Servitization 2.0: Evaluating and progressing servitization-related research from novel conceptual and methodological perspectives
Special issue call for papers from International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Guest editors:
Rodrigo Rabetino (University of Vaasa, Finland),
Marko Kohtamäki (University of Vaasa, Finland),
Christian Kowalkowski (Linköping University, Sweden),
Tim S. Baines (Aston Business School, UK)
Rui Sousa (Catholic University of Portugal –Porto-, Portugal)
Background
The transformation of manufacturing towards the integration of products and services has received increasing attention since the inception of the today known as the servitization domain thirty years ago. In particular, the field has begun to grow from the seminal publication by Oliva and Kallenberg (2003) and became popular after two reviews by Baines and colleagues (Baines et al., 2007; Baines, Lightfoot, Benedettini, & Kay, 2009). In the following years, servitization became nearly synonymous with companies moving from selling products and basic services to selling product-service systems (PSS). These PSS typically include advanced lifecycle services and involve changes in companies’ business models (Rabetino, Kohtamäki, & Gebauer, 2017; Rabetino, Kohtamäki, Lehtonen, & Kostama, 2015; Sousa & da Silveira, 2017). Lately, the servitization research has become increasingly relevant in the expansion of digitalization, Internet-of-Things, Industry 4.0, and circular economy business models. As a phenomenon and particular research context, servitization has inspired an increasing quantity of problem-driven research providing understanding and opportunities for future research, whereas knowledge has accumulated within related scholarly communities (Lightfoot, Baines, & Smart, 2013; Rabetino, Harmsen, Kohtamäki, & Sihvonen, 2018).
Any scholarly domain has to take stock of its conceptual development occasionally (Bull & Thomas, 1993), and servitization is no exception. After a phase of explosive accumulation of problem-driven research, various academics have recently expressed the need to consolidate the growing servitization domain even further. As Kowalkowski, Gebauer, and Oliva (2017) conclude, servitization has reached certain maturity and recognition as an established scholarly domain, but it still remains as a theoretically nascent field. Acknowledging these circumstances, a plurality of voices contemporaneously expressed the need to introduce new perspectives, question the dominant basic assumptions, and endow the servitization-related research with a greater conceptual component (Kowalkowski, Windahl, Kindström, & Gebauer, 2015; Luoto, Brax, & Kohtamäki, 2017; Rabetino et al., 2018). Scholars have also called for bridging the servitization-related communities while looking for synergies, a shared understanding of the key research themes, greater knowledge accumulation within and across research streams (Lightfoot et al., 2013; Rabetino et al., 2018; Tukker & Tischner, 2006).
While there is explicit agreement on the need to develop the field, different opinions exist on how to progress the field. Servitization research can be seen requiring more theory-driven research, methodological rigor, practical relevance, or future orientation, but no single right answer exists (Baines et al., 2017; Bigdeli, Baines, Bustinza, & Shi, 2017; Rabetino et al., 2018). Discussion and different alternative paths should be mapped, and a theoretical platform for the debate is needed. This special issue aims to provide a platform for the discussion and constructive debate. The goal is to develop insights and trigger discussions into the opportunities and challenges for developing the servitization-related research. Academic domains progress from social processes during which its members collectively build and legitimate the field (Whitley, 1983, 1984). The debate becomes more relevant when trying to understand critical issues related to the domain’s evolution, and when facing the need for integrating different servitization-related streams (e.g., PSS research) to the servitization mainstream.
Topic areas of interest
The present SI invites members in the servitization community to debate critical questions for the future development of the field. We want to encourage servitization-related scholars to submit research contributions that build on established knowledge in the area of servitization and PSS. The primary purpose of this SI is to create a common platform to discuss future ways for developing the field, which include the debate of alternative theoretical lenses, opportunities for theory development, the interplay between servitization and related fields, as well as manners to address key research questions/issues in the field. To that end, we seek submissions with an original perspective and advanced thinking on the development of the servitization field, instead of empirical studies on servitization.
