. (2013)], [Pullman et al. (2001)], [Raharjo et al. (2008)], Raharjo et al. (2010), Raharjo et al. (2011), Salazar et al. (2015), Shokohyar et al. (2014), [Stewart (2003)], Sutanto et al. (2015), [Tung & Yuan (2008)], [Vidor et al. (2015)], [Yeh (2015)], Yip et al. (2015), Yoon et al. (2012)
[Chen (2015)], [Tung & Yuan (2011)]
P rodu ct C om pl ex it y
Design Process Scope
Focused Task/Phase CoPSS Design
Focused Task/Phase Mass-PSS Design
Idea-to-Launch CoPSS Design Process
Idea-to-Launch Mass-PSS Design
XXX = CoPS Case Study (Green Boxes) , XXX = CoPS Usage Potential (Green Boxes), [ ]= Service or Product but not PSS Design Focus Investigated articles do not entirely appear in the paper reference section, please contact the authors if a reference list is required!!!
Page 10 of 20 propose a spiral model which indicates competence increases through continuous development but lack detailed information about later life phases concerning improvements or generation designs. Equally following a systematic design, Clayton et al.’s (2012) framework is salient in the way of integrating the Input-Process-Output Model and Song et al.’s (2015) as regards the organisation level oriented setup. Contrasting, Harrington & Srai (2012) and Zhang et al. (2012) apply another perspective with the former coordinating global engineering networks while the latter managing life cycle design knowledge. However, both appear to pay little attention to environmental aspects such as language and culture, organisation structures or political interests (Tripathy & Eppinger, 2011). Examining management structures, a central entity seems to be responsible in most frameworks but Wang et al. (2011A+B) exclude Requirements Engineering as prepared input for conceptual design. It is only Aurich et al. (2006) who reflect separate service design entities, and Song et al. (2015) split into actual design process and business model elaboration.
CoPS related design factors are further differently covered in the frameworks investigated. While Song et al. (2015) convince in business contexts, the authors state modularisation weaknesses which are crucial for CoPS design. This is instead the focus of Wang et al. (2011A+B) with Maltzman et al. (2005) and Aurich et al. (2006) serving as additional references. Cost influence factors of portfolio management, system architecture and product/service standardisation are further addressed by the authors. Alonso-Rasgado & Thompson (2006) similarly seem to combine such pre-designed modules to create customised PSS. However, only Wang et al. (2011A+B) refer to family design as an integral part enabling upfront variance planning. Conversely, PSS co-creation, network collaboration and life cycle design with deviations in intensity are present in every framework. Most design approaches are nevertheless unspecific in the degree of customer co-creation - some let assume permanent involvement whereas others value phase-oriented contributions (Aurich et al., 2009; Meroni & Sangiorgi, 2011). By dealing with high complexity, regular exchange with lead customers might be most appropriate to ensure market acceptance (Hobday et al., 2000; Davies et al., 2011). As regards design networks, disagreeing with Johnson & Mena (2008) and confirming Maltzman et al. (2005), close collaboration should solely encompass direct PSS related integrator, manufacturer, service provider and customer exchange processes to avoid coordination overload. The manufacturer nevertheless needs to deal with critical sub-suppliers accordingly. Referring to life cycle design, all frameworks comprise initial post-launch PSS improvements, whereas Harrington & Srai (2012), Pezzotta et al. (2012) and Zhang et al. (2012) further include upgrades and product disposal. Considering stricter environmental regulations, this aspect could gain additional relevance in future (Davies et al., 2011; Roland Berger, 2017).
