Cristiane Alves Anacleto
Instituto Federal de Minas Gerais, Ribeirão das Neves,
Brazil
Email: cristianeanacleto@yahoo.com.br
Edson Pacheco Paladini
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil
Email: paladini@floripa.com.br
Caroline Rodrigues Vaz
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil
Email: karollrvaz@gmail.com
Submission: 28/06/2017
Revision: 13/07/2017
Accept: 27/07/2017
ABSTRACT
Identifying customer requirements
is a strategic element for consolidating product-service systems (PSSs) in the
market. However, literature on empirical studies has devoted relatively little
attention to this topic. The purpose of the present work is to identify PSS
customer requirements by analyzing empirical studies. Toward this goal, we
present here a structured systematic literature review. This study
systematically reviews 269 articles published until 2015 in the PSS field.
About 10% of the publications reviewed describe empirical studies that identify
PSS-customer requirements. After analyzing the content of these articles, we
identify 37 requirements clustered around three criteria: (i) type of PSS, (ii)
type of business transaction, and (iii) customer requirements that relate to
product, service, or general aspects of PSS. The empirical studies investigated
in this literature review focused on the business-to-business context. This
study support PSS provider meet customer requirements. Then, they will be more
successful in offering the PSS.
Keywords: product-service system;
customer requirements; systematic literature review
1. INTRODUCTION
About
two decades ago, the sale of individual products predominated in traditional
business models, but this model is out of phase with the new landscape of
consumption, which calls for integrated solutions that benefit the customer,
consequently differentiating the provider and making them more competitive. In
addition, global competition has intensified the dynamics of the business
environment (PAN; NGUYEN, 2015). In this context, different strategies have
been created in the marketplace, such as product-service systems (PSSs).
A
PSS aims to strengthen the strategic competitiveness of manufactured goods and
enable sustainability and customer satisfaction by combining products with
services (LEE; GEUM; LEE; PARK, 2015; REIM; PAIRDA; ÖRTQVIST, 2015). A PSS
refers to tangible goods and services that are combined to meet the needs of
customers (YOO; KIM; RHEE, 2012).
The
PSS definitions that appear in the literature highlight three pillars: (i)
sustainability, (ii) competitiveness, and (iii) meeting new customer needs. The
needs are related to different requirements and to how the supplier meets these
needs. Thus, understanding customer needs and satisfaction appears to be
fundamental to the success of PSSs, making it a strategic element for PSS
providers (RAJA; BOURNE; GOFFIN; ÇAKKOL; MARTINEZ, 2013; GENG; CHU, 2012).
Customer
requirements should be identified at the early stages of PSS development and
should act as input to stimulate continuous improvement in PSSs (CASSIA;
UGOLINI; COBELLI; GILL, 2015; KIM; SON; YOON; PARK, 2015). Although PSSs
provide multiple benefits for customers, these benefits are not sufficiently
explained to generate market acceptance.
Empirical
studies that focus on customer-identification needs are scarce (KIM et al.,
2015; CHOU; CHEN; CONLEY, 2015; SAKAO; LINDAHL, 2015). Thus, new research is
required to identify PSS customer requirements in the context of
business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) models (REXFELT;
HIORT AF ORNÄS, 2009; SCHENKL; RÖSCH; MÖRTL, 2014).
The
literature tends to focus on how to develop PSSs, sustainability, and
successful applications. Most works focus on the PSS provider (VEZZOLI;
CESCHIN; DIEHL; KOHTALA, 2015; MAZO; BORSATO, 2014; GENG; CHU; XUE; ZHANG, 2011).
Zheng, Ming, L and He (2015) explain that one of the biggest challenges to
overcome for a successful PSS is to gain market acceptance, which is closely
related to the customer-satisfaction requirements.
Given
this context, the present work aims to improve the understanding of PSS
customer requirements. Thus, the main objective of this work is to identify
customer requirements in the literature on empirical studies of PSSs.
This
report continues in four sections. Section 2 presents the theoretical framework
of PSSs and customer requirements. Section 3 describes the research techniques
and the methods adopted herein, and the Section 4 presents and discusses the
results. Finally, Section 5 concludes and provides recommendations for future
work.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
According
to Mazo and Borsato (2014), the PSS concept was created in Europe in 1990.
Goedkoop, Van Halen, Te Riele and Rommens published the first PSS study in
1999. New terms have since appeared, such as servitization, integrated product
service, transition from product to service, etc. The PSS concept has been
evolving since the 1990s. However, the predominant contributions have involved areas
of environmental and social sciences (GOEDKOOP; VAN HALEN; TE RIELE; ROMMENS,
1999; MONT, 2001). Chou et al. (2015) and Vezzoli et al. (2015) state that
academic interest in PSSs goes beyond the theme of environmental sustainability
and includes social and economic issues.