The proposed SI does not seek contributions proposing a single unified agenda but, instead, a variety of perspectives on how to advance the servitization-related research (from the conceptual and methodological viewpoints). Hence, papers in this SI should use various means of studying the previous literature on servitization, to propose a variety of future directions. Although they can contain some review of the literature, we look for submissions that go beyond systematic reviews, and propose and discuss fresh conceptual and methodological avenues for further development of the field. We welcome academically oriented papers with solid conceptual grounding that should look for, but not be limited to, answers to the following questions:
•What is the role of theory in servitization research? What significant research questions are being ignored by servitization research? What are the theoretical lenses that can contribute to developing servitization-related research in the future? How to approach development of the servitization field from different theoretical perspectives? Does the domain require further conceptual development or, alternatively, the consolidation of servitization research should be primarily based on problem-driven research looking for practical relevance?
•How the different servitization-related streams interrelate, and how the interplay between these related streams can materialize in future research? How to integrate research from different servitization-related communities? How can interdisciplinary collaboration toward a common agenda be promoted and supported?
•What are the future conceptual and methodological challenges of the servitization research field when considering the stock of accumulated academic knowledge and real-world trends? What will the research field look like in ten years?
•How can the servitization community develop the domain further? Which are the alternative paths of advancing the field? What does each path involve and what the real implications for the field’s development are in each case? Does the domain have to develop following a single path? Alternatively, can the future development take many paths simultaneously?
Different topics are also welcome if they contribute to the collective conceptual debate on how to consolidate the servitization domain further.
Review Process
To ensure that the special issue obtains the best mix of theory-driven and methodologically based articles, a multistage review process will be implemented. Potential manuscript are to be submitted through IJOPM’s central ScholarOne system by the official submission deadline below (15 August 2020). All papers submitted will be subject to an initial screening by the IJOPM’s editorial team. Submissions deemed suitable will then be send out to IJOPM’s regular review base for double-blind reviews. Author guidelines can be found on the journal's page.
Deadline for paper submission: 15 August 2020
Reviewer first report: 1 October 2020
Revised paper submission: 15 December 2020
Reviewer second reports: 15 January 2021
Publication expected by: mid 2021
Biographies
Rodrigo Rabetino is tenured Associate Professor of Strategic Management in the School of Management and the Vaasa Energy Business Innovation Centre (VEBIC) at the University of Vaasa (Finland). His current research activities concern servitization and product-service systems, industrial service business, business intelligence, business models, strategy as practice, and small business management. He has published articles in international journals such as Regional Studies, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Industrial Marketing Management, International Journal of Production Economics, Journal of Small Business Management, and Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, amongst others, rodrigo.rabetino@univaasa.fi
Marko Kohtamäki is Professor of Strategy, and a director of the "Networked Value Systems" (NeVS) research program at the University of Vaasa, and has previously served as a Visiting Professor in Luleå University of Technology, and as an associate fellow in the University of Oxford, Said Business School. Prof. Kohtamäki takes special interest in industrial service business or servitization, strategic practices, and business intelligence or management information systems in technology companies. Kohtamäki has published in distinguished international journals such as Strategic Management Journal, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Industrial Marketing Management, Long Range Planning, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, International Journal of Production Economics, Technovation, amongst others, marko.kohtamaki@univaasa.fi