Page 11 of 20
Table 2 – Overview of holistic CoPSS Design Frameworks from PSS Literature Alonso-Rasgado & Thompson (2006)
Integrated hardware/software and service support design methodology for total care product creation Perspective: Business + Engineering
Concept: Systematic Product-Service Combination Concerns: Service Delivery, Resources & B2B ICT Techniques: Quality Function Deployment (QFD) Design Tools: Service Modelling and Blueprinting Comments: PSS Design based on extant Products
Aurich et al. (2006)
Modular life cycle service design being linked to the product engineering and acting in PSS networks Perspective: Technical Service Engineering Concept: Classic Stage Gate Model
Concerns: Modularisation, Network & Processes Techniques: Process Linking and Modularisation Design Tools: Service Modelling and Blueprinting Comments: NPD Projects trigger Services Design
Clayton et al. (2012)
Phase based framework determining task inputs, process activities and expected deliverables Perspective: Process Management
Concept: Phase Model including Feedback Loops Concerns: Design Phase Input-Output Activities Techniques: Input-Process-Output Model (IPO) Design Tools: Process Mapping
Comments: Integrated Approaches of PSS Design
Harrington & Srai (2012)
Conceptual PSS localisation design framework for multi-organisational engineering networks Perspective: Organisation + Engineering Concept: Global Life Cycle Engineering Alignment Concerns: Coordination of Engineering Activities Techniques: Life Cycle vs. Engineering Scope Matrix Design Tools: Ferdow’s Factory Role-Type Concepts Comments: Local Content & Network Configuration
Maltzman et al. (2005)
PSS network design approaches building on extant product portfolios and service offerings
Perspective: Solution Collaboration Networks Concept: Product-Service Network Integration Concerns: Element Compatibility, Supply Chain Techniques: Voice of Customer Design Process Design Tools: Kano’s Quality Satisfaction Model Comments: Product-Service Compatibility Issue
Pezzotta et al. (2012)
Iterative life cycle oriented PSS design model with improvements based on customer feedback Perspective: Product Life + Customer Relationship Concept: Spirale Model incl. future PSS Upgrades Concerns: Co-Creation and Integrated P-S Design Techniques: Continuous Improvement Approach Design Tools: Process Mapping, Service Modelling Comments: Integrated PSS Life Cycle Co-Creation
Song et al. (2015)
Integrative PSS innovation management framework including business and network considerations Perspective: Innovation Management
Concept: Task Split Strategy, Tactic & Support Level Concerns: PSS Value, Business Model, Supply Chain Techniques: Stakeholder PSS Requirements Matrix Design Tools: Service Blueprinting and Design FMEA Comments: Firm Strategy & Capabilities Orientation
Wang et al. (2011A+B)
Collaborative, modular and value-oriented life cycle design concept incl. service transformation roadmap Perspective: Organisation + Engineering
Concept: W-Model (PSS Function, Product, Service) Concerns: Network, Modularisation, Service Delivery Techniques: IPO Model, QFD-Portfolio Technique Design Tools: Process Mapping, Service Modelling Comments: Product Portfolio and Family Concepts
Zhang et al. (2012)
Knowledge-oriented PSS life cycle design concept for reuse and organisational learning
Perspective: Knowledge + Information Technology Concept: Product Life Cycle Knowledge Capture Concerns: Ontology, Data Sources, Knowledge Use Techniques: PSS Design Knowledge Codification Design Tools: Process Mapping, Keyword Retrieval Comments: Software Tool facilitating Design Tasks Cost Evaluation
& Risk Analysis Functional Total Care Product
Hardware Services Service Planning Options 1-n Equipment Maintenance Options 1-n Recording & Analysis Options 1-n
Service Processing Options 1-n Skills & Training Options 1-n Element 1 Features 1-n Element 2 Features 1-n Element 3 Features 1-n
Technical Service Design New Product Development
Id e a F in d in g C o n c e p t D e v e lo p m e n t Pro d u c t C o s tru c ti o n Pro d u c t D e ta ili n g Pro to ty p e Bu ild &T e s t M a n u fa c tu ri n g Pre p a ra ti o n Product Launch D e m a n d s Id e n ti fi c a ti o n F e a s ib ili ty An a ly s is C o n c e p t D e v e lo p m e n t Se rv ic e M o d e lli n g R e a lis a ti o n Pl a n n in g Se rv ic e T e s ti n g & Im p ro v e m e n t Service Launch PSS Design Approach
Input Phase Output