Cook
(2004) conceptualizes three types of PSS: The product-oriented PSS consists of
offering a tangible good with additional services. In this case, the customer
owns the tangible good. Services are offered by the PSS provider and add value
to the tangible good, for example, a maintenance contract after purchase. The
use-oriented PSS consists of selling the use of a tangible product along with
services that add value to the product, for example, leasing industrial
equipment. In this case, the tangible good is owned by the PSS provider. The
result-oriented PSS offers an outcome or competence to the customer, and the
product remains with the provider. An example of result-oriented PSS is the
outsourcing of cleaning services offered by some companies.
To
better understand the PSS, it is important know its customer requirements.
Identifying
customer requirements helps PSS providers add more value to their offer (TOOSSI;
LOCKETT; RAJA; MARTINEZ, 2013). Assessing PSS feasibility from the customer
viewpoint increases the chances of success and reduces the risk of failure.
Understanding customer requirements plays an important role in spreading the
use of PSSs (SHIH; CHOU, 2011; SAKAO; LINDAHL, 2012).
Customer
requirements contribute to the customer perception of value (RAJA et al., 2013;
TOOSSI et al., 2013). Therefore, they influence the acceptance of PSS (REXFELT;
HIORT AF ORNÄS, 2009). The requirements should be considered to estimate the
customer satisfaction that relates to individual market needs (TU; HUANG; HSU;
CHENG, 2013). Therefore, customer satisfaction varies according to the target
market for the provision of PSS. Rexfelt and Hiort Af Ornäs (2009) argue that
PSS performance in terms of compliance with customer requirements can be
divided into several dimensions of satisfactions related to tangible goods and
services.
These
requirements may be tangible or intangible (TOOSSI et al., 2013) and they
relate to the PSS components (i.e., the tangible goods or services) (GENG; CHU;
XUE; ZHANG, 2010). However, Geng et al. (2010) state that tangible-good
requirements are often specific and related to the type of industry in which
the PSS evolves. The tangible asset requirements and services are
interdependent. Kim and Yoon (2012) state that customer requirements can
generate contradictions in a PSS project because of the interdependence between
tangible goods and services. Therefore, to facilitate the development of PSSs,
customer requirements are classified into two groups: one related to tangible
goods and the other related to services (SHENG; LU; WU, 2015).
Not
all customer requirements are feasible, which prevents them from all being
included in each PSS project. Therefore, Geng et al. (2011) suggest that a
weight based on customer importance be associated with each customer
requirement. Geng and Chu (2012) explain that classifying the requirements
based on the importance to the customer is crucial to meet customer needs.
However, Kuo (2013) suggests that customer requirements should be identified by
evaluating the consumption of the separate components of the PSS or of the
integrated solution of both.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
According
to the ratings by Creswell (1994) and Plewis and Mason (2005), this study uses
a qualitative approach because it analyzes the content of the articles
identified. According to the ratings of Minor, Hensley and Wood (1994) and
Dangayach and Deshmukh (2001), this study may be classified as conceptual
because it is based on secondary data from published studies and its goal is to
generate knowledge about PSS-customer requirements.
This
study uses a systematic literature review (SLR), like Lipkin (2016). Mian,
Conte, Natali, Biolchini and Travassos (2005) state that a SLR is a research
approach with well-defined steps and that is planned according to a protocol
and to previously established objectives. Tranfield, Denyer and Smart (2003)
suggest three stages for a SLR: (i) planning the research, (ii) implementing
the SLR, and (iii) conclusions.
3.1.
Planning
research
A research
protocol was first constructed based on the following information: search
database, keywords, language, types of study, time horizon, criteria for
inclusion of articles in the sample, procedures for search and selection of
studies, and content analysis. The databases selected for the search were
Scopus and ISI Web of Knowledge (Web of Science), the latter of which is the
most used in research on PSSs. These bases allow metadata to be exported for
analyzing publications, citations, and references.
The
following keywords were used for the search: product-service system, product
service offerings, servitization, transition from products to service,
integrated product-service, and productization. These keywords were defined
based on the criteria indicated by Eloranta and Turunen (2015): articles that
used SLRs in studies about PSSs. Therefore, the following authors stand out:
Reim et al. (2015), Oliva and Kallenberg (2003).
For a
better selection of items in the database, the following three filters were
used: (i) type of document, (ii) language, and (iii) time horizon. Also
included were the sample articles written in English and published by 2015.
According to Eloranta and Turunen (2015) and Seuring and Müller (2008),
articles published in journals undergo a careful process of peer review prior
to publication. After using filters, articles were selected that contained the
given search term in at least one of the fields: title, abstract, or keywords.