Christian Kowalkowski is Professor of Industrial Marketing at the Institute of Technology at Linköping University, and serves as Assistant Professor of Marketing at Hanken School of Economics in Helsinki. His research focuses on service growth strategies, service innovation, and solutions marketing. Kowalkowski is the Expert Research Panel Chair—Servitization of the Journal of Service Management. In the book Service Strategy in Action: A Practical Guide for Growing Your B2B Service and Solution Business (2017), professors Christian Kowalkowski and Wolfgang Ulaga share their practical twelve-step roadmap for crafting and executing a successful service-growth strategy—based on hands-on experience of working with companies and solid research, christian.kowalkowski@liu.se
Tim Bainesis Director of the Aston Centre for Servitization Research and Practice, and the leading international authority on servitization. He spends much of his time working with manufacturing companies to understand servitization in practice and helps businesses navigate the transformation to services. He also delivers executive development and custom programs to industry. He is the author of Made to Serve: How Manufacturers Can Compete through Servitization and Product Service Systems (Wiley, 2013), a practical guide to servitization based on in-depth research with leading corporations, t.baines@aston.ac.uk
Rui Sousais Full Professor of Operations Management at the Catholic University of Portugal (Porto) and holds a PhD from the London Business School. His research has been published in leading international journals, including the Journal of Operations Management, Production and Operations Management, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Decision Sciences and the Journal of Service Research. Rui is Associate Editor for the Journal of Operations Management and the International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Honorary Fellow of the European Operations Management Association and Director of the Service Management Lab. His current research interests include servitization, operations strategy and technology-enabled services. rsousa@porto.ucp.pt
References
Baines, T. S., Lightfoot, H. W., Evans, S. E., Neely, A., Greenough, R., Peppard, J., Roy, R., et al. (2007). State-of-the-art in product-service systems. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 221(10), 1543–1552.
Baines, T. S., Ziaee Bigdeli, A., Bustinza, O. F., Shi, V. G., Baldwin, J., & Ridgway, K. (2017). Servitization: revisiting the state-of-the-art and research priorities. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 37(2), 256–278.
Bigdeli, A. Z., Baines, T. S., Bustinza, O. F., & Shi, V. G. (2017). Organisational Change towards Servitization : A Theoretical Framework. Competitiveness Review : An International Business Journal, 27(1), 12–39.
Bull, I., & Thomas, H. (1993). Editors’ note: A perspective on theory building in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 181–182.
Kowalkowski, C., Gebauer, H., & Oliva, R. (2017). Service growth in product firms: Past, present, and future. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 82–88.
Kowalkowski, C., Windahl, C., Kindström, D., & Gebauer, H. (2015). What service transition? Rethinking established assumptions about manufacturers’ service-led growth strategies. Industrial Marketing Management, 45, 59–69.
Lightfoot, H., Baines, T. S., & Smart, P. (2013). The servitization of manufacturing: A systematic literature review of interdependent trends. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 33(11), 1408–1434.
Luoto, S., Brax, S. A., & Kohtamäki, M. (2017). Critical meta-analysis of servitization research: Constructing a model-narrative to reveal paradigmatic assumptions. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 89–100.
Oliva, R., & Kallenberg, R. (2003). Managing the transition from products to services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14(2), 160–172.
Rabetino, R., Harmsen, W., Kohtamäki, M., & Sihvonen, J. (2018). Structuring servitization-related research. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(2), 350–371.
Rabetino, R., Kohtamäki, M., & Gebauer, H. (2017). Strategy map of servitization. International Journal of Production Economics, 192, 144–156.
Rabetino, R., Kohtamäki, M., Lehtonen, H., & Kostama, H. (2015). Developing the concept of life-cycle service offering. Industrial Marketing Management, 49, 53–66.
Sousa, R., & da Silveira, G. J. C. (2017). Capability antecedents and performance outcomes of servitization. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(4), 444–467.
Tukker, A., & Tischner, U. (2006). Product-services as a research field: Past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(17), 1552–1556.
Whitley, R. (1983). From the sociology of scientific communities to the study of scientists’ negotiations and beyond. Social Science Information, 22, 681–720.
Whitley, R. (1984). The fragmented state of management studies: Reasons and consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 21(3), 331–348.