Project Planning Customer Analysis Idea Generation Design Resource Analysis Value Definition Prototype Implementation Evaluation Setup (Mission, Team, Budget) Skill Sets &
Resources Requirements & Capabilities Client Business Processes PSS Concepts, Value Potential Offering Details Firm Resources Detailed Offering Sales Strategy Business Case Test Success & Marketing Field Population Data/Feedback Customer Understanding PSS Concepts Value Potential Detailed Offering Resource Gap Counteractions Business Case Cost Evaluation Demonstration of Benefits PSS Sales Ideas for PSS Improvement C o n ce p t Im p ro ve m e n ts , N ew N e ed s
Global PSS Engineering Network Configuration PSS Network
Configuration Archetype Determination
PSS Life Cycle and Engineering Activity Matching
Innovative Manufacturer Flexible Manufacturer Efficient Service Provider Resource Optimiser Autonomous Operations Operator by Market Theme Project-Centric Operator Engineering
Activities Concept Assessment Development Manufacture Use Phase Disposal
New Platform Enhancement Service Design Engineering Systems
PSS Engineering Network Location Roles Matrix
PSS Life
Cycle StageEngineering Activities Lead ContributorServer Offshore Outpost
Concept Assessment Development Manufacture Use Phase Disposal
Design for Network Solutions Manufacturer Offerings Field Integration of Network Plan Network Integration Planning Product Development Portfolio Management Application Design Customer Support Standard Services Other Product Suppliers Other Service Providers Design Support Management Plan (Network) Operations Analysis Installation Review Interfaces & Compatibility Test Plan System Configuration Realisation Approaches Individual Customer Network Plan Integration Testing Customer Acceptance Remote Administration Hardware Interfaces Process Alignments Solution Performance Data Link Connectivity Network Management Customer PSS Turnover Package 2) Planning 3) Risk Analysis 4) Engineering 5) Construction 6) Evaluation 1) Market Interaction Development Use Phase End of Life Requirement Identif ication Requirement Specif ication Concept Design PSS Design Verif ication Detailed Design Prototype Testing & Implementation Feedback Pilot User Release & Promotion Market Growth & Penetration Application Match PSS Continuous Improvement Operations Alignment Phase Out Planning Service Delivery Idea Generation Replacement Approaches Additional Of f erings Customer Satisf action Provider Reviews Product Disposal Supply Chain Cooperations Contracts, Deliveries
Strategy Level - PSS Business Model Design
Value Proposition Value Creation Mechanism Customer Segmentation PSS Element Analysis Partner Value Network
Tactic Level - PSS Innovation Design Process
Stakeholders‘
Requirements PSS Concept ImplementationPlan PSS Prototype PSS Operations
Support Level - PSS Innovation Management
Customer Activity Cycle based Requirements Management
Collaborative PSS Concept Management
Collaborative PSS Concept Management PSS Reliability Management PSS Performance Management
Support Depend on Service Modularisation Functional Modularisation Product Modularisation Product-Service Family Planning Customer Options Determination Objectives of Modularisation Functions Decomposition Definition of Modules Definition of Interfaces Establishment of Architecture Establishment of Service Processes Assessment of Processes Assessment of Architecture Physical Alternatives Realisation of Interfaces Realisation of Modules Base-Line Product Physical Structure Detailed Specifications Building of Product Variants Configuration Mgmt. Variants Service Alternatives Realisation of Interfaces Realisation of Modules Service Element Development Training Manual Building of Service Scenarios Service Scenario Management Mapping Mapping Mapping Mapping
Design Tool Process-Task Layer Product Life Cycle Knowledge Reuse Model Knowledge Output Design Principle Solution Embodiment Knowledge Detailed Design Knowledge Manufacturing & Test Knowledge Sales Feedback Operations Feedback Retrofit/Upgrading & Disposal Knowledge Requirement List Requirements Concept Design Embodiment Design Detailed Design Prototype Validation Marketing/Sales
Product Use & Maintenance Upgrading & Disposal Function-Principle Solution Tree Design Structure Matrix Roadmap CAD & PDM System
Design Changes (Failure/Success) Sales Knowledge Modelling Use Knowledge Modelling Upgrading & Disposal Knowledge Modelling Needs Prioritization
Page 12 of 20
How should design processes be aligned to more effectively develop related PSS?