This constituted the first selection of articles.
A
second selection was made from this first set of articles. We included studies
that conducted empirical research with PSS customers, where empirical studies
are those whose data are collected directly by the researchers from the units
of analysis, in this case, PSS customers.
Metadata
(author, title, abstract, keywords, and references) were exported to the
bibliography-management software EndNote X5 for analysis and storing. The use
of this software facilitates the manipulation of metadata items. Finally, the
data extracted from the articles were manipulated by using a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet.
3.2.
Implementation
of systematic literature review
The
SLR was implemented in March 2016 by filtering the Scopus and Web of Science
databases based on the article-inclusion criteria. The first phase of the
search formed two sets of articles for each keyword, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Phases developed for the construction of
final-article sample.
Keywords |
Database |
Sample |
|
Phase 1 |
Scopus |
Web of Science |
|
Product-service system |
364 |
159 |
523 |
Product service offering |
35 |
8 |
43 |
Servitization |
117 |
82 |
199 |
Transition from products to service |
5 |
1 |
6 |
Integrated product-service |
23 |
16 |
39 |
Productization |
47 |
13 |
60 |
Quantity of articles |
591 |
279 |
870 |
Phase 2 |
332 |
158 |
|
Phase 3 |
Partial number of articles |
269 |
|
Phase 4 |
Partial number of articles |
31 |
|
Phase 5 |
Total number of articles |
23 |
Source:
Elaborated by the author authors
The
second step was the elimination of duplicate articles from the sample from each
database, which removed 332 articles from the Scopus database sample and 158
from the Web of Science sample. In the third phase, articles were eliminated
whose full text was not available for access via the digital library of the
Federal University of Santa Catarina, following which the systematic search in
the databases resulted in a partial sample of 269 articles.
The
partial sample was evaluated based on the findings and conclusions reported in
the articles, which led to the formation of a new set of articles. This
assessment was based on the three criteria cited above and led to a new partial
sample of 31 articles. A complete reading of these 31 articles led to the
elimination of 8 articles because it was unclear whether the work involved
empirical research with PSS customers. Therefore, 23 articles were selected
after implementing SLR.
The
set of reference articles were used as a secondary source of analysis of the
literature. After analyzing the results, we found that the studies retained
involved empirical research with PSS customers. The studies retained: An et al.
(2008), Kimita et al. (2009), Rexfelt and Hiort af Ornäs (2009), Geng et al.
(2010), Geng et al. (2011), Shih and Chou (2011), Catulli (2012), Geng and Chu
(2012), Geng et al. (2012), Kim and Yoon (2012), Carreira et al. (2013), Kuo
(2013), Sakao and Lindahl (2012), Raja et al. (2013), Shimomura
et al. (2013), Toossi et al. (2013), Tu et al. (2013), Kang,
Lee and Lee (2014), Mazo and Borsato (2014), Mert, Waltemode and Aurich (2014),
Kim et al. (2015), Lee et al. (2015), Sheng et al. (2015).
4. CONCLUSIONS OF SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
The
findings presented herein are substantiated by the qualitative results of the
content analysis. For this, two specialists validated the sample. Their
feedback concerning the alignment of articles with the theme was positive.
Thus, we proceeded to the analysis of the content of the articles to identify
the customer requirements. According to Harwood and Garry (2003), content
analysis identifies the information contained in items that fall under the
proposed objective of the SLR. This allowed us to reduce the phenomenon
investigated into defined categories, to interpret the data, and to identify
trends in a discipline.
4.1.
Requirements of product-service-system
customers as defined in published literature
This
section addresses the requirements identified in the 23 articles of the sample.
The 37 identified requirements are grouped based on the following three
criteria:
i) PSS
type. The requirements were grouped according to which type of PSS (COOK, 2004)
they refer to.
ii) Type
of transaction. The identified requirements refer to the B2C or B2B contexts.
iii) PSS
dimension. The customer requirements relate to product, service, or general
aspects of PSS.
The
requirements related to tangible goods have been named according to Garvin’s
dimensions of product quality (GARVIN, 1984): performance, features,
reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics,
maintainability, and perceived quality. Because some customers emphasize the
importance of environmental and sustainability aspects associated with tangible
goods, a new dimension was included called sustainability and environmental
impact. Service requirements have been named according to the dimensions of
quality service defined by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, Berry (1991): reliability,
responsiveness, security, empathy, and tangible.
The
choice of the studies of Garvin (1984) and Parasuraman et al. (1991) is
supported by the empirical validation of their results by other studies. The
general PSS dimension refers to aspects not directly related to tangible goods
and services, for example, the contract between the customer and the PSS
provider. The following sections include a description of customer
requirements.
4.2.