服务化2.0：从新的概念和方法评估和推进服务化相关的研究
“国际运营与生产管理期刊”特刊
特邀编辑：
Rodrigo Rabetino(University of Vaasa, Finland),
Marko Kohtamäki (University of Vaasa, Finland),
Christian Kowalkowski (Linköping University, Sweden),
Tim S. Baines (Aston Business School, UK)
Rui Sousa (Catholic University of Portugal –Porto-, Portugal)
背景
制造业向产品与服务一体化的转变受到了越来越多的关注，这种趋势自三十年前开始被称为服务化领域。这一领域从Oliva andKallenberg (2003)这篇重要的开创作品之后开始迅速成长，并在Baines等人和他的同事两次评论之后变得越来越流行(Baines et al.,2007; Baines, Lightfoot, Benedettini, & Kay, 2009)。在接下来的几年里，服务化几乎成为了“从销售产品和基本服务转向销售产品服务系统(PSS)”的同义词。PSS通常包括先进的生命周期服务，涉及公司业务模式的变化(Rabetino,Kohtamäki, & Gebauer, 2017; Rabetino, Kohtamäki, Lehtonen, & Kostama,2015; Sousa & da Silveira, 2017)。最近，服务化研究在数字化、物联网、工业4.0和循环经济商业模式的扩展中变得越来越重要。作为一种现象和特定的研究背景，服务化激发了越来越多的由问题驱动的研究，为今后的研究提供了新的理解和机会，相关的知识则在相关的学术社区中逐步积累(Lightfoot,Baines, & Smart, 2013; Rabetino, Harmsen, Kohtamäki, & Sihvonen, 2018).
任何一个学术领域都必须评估其概念发展(Bull & Thomas，1993)，而服务化也不例外。经过一个阶段问题驱动的研究的爆炸性积累，学者们最近表示，有必要进一步巩固日益增长的服务化领域。正如Koalkowski、Gebauer和Oliva(2017)所得出的结论，作为一个已确立的学术领域，服务化已经达到一定的成熟度，获得了学术领域的认可，但它仍然是一个理论上的新兴领域。认识到这些情况，多种声音同时表示需要引入新的视角，质疑一些占主导地位的基本假设，从概念的角度赋予与服务化相关的研究(Kowalkowski,Windahl, Kindström, & Gebauer, 2015; Luoto, Brax, & Kohtamäki, 2017; Rabetinoet al., 2018)。学者们还呼吁在寻求协同作用的同时，架设与服务相关社区之间的桥梁，共同理解关键的研究主题，加强研究流程内部和跨领域的知识积累(Lightfoot et al.,2013; Rabetino et al., 2018; Tukker & Tischner, 2006).
虽然对发展这一领域的必要性有明确的一致意见，但对于如何在这一领域取得进展存在着不同的意见。可以看出，服务化研究需要更多的理论驱动研究、方法的严谨性、实际相关性或未来方向，不存在单一的正确答案(Baines et al.,2017; Bigdeli, Baines, Bustinza, & Shi, 2017; Rabetino et al., 2018)。讨论以及不同的备选途径应加以规划，并需要一个辩论的理论平台。本专题旨在为讨论和建设性辩论提供一个平台。其目标是开发新见解，引发对发展服务相关研究的机遇和挑战的讨论。学术领域是从社会过程中发展而来的，在这一过程中，它的成员集体地建立了这个领域并使其合法化(Whitley, 1983,1984)。当试图理解与领域发展相关的关键问题时，以及在需要将不同的服务化相关流派(例如PSS研究)集成到服务化主流时，会产生更多的辩论。
感兴趣的专题领域
特刊邀请服务界的成员就该领域未来发展的关键问题进行辩论。我们希望鼓励与服务相关的学者在服务化和PSS领域的既定知识的基础上提交研究贡献。这一研究的主要目的是建立一个共同的平台，讨论今后发展这一领域的方式，包括辩论可供选择的理论视角、理论发展的机会、服务与相关领域之间的相互作用以及解决该领域关键研究问题的方式。为此，我们寻求对服务化领域的发展提出独到的观点和先进的思考，而不是对服务化的实证研究。
特刊并不寻求提出单一的、统一的议程，而是想要从概念和方法的角度寻求对如何推进与服务化相关的研究的各种观点。因此，应运用以往服务化的文献中的多种方法研究，提出今后的各种发展方向。虽然它们可以包含对文献的一些综述，但我们寻找的投稿应该超出了系统综述的范围，要提出和讨论进一步发展这一领域的新的概念和方法、途径。我们欢迎具有坚实概念基础的，以学术为导向的论文，这些论文包括但不限于以下问题：
理论在服务化研究中的作用是什么？服务化研究忽略了哪些重要的研究问题？什么理论可以帮助发展服务相关的未来研究？如何从不同的理论角度探讨服务化领域的发展？该领域是否需要进一步的概念开发，或者，服务化研究的整合应该主要基于问题驱动的研究，寻找实际的相关性？
不同的服务化相关流派是如何相互关联的，这些相关流派之间的相互作用如何在未来的研究中实现？如何整合不同服务相关社区的研究？如何促进和支持跨学科协作以实现共同议程？