Adjusted systematic approaches to Pahl et al. (2007) or Cooper (2008) provide top level guidance throughout design. Developing from scratch thereby means to accomplish idea generation, project planning, concept design, detailed design, product/service validation, business preparation, market implementation and global roll-out. Continuous improvement and next generation development should be further considered especially for CoPS. In this paper, we propose that frameworks should include all these stages (Aurich et al., 2006; Pezzotta et al., 2012). The advantage is their general applicability, which allows for variation on subjacent levels, assigning company-specific procedures (Pahl et al., 2007). However, conventional NPD approaches often representing Stage Gate Models are familiar but insufficient for CoPS manufacturers transforming to service providers and require adjustments towards PSS including service design (Meier et al., 2010; Szwejczewski et al., 2015). Fischer et al. (2012) even proclaim integrated product-service design to generate more efficient or effective value packages avoiding waste and optimising consumption. In fact, through constant alignment, positive effects on technical compositions and operations interfaces can be expected (Sturm & Bading, 2008; Kernschmidt et al., 2013). This view is shared by the panel. Alternatively proposed spiral, V- or W-models contain similar design phases but rather highlight PSS competence extension, top-down decomposition or planning-realisation aspects (Wang et al., 2011A+B, Pezzotta et al., 2012). Yet over-complex structures impede practitioner ascertainability and perceptiveness, which led to the panel decision of adopting acknowledged linear approaches (Pahl et al., 2007; Van de Ven, 2007; Edgett, 2011). Aurich et al. (2006) represent such a format but fail in fulfilling the integrated design requirements. However, we agree there is a need to divide product and service design responsibility, which regularly lie within different organisations (Fischer et al., 2012).
It is evident that framework network aspects and family concepts appear underrepresented. While Maltzman et al. (2005), Aurich et al. (2006) and Wang et al. (2011A+B) provide network indicating support graphics, Harrington & Srai (2012) created a role matrix coordinating multi-organisational design tasks. However, the importance of value chain collaboration is not instantaneously obvious. CoPS development usually requires concurrent engineering, i.e. the simultaneous generation of sub-systems or components by several design teams (Hansen & Rush, 1998; Gann & Salter, 2000). Associated activities thereby belong to lower level coordination, and multi-organisational design illustration might be achieved through layers representing the integrated PSS design process within the manufacturer organisation and industry network environment. Figure 4 depicts our CoPSS design framework suggestion that is based primarily on Aurich et al. (2006). Concerning identified themes of system architecture, modularisation, standardisation and family design, Wang et al. (2011A+B) deliver the most advanced framework. However, the apparently technical design related framework potentially disregards business model and corporate strategy reflections calling for conceptual abstractness. Nevertheless, the approach is valid in lower level design as shown in Figure 5. Thus, after conducting Requirements Engineering with definition of business model and solution variants, CoPSS family planning might be initiated during conceptual design based on a lead development followed by derivate projects. At this stage, portfolio management plays a crucial role in suggesting standard modules and services for family design integration. Considerations also include hardware, software and service long term compatibility factors (Du et al., 2001; Jose & Tollenaere, 2005). To increase design efficiency, implying certain familiarity, Cooper (2008) recommends process and deliverable downsizing for derivate developments, module modifications or design improvements.