Requirements associated with tangible-goods
dimension
The
customer requirements related to tangible goods are shown in Table 2.
Performance refers to whether the goods fulfill their main function related to
their technical and functional characteristics. Product-oriented-PSS customers
highlight PSS operating efficiency as a measure of performance.
Table 2: Customer requirements related to tangible
goods.
Requirement |
Product-oriented product-service system |
Use-oriented product-service system |
Result-oriented product-service system |
Type of transaction |
Performance |
x |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
Features |
x |
|
x |
B2B and B2C |
Reliability |
x |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
Availability |
x |
x |
|
B2B |
Maintainability |
x |
x |
x |
B2B |
Durability |
|
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
Compliance |
x |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
Sustainability and environmental impact |
x |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
Perceived quality |
|
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
Aesthetics |
x |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
Source:
Elaborated by the author authors
The
features characteristic refers to the complementary features provided in
addition to the basic functioning of the tangible goods. They add value to the
tangible goods but are not explicit user requirements. Falling short of this
requirement may cause customers to not consume the PSS or to complain. For
product- and result-oriented PSSs, customers consider features to enable use:
features increase the convenience, ease, and safety of operation.
Four
requirements relate to the time of use of tangible goods: reliability,
availability, maintainability, and durability. Reliability refers to the
faultless operation of the tangible goods within a specified period.
Availability is the guarantee that the tangible goods will be available for use
when needed. Maintainability corresponds to preventive and corrective
maintenance of the tangible goods. Durability refers to the lifetime of the
technical characteristics of the tangible goods. Durability relates to the use
of tangible goods before their deterioration, when replacement is preferable to
repair. For product-oriented-PSS customers, use of tangible goods should not
easily lead to damage. Result-oriented-PSS customers point out that durability
is a guarantee of the outcome.
Compliance
refers to the degree to which design and operation of tangible goods agree with
customer specifications. In addition, use-oriented-PSS customers associate
compliance to the safety of tangible goods during use. For product and
result-oriented-PSS customers, compliance refers to whether the tangible goods
comply with safety standards. Therefore, compliance is related to all
characteristics involved with customer security.
Environmental
impact and sustainability refers to the impact of the tangible goods on the
environment and society in general. Perceived quality refers to the criteria
that give the customer the perception that their needs are satisfied by using
the tangible goods. Customers stress the importance of using trademarks
recognized by the market. The use of recognized brands can mitigate customer
uncertainty regarding PSS performance.
Aesthetics
refers to aspects of the physical appearance of tangible goods and reflects
individual-customer preferences. For use-oriented-PSS customers, tangible goods
must be clean and in good condition. Result-oriented-PSS customers interact
directly with the infrastructure to obtain the PSS result (e.g., consulting).
In this case, they assess the cleanliness of facilities. For
product-oriented-PSS customers, aesthetics includes the design of tangible
goods, because it influences how the goods perform their main function.
4.3.
Requirements associated with service dimension
Requirements
associated with the service dimension are named as per the dimensions of the
model developed by Parasuraman et al. (1991). This model encompasses SERVQUAL,
which contains 44 questions, of which 22 relate to customer expectations and 22
assess customer perception of quality of service. These issues are divided into
five dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, security, empathy, and tangible.
In addition, the support requirement is included in the service dimension.
Integrate
product and service can be regarded as one of the dimensions for improving
service quality and customer satisfaction (SUH; JEON, 2015). Table 3 presents
the six customer requirements related to the service dimension.
Table 3: Service requirements.
Requirement |
Product-oriented product-servicesystem |
Use-oriented product-servicesystem |
Result-oriented product-servicesystem |
Type of transaction |
Tangible |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
|
Service Reliability |
x |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
Empathy |
x |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
Responsiveness |
x |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
Security |
x |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
Support |
x |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
Source:
Elaborated by the author authors
Tangibility
consists of tangible aspects that help to provide the service, such as
equipment, facilities, or communication material (LEE
et al., 2015; KIMITA et al. 2009). Use-oriented-PSS customers cite the
way in which the employees of PSS providers dress. Result-oriented-PSS
customers highlight the example of the material produced by the PSS provider
for meetings.
Service
reliability is the extent to which all agreements made between provider and
customer are accomplished (SHENG et al., 2015; KIM et
al., 2015). This dimension helps gain customer confidence. Empathy is
the degree of care and personal attention afforded customers by the PSS
provider (MERT et al., 2014; SHIMOMURA et al., 2013).
Empathy enables a closer relationship between provider and customer, which
leads to greater satisfaction. It refers to dynamic relational PSS providers.
