A Case Study on Pitfalls and Implications
Abstract
The trend for ‘servitization’ reflects manufacturers’ increasing efforts to offer services along with their physical goods. Organizations establish smart service systems with digitally networked products—e.g., cars, industrial machinery, or home appliances—as boundary objects that connect the organization with customers, offering them digital channels for communication and interaction. While anecdotal evidence indicates that many manufacturers fail to establish profitable services, few studies have traced the underlying causes for failure. We perform a revelatory case study at a global white-goods manufacturer to identify pitfalls and derive guidelines for establishing smart service systems. Based on interpreting qualitative data from interviews and additional organizational resources, we analyze how and why the manufacturer’s efforts to establish pay-per-use services based on a smart laundry machine failed. While we provide insights that can guide management in establishing smart service systems, our findings also motivate updating concepts and methods currently discussed in service science.
Introduction
Almost four out of five manufacturers acknowledge servitization is an opportunity for differentiation and growth [1]. Not surprisingly, many organizations seek to expand their product portfolio and establish smart service systems by equipping their physical products with connectivity and information processing capabilities, to transform these products into boundary objects that are situated at the customer interface [2].
Technological trends, such as drones, AI platforms, and immersive technology can offer great opportunities, but they can also increase the complexity of servitization. Hence, the transformation to become a service provider is more challenging than ever [3] and it might even jeopardize an organization’s overall success. For instance, Siemens’ service division “Siemens Business Services” turned out to be unviable [4]. Especially for manufacturers, resources and capabilities established in an organization can oppose innovation [5], since they may interfere with creativity and restrict the mindset for service development. Therefore, organizations need to overcome established structures, redefine their strategy, and promote change for transforming into service providers [6, 7]. Service logic reiterates that service providers cannot determine the value of their offerings for customers—in terms of the offerings’ value-in-exchange—but they need to offer value propositions that attract customers to engage in value co-creation [8]. Value co-creation refers to joint and reciprocal interactions between multiple actors that integrate their resources and apply their competencies to create value [9] in a smart service system [10]. As a beneficiary, customers perceive and determine a service’s value during its consumption (value-in-use) [8].
Service research reports successful service transformation projects [11–13], while few (if any) studies explored abortive smart service systems. Analyzing reasons for unsuccessful smart service systems is imperative, since many manufacturers conduct servitization projects and might, without proper guidance, reiterate the same mistakes. Hence, we set out to perform a single case study to investigate “How and why do attempts to establish smart service systems fail?”. We analyze an organization’s unsuccessful attempt to establish pay-per-use services based on using a smart laundry machine. The organization is an established manufacturer that is now trying to add value by offering supplementary services. By analyzing qualitative data from interviews and complementary data sources, we identify six pitfalls from which we derive implications and guidelines for implementing smart service systems.
From analyzing the case of an unsuccessful transformation, we add unique empirical insights to the emerging literature on smart service systems. We discuss why servitization is a systemic approach that goes beyond developing service-oriented value propositions as additional units of output. Also, our findings provide an impetus for service research to update and refine theory, recognizing servitization as a transformation process. Further, we highlight that updating smart products and transforming organizational structures is vital for establishing a smart service system. The paper is structured as follows. Section two provides a theoretical background of smart service systems and its engineering. In section three, we illustrate and justify our research method. In section four, we present our case and pinpoint the pitfalls of the smart service system engineering project. In section five, we interpret and discuss our findings to derive implications for establishing smart service systems. Section six summarizes our findings, identifies limitations, and sketches a path for further research.