Page 13 of 20
Figure 4 - CoPSS Network Design Process Framework
Figure 5 - CoPSS Modular Family Roadmap Concept
Product and Service Innovation Process Framework
Page 14 of 20
CONCLUSION
The concept of PSS is gaining significant traction in different disciplines with recent research focusing on design approaches. However, PSS solutions vary according to product peculiarities, technological advancements, market conditions and customer preferences. CoPS, described as long-lasting high cost capital goods produced in one-off projects or small batches, are distinguished from mass products. In fact, CoPS solutions are usually customised, causing variance through application modifications, technology integrations, technical norms and authority regulations that impede modularisation and standardisation efforts. Design is further challenged by the complex system architecture comprising of several hierarchy levels of sub-systems, modules and components. Besides dealing with product mechanics, electronics and software elements, service design also needs to be integrated for optimised sustainable CoPSS development, enhancing product life cycle availability and performance. To obtain the best outcome on development cost, time-to-market and non-conformity risk, network collaborations should involve the manufacturer, integrator, service provider and customer. Family approaches divided into lead and time-shifted derivate projects might be chosen to realise portfolio synergies and to create economies of scale. Variation in underlying CoPSS business models and service package offerings is considered essential in the value proposition development, seeking the right balance of internal functions and external partner involvement. Based on these design requirements, the research investigated 119 frameworks concerning their development scope, phase completeness and CoPS applicability. For this purpose, a matrix was created identifying nine comprehensive frameworks whereas numerous other frameworks solely focused on service design complementing NPD or addressed specific development tasks/phases. Findings suggest that 63% of frameworks represent integrated product-service design. Although service design supplement is per se justifiable, significant combination challenges prevail. Similarly, task/phase-oriented approaches often neglect the overall picture and further implications. In addition, CoPS design applicability was also 63%, with nearly half directly referring to CoPS cases. Besides the in-depth analysis and comparison of shortlisted frameworks, identified themes were highlighted with reference to phase-oriented frameworks and additional design related literature. In conclusion, most selected frameworks reflect concurrent engineering at least in regards to the simultaneous product and service design. Life cycle orientation also seems to be an integral part but frameworks often lack substance in product/service modularity, portfolio management or network collaboration, with little attention paid to differences in hardware, software and service features. Finally no framework examined succeeded in all relevant themes and topics recognised. Since journal articles represent secondary data regularly based on individual case studies with underlying assumptions and perspectives, the ability to combine frameworks was considered questionable. The panel alternatively decided to develop a stage gate based holistic top-level CoPSS design framework, as introduced in the Figures 4+5. However, this framework requires validation in practice. Lower level task concept development with potential application of various design methods or support tools was out of scope of this study but definitely needs to be addressed in the future. Research should also be intensified towards product-service design integration, network collaboration, system architecture, modularisation design, portfolio management and family design.
Page 15 of 20
REFERENCES
Abbott, A. (2014) Digital Paper - A Manual for Research and Writing with Library and Internet
Materials. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Aifaoui, N., Deneux, D. & Soenen, R. (2006) ‘Feature-based interoperability between design and analysis processes’. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 17 (1) 13-27
Alonso-Rasgado, T. & Thompson, G. (2006) ‘A rapid design process for Total Care Product creation’.
Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 17 (6) 509-531
Altheide, D.L. & Schneider, C.J. (2013) Qualitative Media Analysis (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications
Aurich, J.C., Fuchs, C. & Wagenknecht, C. (2006) ‘Life cycle oriented design of technical product-service systems’. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 (17) 1480-1494
Aurich, J.C., Wolf, N., Siener, M. & Schweitzer, E. (2009) ‘Configuration of product-service systems’.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 20 (5) 591-605
Baines, T.S. & Lightfoot, H.W. (2013A) ‘Servitization of the manufacturing firm: Exploring the operations practices and technologies that deliver advanced services’. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 34 (1) 2-35
Baines, T.S. & Lightfoot, H.W. (2013B) Made to Serve: How manufacturers can compete through
servitization and product-service systems. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
Baines, T.S., Lightfoot, H.W., Benedettini, O. & Kay, J.M. (2009A) ‘The servitization of manufacturing: A review of literature and reflection on future challenges’. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 20 (5) 547-567
Baines, T.S., Lightfoot, H.W. & Kay, J.M. (2009B) ‘Servitized manufacture: Practical challenges of delivering integrated products and services’. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 223 (9) 1207-1215
Baxter, D., Roy, R., Doultsinou, A., Gao, J. & Kalta, M. (2009) ‘A knowledge management framework to support product-service systems design’. International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 22 (12) 1073-1088
Bazeley, P. (2009) ‘Analysing qualitative data: more than identifying themes’. Malaysian Journal of
Qualitative Research, Vol. 2 (2) 6-22
Berkovich, M., Leimeister, J.M. & Krcmar, H. (2011) ‘Requirements Engineering for Product Service Systems: A state of the Art Analysis’. Business & Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 3 (6) 369-380 Boehm, B.W. (1988) ‘A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement’. Computer, Vol. 21 (5) 61-72
Boehm, M. & Thomas, O. (2013) ‘Looking beyond the rim of one's teacup: A multidisciplinary literature review of Product-Service Systems in Information Systems, Business Management and Engineering & Design’. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 51 (15) 245-260
Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. (1982) New Products Management for the 1980s. New York: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2007) Business Research Methods (2nd edition). New York: Oxford University Press
Page 16 of 20 Cavalieri, S. & Pezzotta, G. (2012) ‘Product-service systems engineering: State of the art and research challenges’. Computers in Industry, Vol. 63 (4) 278-288
Chen, D. (2015) ‘A methodology for developing service in virtual manufacturing environment’.