Responsiveness
involves the arrangements made by the PSS provider to assist their customers
and how ready the provider is to meet customer needs as and when required (CATULLI, 2012; KIM; YOON, 2012). Responsiveness also
refers to the provider’s availability outside normal working hours and their
response time.
Support
refers to all assistance from PSS providers that ensures that, once the PSS is
acquired, it functions properly (SAKAO; LINDAHL, 2012;
AN et al., 2008). For product-oriented-PSS customers, this requirement
applies both to after-sales technical support and to the extension of the
support during PSS use. For these customers, support should be technical and
managerial. For result-oriented-PSS customers, the type of support provided by
the PSS provider should be determined when the PSS is acquired. At least, the
requirement security refers to the knowledge of employees and their skills that
inspire customer confidence (REXFELT; HIORT AF ORNÄS,
2009).
4.4.
Requirements associated with general aspects
of product-service system
The
general PSS dimension contains requirements for provider, tangible goods, and
services but do not relate to the dimensions of Garvin (1984) and Parasuraman
et al. (1991). Altogether, 21 requirements are grouped into this dimension, as
shown in Table 4.
Table 4: General PSS requirements.
Requirement |
Product-oriented product-servicesystem |
Use-oriented product-servicesystem |
Result-oriented product-servicesystem |
Type of transaction |
Good update |
x |
x |
B2B |
|
Convenience |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
|
Communication |
x |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
Knowledge |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
|
Contract |
x |
x |
x |
B2B |
Product-service system conformance |
x |
B2C |
||
Legal and regulatory compliance |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
|
Cost |
x |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
Customizing |
x |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
Stability |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
|
Warranty |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
|
Outsourcing product-service system provider |
x |
B2B |
||
Product-service system provider location |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
|
Proactivity |
x |
B2B |
||
Property of goods |
x |
B2B |
||
Long-term relationship |
x |
B2B |
||
Perceived quality |
x |
B2B |
||
Customer and provider responsibilities |
x |
x |
B2B |
|
Goods replacement |
x |
B2B |
||
Tradeoff |
x |
B2B |
||
Product-service system variety |
x |
x |
x |
B2B and B2C |
Source:
Elaborated by the author authors
Tangible
goods update refers to the possibility of replacing the goods with an updated
version when necessary (SHENG et al., 2015; GENG; CHU,
2012). Product- and use-oriented-PSS customers are willing to pay for
the tangible goods upgrade provided the price is agreed upon when the PSS is
acquired. Convenience relates to the characteristics that supplement the basic
PSS operations to facilitate the purchase, use, and disposal thereof (LEE et
al., 2015; MAZO; BORSATO, 2014). Communication includes all
information-transfer processes between provider and customer (SHIH; CHOU, 2011;
GENG et al., 2011).
Knowledge
refers to the skills and technical knowledge offered by the PSS provider (TU et
al. 2013; KIM; YOON, 2012). For product- and result-oriented-PSS customers,
employees involved in providing the PSS must have technical qualifications
attested to by certificates and experience. Knowledge of business and industry
on the part of the PSS provider is an important requirement for
result-oriented-PSS customers.
Contract
refers to the agreement made between provider and customer when the PSS is
purchased (TU et al., 2013). In this way, both parties are obliged to comply
with certain conditions within the legal framework of the locality. Long-term
contracts allow economies of scale (KUO, 2013). Customers point out that the
contract is a means to ensure the availability of the PSS. The nature and form
of the contract influences customer satisfaction and the consumption decision.
PSS
conformance refers to compliance by the provider with service-level agreements
(SAKAO; LINDAHL, 2012; KIMITA et al. 2009). It refers to the degree to which
customer expectations are met by the PSS provider. Legal and regulatory
compliance relates to the compliance by the PSS provider with all relevant
rules and regulations (MAZO; BORSATO, 2014; KIM; YOON, 2012). Generally,
government enforces these rules and regulations. Use-oriented-PSS customers
state that the provider must demonstrate the knowledge and ability to meet the
standards and regulations that govern the given PSS sector and customer
business.
Cost
refers to the monetary amount spent by the customer at the time of purchase,
use, and disposal of the PSS and includes the price charged by the PSS provider
(RAJA et al., 2013; GENG et al., 2010). Customers appear to be sensitive to the
existence of recurrent costs that accumulate during the lifetime of the PSS. As
claimed by customers, the cost of the PSS should be less than the sum of the
cost of its components.
Customizing
refers to personalization and adapting the PSS to customer needs (GENG et al.,
2010; KANG et al., 2014). For product-oriented-PSS customers, the PSS needs to
be less static and standardized, which contradicts some studies on PSS
modularization [see, e.g., Li et al. (2015)]. They also highlight the capacity
of PSSs to evolve with use. For use- and result-oriented-PSS customers,
customization should be possible both at purchase and during PSS use. Stability
refers to the constancy of PSS performance during use.