在考虑积累的学术知识和现实世界趋势时，服务化研究领域未来的概念和方法挑战是什么？十年后的研究领域会是什么样子？
服务社区如何进一步发展这一领域？哪些是推进该领域的替代路径？在每一种情况下，每条路径都涉及哪些方面，以及对该领域发展的真正影响是什么？是否必须按照单一路径发展？或者，未来的发展能否同时走上多条道路？
对于如何进一步巩固服务化领域的概念辩论，不同的主题都是受欢迎的。
审查过程
为确保专刊获得理论驱动和基于方法的文章的最佳组合，将实行多阶段审查过程。稿件将在以下正式提交截止日期（2020年8月15日）之前通过IJOPM’s central ScholarOne system (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijopm)提交。所有提交的论文都要经过IJOPM编辑团队的初步筛选。被认为合适的提交稿件将被发送到IJOPM的常规评审基础上进行双盲评审。作者指南可以在该期刊的主页上找到。
提交论文的截止日期：2020年8月15日
第一次审稿报告：2020年10月1日
修改论文提交：2020年12月15日
第二次审稿报告：2021年1月15日
预期出版：2021年中期
传记
Rodrigo Rabetino在芬兰瓦萨大学管理学院和瓦萨能源企业创新中心(VEBIC)担任终身战略管理副教授。他目前的研究活动涉及服务化和产品服务系统、工业服务业务、商业智能、商业模式、战略作为实践和小企业管理。他曾在“区域研究”、“国际经营和生产管理杂志”、“工业营销管理”、“国际生产经济学杂志”、“小企业管理杂志”、“小企业和企业发展杂志”等国际期刊上发表过文章，rodrigo.rabetino@univaasa.fi
Marko Kohtamäki是战略教授，也是瓦萨大学“网络价值系统”(NeVS)研究项目的主任，曾在卢拉奥特技术大学担任客座教授，在牛津大学担任副教授。Kohtamäki教授对技术公司的工业服务业务或服务、战略做法和商业情报或管理信息系统特别感兴趣。曾在战略管理杂志、国际经营和生产管理杂志、工业营销管理杂志、长期规划杂志、战略创业杂志、国际生产经济学杂志、技术创新杂志等著名国际杂志上发表过论文，marko.kohtamaki@univaasa.fi
Christian Kowalkowski是瑞典林雪平大学理工学院工业营销教授，并担任赫尔辛基汉肯经济学院营销助理教授。他的研究重点是服务增长战略、服务创新和解决方案营销，是“服务管理杂志”的专家研究小组主席。在“服务战略中的行动：成长你的B2B服务和解决方案业务的实用指南”(2017)中，ChristianKowalkowski 和Wolfgang Ulaga教授分享了他们的的十二步路线图，以便根据与公司合作和扎实研究的实际经验，制定和实施成功的服务增长战略。christian.kowalkowski@liu.se
Tim Baines是阿斯顿市服务研究和实践中心主任，也是服务化方面的国际权威机构。他花了大量的时间与制造公司一起工作，以便在实践中了解服务化，并帮助企业向服务方向转换。他还向工业界提供行政开发和定制程序。他是“制造服务：制造商如何通过服务和产品服务系统进行竞争”(Wiley，2013)一书的作者，这是一本基于与主要公司的深入研究的服务化实用指南，t.baines@aston.ac.uk
Rui Sousa是葡萄牙天主教大学(波尔图)运营管理学教授，拥有伦敦商学院博士学位。他的研究发表在领先的国际期刊上，包括“运营管理、生产和运营管理杂志”、“国际运营和生产管理杂志”、“决策科学”和“服务研究杂志”，是“运营管理杂志”和“国际运营与生产管理杂志”的副编辑，是欧洲运营管理协会荣誉研究员和服务管理实验室主任。他目前的研究兴趣包括服务化、运营策略和技术支持的服务。rsousa@porto.ucp.pt
参考文献
Baines, T. S., Lightfoot, H., Benedettini, O., & Kay, J. (2009). The servitization of manufacturing: A review of literature and reflection on future challenges. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20(5), 547–567.
Baines, T. S., Lightfoot, H. W., Evans, S. E., Neely, A., Greenough, R., Peppard, J., Roy, R., et al. (2007). State-of-the-art in product-service systems. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 221(10), 1543–1552.
Baines, T. S., Ziaee Bigdeli, A., Bustinza, O. F., Shi, V. G., Baldwin, J., & Ridgway, K. (2017). Servitization: revisiting the state-of-the-art and research priorities. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 37(2), 256–278.