Annual Reviews in Control, Vol. 39 (2015) 102-117
Chicksand, D., Watson, G., Walker, H., Radnor, Z. & Johnson, R. (2012) ‘Theoretical Perspectives in Purchasing and Supply Chain Management: An Analysis of the Literature’. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 (4) 454-472
Clayton, R.J., Backhouse, C.J. & Dani, S. (2012) ‘Evaluating existing approaches to product-service system design’. Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, Vol. 23 (3) 272-298
Cooper, R.G. (1983) ‘A Process Model for Industrial New Product Development’. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 30 (1) 2-11
Cooper, R.G. (2008) ‘Perspective: The Stage Gate® Idea-to-Launch Process - Update, What’s New, and NexGen Systems’. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 25 (3) 213-232
Cooper, R.G. (2013) ‘New Products - What separates the winners from the losers and what drives success’. In: Kahn, K.B., Kay, S.E., Slotegraaf, R.J. & Uban, S. (eds.) The PDMA Handbook of New
Product Development (3rd edition). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons
Cottrell, S. (2011) Critical Thinking Skills - Developing Effective Analysis and Argument (2nd edition). New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Cronin, P., Ryan, F. & Coughlan, M. (2008) ‘Undertaking a Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Approach’. British Journal of Nursing, Vol. 17 (1) 38-43
Davies, A., Brady, T., Hobday, M. & Prencipe, A. (2011) ‘Innovation in Complex Products and Systems: Lessons for Project Business’. In: Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Frederiksen, L. & Täube, F. (eds.)
Project-Based Organizing and Competitive Strategic Management. Bingley: Emerald Publishing
Dehn, T. & Chicksand, D. (2016) ‘A Critical Review on Product-Service System Design Frameworks: The Analysis of Applied Theories and Process Models’. In: Proceedings of the Spring Servitization
Conference, Manchester, Great Britain: 16-17 May 2016
Du, X., Jiao, J. & Tseng, M.M. (2001) ‘Architecture of Product Family: Fundamentals and Methodology’. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 9 (4) 309-325
Edgett, S.J. (2011) New Product Development - Process Benchmarks and Performance Metrics. Houston: APQC
Elsevier (2017) Scopus - Product-Service System Engineering and Information System Article Search. Available from: https://www.scopus.com [accessed on 08 November 2017]
Eppinger, S.D. & Chitkara, A.R. (2006) ‘The New Practice of Global Product Development’. MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 47 (4) 22-30
European Commission (2017) What is Horizon 2020? - Overview EU Research and Innovation
Programme. Available from:
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/background-material [accessed on 08 November 2017]
Fischer, T., Gebauer, H. & Fleisch, E. (2012) Service Business Development - Strategies for Value
Page 17 of 20 Froehle, C.M. & Roth, A.V. (2007) ‘A Resource-Process Framework of New Service Development’.
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 16 (2) 169-188
Gann, D.M. & Salter, A.J. (2000) ‘Innovation in project-based, service enhanced firms: The construction of complex products and systems’. Research Policy, Vol. 29 (7-8) 955-972
Ghosh, M., Dutta, S. & Stremersch, S. (2006) ‘Customizing Complex Products: When should the Vendor Take Control?’. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43 (4) 664-679
Goedkoop, M.J., van Halen, C.J.G., Te Riele, H.R.M. & Rommens, P.J.M. (1999) Product Service
Systems, Ecological and Economic Basis. PricewaterhouseCoopers N.V. / Pi!MC, Storrm C.S., Pre
Consultants
Hansen, K.L. & Rush, H. (1998) ‘Hotspots in Complex Product Systems: Emerging Issues in Innovation Management’. Technovation, Vol. 18 (8/9) 555-561
Harrington, T.S. & Srai, J.S. (2012) ‘Defining product-service network configurations and location roles: a current and future state analysis framework for international engineering operations’.