Warranty
refers to the period during which the PSS provider will fix problems and
defects at no charge to the customer (TU et al., 2013; CATULLI, 2012).
Outsourcing PSS provider refers to the ability of the PSS provider to hire
another company to meet new customer needs (SHIMOMURA et al., 2013; TOOSSI et
al., 2013). This is an important requirement when occurs a customer’s business
change. PSS provider location refers to the distance from the provider to where
the PSS is used (RAJA et al., 2013; SAKAO et al., 2009). Customers highlight
how provider location affects the provider’s ability to maintain tangible
goods. Proactivity relates to the ability of the PSS provider to predict
unfavorable situations and act before errors occur (SHIMOMURA et al., 2013).
Result-oriented-PSS customers state that this requirement favors continuous PSS
improvement and a sense of urgency in solving problems.
Property
of tangible goods relates to the need for possession of the tangible goods by
the PSS customer (SHIH; CHOU, 2011; REXFELT; HIORT AF ORNÄS, 2009). Long-term
relationship refers to the establishment of obligations over the long-term use
of the PSS (CATULLI, 2012). This requirement is cited mainly for B2B customers.
Use-oriented-PSS customers do not consider the long-term relationship to be a
decisive factor for their consumption. On the contrary, these customers prefer
to not consume the PSS if a long-term relationship is required. In this case,
the use of tangible goods for a short period foments PSS consumption.
Perceived
quality addresses customer expectations regarding the PSS, these expectations
are built from the experience of other customers and by the marketing provider
(KIM et al., 2015, TU et al., 2013). This requirement refers to the reputation
and image of the PSS provider in the market.
Customer
and provider responsibilities refers to the clear and precise definition of the
responsibilities between the two parties during PSS use (MAZO; BORSATO, 2014).
These responsibilities are defined when the PSS is acquired. The contract is
the official means of establishing responsibilities. It is noticed that a lower
responsibility translates into a higher likelihood of PSS consumption.
Tangible
goods replacement refers to the possibility of the replacement of the tangible
goods being guaranteed by the PSS provider in the event of damage, failure,
and/or misuse by the customer (Lee et al., 2015). Trade-off refers to the
benefits from isolated acquisition components of the PSS (tangible goods or
services) or to the purchase the PSS itself (SAKAO; LINDAHL, 2012).
Finally,
PSS variety refers to the assortment of tangible goods and services associated
with the PSS (AN et al., 2008). Moreover, this requirement includes the
possibility of different combinations between tangible goods and services. The
PSS provider should, in cooperation with the customer, define the most
appropriate service to be associated with the tangible goods at the time of
acquisition. This approach increases the added value provided by the PSS.
5. CONCLUSIONS
After
analyzing the results, we confirm that few empirical studies investigate
PSS-customer requirements. Only about 10% of the studies identified in this
systematic literature review focusing on PSSs discuss customer requirements.
Thirty-seven customer requirements are identified and are grouped based on
three criteria: (i) type of PSS, (ii) type of transaction, and (iii) PSS dimension.
Empirical studies tend to focus on identifying customer requirements for use-
and result-oriented PSSs. Regarding the type of transaction, 70% of the
identified articles focus on the B2B context, which is consistent with the
statement of Schenkl et al. (2014) that empirical studies in the B2C context
are scarce. Therefore, more research should be directed to B2C customers.
The
requirements are divided as follows: nine requirements make up the tangible
goods dimension related to the PSS product. The service dimension contains six
requirements that relates to the PSS service component. Finally, the general
PSS dimension has 22 requirements, which include several PSS items reported by
customers.
The
focus of 65% of the selected articles is to incorporate customer requirements
into the PSS development process by using one of two approaches: by focusing on
the conceptual design or by including the customer requirements at some stage
of the development process. The other articles from the sample focus on PSS
customers from three viewpoints: (i) identify the customer requirements that
affect the PSS customer decision, (ii) assess the PSS quality, and (iii)
identify the group requirements of specific customers.
Thus,
this study suggests that the goal of empirical studies was to identify customer
requirements. In addition, we recommend validating the customer requirements
presented here in relation to the sector for which the PSS is intended. In
addition, we recommend using empirical data to check if regional differences
exist in customer requirements.
REFERENCES
AN, Y.; LEE, S.; PARK, Y. (2008). Development of an
integrated product-service roadmap with QFD. International Journal of Service Industry Management, v. 19, n. 5, p. 621–638.
CARREIRA, R.; PATRÍCIO, L.; JORGE, R. N.; MAGEE, C. L. (2013). Development
of an extended Kansei engineering method to incorporate experience requirements
in product–service system design. Journal
of Engineering Design, v. 24, n. 10, p. 738–764.