Bigdeli, A. Z., Baines, T. S., Bustinza, O. F., & Shi, V. G. (2017). Organisational Change towards Servitization : A Theoretical Framework. Competitiveness Review : An International Business Journal, 27(1), 12–39.
Bull, I., & Thomas, H. (1993). Editors’ note: A perspective on theory building in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 181–182.
Kowalkowski, C., Gebauer, H., & Oliva, R. (2017). Service growth in product firms: Past, present, and future. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 82–88.
Kowalkowski, C., Windahl, C., Kindström, D., & Gebauer, H. (2015). What service transition? Rethinking established assumptions about manufacturers’ service-led growth strategies. Industrial Marketing Management, 45, 59–69.
Lightfoot, H., Baines, T. S., & Smart, P. (2013). The servitization of manufacturing: A systematic literature review of interdependent trends. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 33(11), 1408–1434.
Luoto, S., Brax, S. A., & Kohtamäki, M. (2017). Critical meta-analysis of servitization research: Constructing a model-narrative to reveal paradigmatic assumptions. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 89–100.
Oliva, R., & Kallenberg, R. (2003). Managing the transition from products to services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14(2), 160–172.
Rabetino, R., Harmsen, W., Kohtamäki, M., & Sihvonen, J. (2018). Structuring servitization-related research. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(2), 350–371.
Rabetino, R., Kohtamäki, M., & Gebauer, H. (2017). Strategy map of servitization. International Journal of Production Economics, 192, 144–156.
Rabetino, R., Kohtamäki, M., Lehtonen, H., & Kostama, H. (2015). Developing the concept of life-cycle service offering. Industrial Marketing Management, 49, 53–66.
Sousa, R., & da Silveira, G. J. C. (2017). Capability antecedents and performance outcomes of servitization. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(4), 444–467.
Tukker, A., & Tischner, U. (2006). Product-services as a research field: Past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(17), 1552–1556.
Whitley, R. (1983). From the sociology of scientific communities to the study of scientists’ negotiations and beyond. Social Science Information, 22, 681–720.
Whitley, R. (1984). The fragmented state of management studies: Reasons and consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 21(3), 331–348.