International Journal of Product Development, Vol. 17 (3-4) 228-253
Hart, C. (1998) Doing a Literature Review - Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination. London: SAGE Publications
Hatfield, S.M. (2010) Systematik zur strategisch-organisationalen Veränderung zum hybriden
Produzenten (Systematics for strategic-organisational change towards a hybrid manufacturer firm).
PhD Dissertation. Aachen: RWTH Aachen [published]
Hew, K.P., Fisher, N. & Awbi, H.B. (2001) ‘Towards an integrated set of design tools based on a common data format for building and services design’. Automation in Construction, Vol. 10 (4) 459-476
Hobday, M. (1998) ‘Product Complexity, Innovation and Industrial Organisation’. Research Policy, Vol. 26 (6) 689-710
Hobday, M. (2000) ‘The project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems?’. Research Policy, Vol. 29 (7-8) 871-893
Hobday, M., Rush, H. & Tidd, J. (2000) ‘Innovation in Complex Products and Systems’. Research
Policy, Vol. 29 (7-8) 793-804
IABG (2006) V-Modell® XT - Part 1: Fundamentals of the V-Modell, Version 1.3. Available from:
http://v-modell.iabg.de/XThtmleng/index.html [accessed on 29 December 2017]
Johnson, M. & Mena, C. (2008) ‘Supply chain management for servitised products: A multi-industry case study’. International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 114 (1) 27-39
Johnson, G., Scholes, K. & Whittington, R. (2008) Exploring Corporate Strategy (8th edition). Harlow: Pearson Education
Jose, A. & Tollenaere, M. (2005) ‘Modular and Platform Methods for Product Family Design: Literature Analysis’. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 16 (3) 371-390
Kernschmidt, K., Wolfenstetter, T., Münzberg, C., Kammerl, D., Goswami, S., Lindemann, U., Krcmar, H. & Vogel-Heuser, B. (2013) ‘Concept for an Integration-Framework to enable the crossdisciplinary Development of Product-Service Systems’. In: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference
Page 18 of 20 Kim, S., Son, C., Yoon, B. & Park, Y. (2015) ‘Development of an Innovation Model based on a Service-Oriented Product Service System (PSS)’. Sustainability, Vol. 7 (2015) 14427-14449
Komoto, H. & Tomiyama, T. (2008) ‘Integration of a service CAD and a life cycle simulator’. CIRP
Annals - Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 57 (1) 9-12
KPMG (2016) Global Manufacturing Outlook - Competing for Growth: How to be a Growth Leader in
Industrial Manufacturing. Amstelveen, Netherlands: KPMG. pp. 1-23
Maltzman, R., Rembis, K.M., Donisi, M., Farley, M., Sanchez, R.C. & Ho, A.Y. (2005) ‘Design for networks - the ultimate design for X’. Bell Labs Technical Journal, Vol. 9 (4) 5-24
Marques, P., Cunha, P.F., Valente, F. & Leitao, A. (2013) ‘A methodology for product-service systems development’. Procedia CIRP, Vol. 7 (2013) 371-376
Meier, H. & Uhlmann, E. (2012) ‘Hybride Leistungsbündel - ein neues Produktverständnis’ (Product Service Systems - a new Product Perspective). In: Meier, H. & Uhlmann, E. (eds.) Integrierte
Industrielle Sach- und Dienstleistungen (Integrated Industrial Products and Services). Berlin:
Springer-Verlag
Meier, H., Roy, R. & Seliger, G. (2010) ‘Industrial Product-Service Systems - IPS²’. CIRP Annals -
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 59 (2) 607-627
Meroni, A. & Sangiorgi, D. (2011) Design for Services. Farnham: Gower Publishing
Mont, O.K. (2002) ‘Clarifying the concept of product-service system’. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 10 (3) 237-245
Pahl, G. & Beitz, W. (1977) Konstruktionslehre - Handbuch für Studium und Praxis (Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach). Berlin: Springer-Verlag
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J. & Grote, K.H. (2007) Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach (3rd edition). London: Springer-Verlag
Pawar, K.S., Beltagui, A. & Riedel, J.C.K.H. (2009) ‘The PSO triangle: Designing product, service and organisation to create value’. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 29 (5) 468-493
Pezzotta, G., Cavalieri, S. & Gaiardelli, P. (2012) ‘A spiral process model to engineer a product service system: An explorative analysis through case studies’. Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Technology, Vol. 5 (3) 214-225
PWC (2017) 2017 Global Innovation 1000 - Will Stronger Borders Weaken Innovation? Available from: https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/media/file/2017-Global-Innovation-1000-Fact-Pack.pdf [accessed on 08 November 2017]
Raddats, C., Baines, T., Burton, J., Story, V.M. & Zolkiewski, J. (2016) ‘Motivations for Servitization: The Impact of Product Complexity’. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 36 (5) 572-591
Ren, Y.-T. & Yeo, K.-T. (2006) ‘Research Challenges on Complex Product Systems (CoPS) Innovation’.
Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers, Vol. 23 (6) 519-529
Resta, B., Powell, D., Gaiardelli, P. & Dotti, S. (2015) ‘Towards a framework for lean operations in product-oriented product service systems’. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, Vol. 9 (2015) 12-22
Page 19 of 20 Roland Berger (2013) Best Practices in New Product Development - Using Effective Methods to Boost
Success. Available from: https://www.rolandberger.com/publications/publication_pdf/roland_
berger_best_practices_in_new_ product_development_1.pdf [accessed on 28 May 2016] Roland Berger (2017) Trend Compendium 2030 - T5 Dynamic Technology & Innovation. Available from: https://www.rolandberger.com/gallery/trend-compendium/tc2030/content/assets/trend compendium2030.pdf [accessed on 08 November 2017]
Royce, W.W. (1970) ‘Managing the Development of Large Software Systems’. In: Proceedings of
Technical Papers of Western Electronic Show and Convention (WesCon), Los Angeles, USA: 25-28
August 1970
Sakao, T., Shimomura, Y., Sundin, E. & Comstock, M. (2009B) ‘Modeling design objects in CAD system for Service-Product Engineering’. Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 41 (3) 197-213
Schurz, G. (2008) ‘Patterns of Abduction’. Synthese, Vol. 164 (2) 201-234
Song, W., Ming, X., Han, Y., Xu, Z. & Wu, Z. (2015) ‘An integrative framework for innovation management of product-service system’. International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 (8) 2252-2268
Sosa, M.E., Eppinger, S.D. & Rowles, C.M. (2004) ‘The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development’. Management Science, Vol. 50 (12) 1674-1689
Sosa, M.E., Eppinger, S.D. & Rowles, C.M. (2007) ‘A Network Approach to Define Modularity of Components in Complex Products’. Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 129 (11) 1118-1129 Sturm, F. & Bading, A. (2008) ‘Investitionsgüterhersteller als Anbieter industrieller Lösungen - Bestandsaufnahme des Wandels anhand einer Umfrage’ (Manufacturers of capital goods as industrial solution providers - Reviewing change based on a survey). Wirtschaftsinformatik, Vol. 50 (3) 174-186
Szwejczewski, M., Goffin, K. & Anagnostopoulos, Z. (2015) ‘Product service systems, after-sales service and new product development’. International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 (17) 5334-5353
Thornberg, R. (2012) ‘Informed Grounded Theory’. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 55 (1) 1-17
Torraco, R.J. (2005) ‘Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples’. Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 4 (3) 356-367
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. & Smart, P. (2003) ‘Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review’. British Journal of Management, Vol. 14 (3) 207-222
Tripathy, A. & Eppinger, S.D. (2011) ‘Organizing Global Product Development for Complex Engineered Systems’. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 58 (3) 510-529
Tukker, A. (2004) ‘Eight types of product-service system: eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet’. Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 13 (4) 246-260
Tukker, A. (2013) ‘Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy - a review’. Journal