CASSIA, F.; UGOLINI, M. M.; COBELLI, N.; GILL, L. (2015). Service-based
vs. goods-based positioning of the product concept. TQM Journal, v. 27, n. 2, p. 247–255.
CATULLI, M. (2012). What uncertainty? Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, v. 23, n. 6, p. 780–793.
CHATHA,
K. A.; BUTT, I.; TARIQ, A. (2015). Research
methodologies and publication trends in manufacturing strategy. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, v. 35, n. 4, p. 487–546.
CHOU,
C.-J.; CHEN, C.-W.; CONLEY, C. (2015). An
approach to assessing sustainable product-service systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, n. 86, p. 277–284.
COOK,
M. (2004). Understanding the
potential opportunities provided by service orientated concepts to improve
resource productivity. In: Bhamra, Tracy and Hon, Bernard eds. Design
and Manufacture for Sustainable Development. Wiley, New York.
CRESWELL,
J. W. (1994). Research Design:
Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
DANGAYACH, G.
S.; DESHMUKH, S. G. (2001). Manufacturing
strategy: Literature review and some issues. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, v.
21, n. 7, p. 884–932.
DUMAY,
J.; GUTHRIE, J.; PUNTILLO, P. (2015). IC and
public sector: a structured literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, v. 16, n. 2, p. 267–284.
ELORANTA,
V.; TURUNEN, T. (2015). Seeking competitive
advantage with service infusion: A systematic literature review. Journal of Service Management, v. 26,
n. 3, p. 394–425.
GARFIELD,
E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, v. 178, n. 4060, p. 471–479.
GARVIN,
D. A. (1984). What Does Product Quality
Really Mean. Sloan Management Review, Fall, 25-43.
GENG,
X.; CHU, X. (2012). A new importance-performance
analysis approach for customer satisfaction evaluation supporting PSS design. Expert Systems with Applications, v. 39,
n. 1, p. 1492–1502.
GENG, X.; CHU, X.; XUE, D.; ZHANG, Z. (2011). A
systematic decision-making approach for the optimal product–service system
planning. Expert Systems with
Applications, n. 38, p. 11849–11858.
GENG, X.; CHU, X.; XUE, D.; ZHANG, Z. (2010). An
integrated approach for rating engineering characteristics’ final importance in
product-service system development. Computers
& Industrial Engineering, n. 59, p. 585–594.
GENG, X.; CHU, X.; ZHANG, Z. (2012). An association
rule mining and maintaining approach in dynamic database for aiding
product–service system conceptual design. International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, n. 62, p. 1–13.
GOEDKOOP, M.; VAN HALEN,
C.; TE RIELE, H.; ROMMENS, P. (1999). Product Service-Systems, ecological and
economic basics. Report for Dutch Ministries of
Environment (VROM) and Economic Affairs (EZ). Retrieved March 27, 2016, from http://teclim.ufba.br/jsf/indicadores/holan%20Product%20Service%20Systems%20main%20report.pdf
HARWOOD,
T. G.; GARRY, T. (2003). An overview of content
analysis. The Marketing Review, v. 3,
n. 4, p. 479-498.
KANG, Y.; LEE, M.; LEE, S. (2014). Service-oriented
factors affecting the adoption of Smartphones. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, v. 9, n. 2, p.
98–117.
KIM, S.; YOON, B. (2012). Developing a process of
concept generation for new product-service systems: a QFD and TRIZ-based
approach. Service Business, n. 6, p.
323–348.
KIM,
S.; SON, C.; YOON, B.; PARK, Y. (2015).
Development of an innovation model based on a service-oriented product service
system (PSS). Sustainability
(Switzerland), v. 7, n. 11, p. 14427–14449.
KIMITA, K.; SHIMOMURA, K.; ARAI, T. (2009). Evaluation
of customer satisfaction for PSS design.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 20, n. 5, p. 654–673.
KUO, T.C. (2013). Mass customization and
personalization software development: a case study eco-design product service
system. Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, n. 24, p. 1019–1031.
LEE,
S.; GEUM, Y.; LEE, S.; PARK, Y. (2015). Evaluating
new concepts of PSS based on the customer value: Application of ANP and niche
theory. Expert Systems with Applications,
v. 42, n. 9, p. 4556–4566.
LIPKIN,
M. (2016) Customer experience formation in today’s service landscape. Journal of Service Management, v. 27,
n. 5, p. 678-703.
MAZO, S. Z.; BORSATO,
M. (2014). An enhanced tool for incorporating the
voice of the customer in product-service systems. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, v. 1,
n. 2, p. 57–76.
MERT, G.; WALTEMODE, S.; AURICH, J. C. (2014). Quality
assessment of technical product-service systems in the machine tool industry. Procedia CIRP, n. 16, p. 253–258.
MIAN, P.; CONTE, T.; NATALI, A.; BIOLCHINI, J.;
TRAVASSOS, G. (2005) A Systematic Review
Process for Software Engineering. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from http://www.lbd.dcc.ufmg.br/colecoes/eselaw/2005/009.pdf
MINOR, E. D.; HENSLEY, R. L.; WOOD JR., R. D. (1994).
A review of empirical manufacturing strategy studies. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, v. 14,
n. 1, p. 5-25.
MONT, O. (2001).
Introducing and Developing a PSS in
Sweden. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from
https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/525784
OLIVA,
R.; KALLENBERG, R. (2003). Managing the
transition from products to services. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, v. 14, n. 2, p. 160–172.
PAN, J.-N.; NGUYEN, H. T. N. (2015). Achieving
customer satisfaction through product-service systems. European Journal of Operational Research, v. 247, n. 1, p. 179–190.
PARASURAMAN, A.; ZEITHAML, V. A.; BERRY, L. L. (1991). Refinement
and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal
of Retailing, v. 67, n. 4, p. 420-50.
PLEWIS,
I.; MASON, P. (2005). What works and why:
Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches in large-scale evaluations. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, v. 8, n. 3, p. 185–194.
RAJA,
J. Z.; BOURNE, D.; GOFFIN, K.; ÇAKKOL, M.; MARTINEZ, V. (2013). Achieving customer satisfaction
through integrated products and services: An exploratory study. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
v. 30, n. 6, p. 1128–1144.
REIM, W.; PAIRDA, V.; ÖRTQVIST, D. (2015). Product-Service
Systems (PSS) business models and tactics - A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, n. 97, p.
61–75.
REXFELT,
O.; HIORT AF ORNÄS, V. (2009). Customer
acceptance of product-service systems: Designing for relative advantages and
uncertainty reductions. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 20, n. 5, p. 674–699.
SAKAO,
T.; LINDAHL, M. (2015). A method to improve
integrated product service offerings based on life cycle costing. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology,
v. 64, n. 1, p. 33–36.
SAKAO,
T.; LINDAHL, M. (2012). A value based evaluation
method for Product/Service System using design information. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology,
v. 61, n. 1, p. 51–54.
SCHENKL,
S. A.; RÖSCH, C.; MÖRTL, M. (2014). Literature study on factors influencing the
market acceptance of PSS. Procedia CIRP,
n. 16, p. 98–103.
SEURING,
S.; MULLER, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management. Journal
of Cleaner Production, n. 16, p. 1699–1710.
SHENG,
Z.; LU, F.; WU, L. (2015). Domain Mapping of Product Service System Oriented on
CNC Machine Tools. Control engineering
and applied informatics, v. 17, n. 4, p. 59-70.
SHIH, L. H.; CHOU, T. Y. (2011). Customer
concerns about uncertainty and willingness to pay in leasing solar power
systems. International Journal of
Environmental Science and Technology, v. 8, n. 3, p. 523–532.
SHIMONURA, Y.; KIMITA, K.; TATEYAMA, T.; AKASAKA, F.; NEMOTO, Y. (2013). A method for human resource
evaluation to realize high-quality PSSs. CIRP
Annals - Manufacturing Technology, v. 62, n. 1, p. 471–474.
SUH, Y.; JEON, J. (2015).
Do integrated products and services increase customer satisfaction? The case of
the mobile industry in Korea. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, v. 11-12, n. 27, p. 1261-1276
TOOSSI, A.; LOCKETT, H. L.; RAJA, J. Z.; MARTINEZ, V. (2013). Assessing the value dimensions
of outsourced maintenance services. Journal
of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, v. 19, n. 4, p. 348–363.
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, n. 14, p. 207-222.
TU, J.-C.; HUANG, Y.-C.; HSU, C.-Y.;
CHENG, Y.-W. (2013). Analyzing lifestyle and consumption pattern of hire groups under product
service systems in Taiwan. Mathematical Problems in Engineering,
2013, 15.
VEZZOLI,
C.; CESCHIN, F.; DIEHL, J. C.; KOHTALA, C. (2015). New design challenges to
widely implement ‘Sustainable Product-Service Systems’. Journal of Cleaner Production, n. 97, p. 1–12.
YOON, B.; KIM, S.; RHEE,
J. (2012). An evaluation method for designing a new product-service system. Service Business, v. 6, n. 3, p.
323–348.
ZHENG,
M.; MING, X.; LI, M.; HE, L. (2015). A framework for Industrial Product-Service
Systems risk management. Journal of Risk
and Reliability, v. 229, n. 6, p. 501–516.