Digital Product-Service Systems: The Role of Data in the Transition to Servitization Business Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article aims to investigate key themes and challenges in transitioning towards digitally-enabled Servitization in the manufacturing industry to foster Circular Economy. This topic is relevant and timely as a background for an interesting study.

The introduction gives a good motivation for the research, however many of the described concepts, e.g. Circular Economy ("new approach"), Servitization or PSS have been around for years. Latest developments and current gaps in research should be more clearly carved out.

Chapter 2 illustrates the background in Servitization business models. Subchapters (like 2.1) should only be used if there is more than one. It should be noted that the isolated search for "Servitization" and "Circular Economy" in Web of Science may only provide limited insight. In fact, the concept of PSS stems from the sustainability perspective (Goedkoop 1999). Thus, current challenges described in literature should be more systematically derived.

The research method is described in chapter 3. While the explorative approach is legit, participation from the sustainability or Circular Economy perspective seems underrepresented. Perhaps the results could be discussed in another round with sustainability experts.

Chapter 4 presents the findings well structured. However, the link to the current state of research is missing. Many of the issues are already recognized in literature. It should be made more clear, what in the challenges goes beyond this level (e.g. using appropriate references).

The discussion in chapter 5 combines the identified challenges to a new research agenda comprising several research questions. First, the structure of the research agenda is hard to follow, as the differen themes do not really differ from the normal text. Second, it might not make sense to use the themes from chapter 4 to structure the research agenda, as many of the challenges are interrelated between themes (e.g. ecosystem, data sovereignity, trust etc.).

Why are the conclusions also listed as chapter 5? They should be extended to feature the limitations of the study and prioritize future research challenges based on the research agenda.

Author Response

1. The article aims to investigate key themes and challenges in transitioning towards digitally-enabled Servitization in the manufacturing industry to foster Circular Economy. This topic is relevant and timely as a background for an interesting study.

I am glad that we agree about the relevance of the topic.

2. The introduction gives a good motivation for the research, however many of the described concepts, e.g. Circular Economy ("new approach"), Servitization or PSS have been around for years. Latest developments and current gaps in research should be more clearly carved out.

Yes, I see your point. It was never my intention to suggest that these concepts are new. I have adapted the introduction to make this point clear and more clearly highlight the latest developments and gap relevant to this study (lines 36-46).

3. Chapter 2 illustrates the background in Servitization business models. Subchapters (like 2.1) should only be used if there is more than one. It should be noted that the isolated search for "Servitization" and "Circular Economy" in Web of Science may only provide limited insight. In fact, the concept of PSS stems from the sustainability perspective (Goedkoop 1999). Thus, current challenges described in literature should be more systematically derived.

I have removed the subchapter 2.1. Again, you are right that the Web of Science search should include PSS and so I have repeated it, updated the figure (now Figure 2), and more systematically addressed the relevant challenges in the added literature from that search. Of course, it is beyond the scope of this paper to carry out a full systematic literature review but I hope that this section is now sufficiently informative.

4. The research method is described in chapter 3. While the explorative approach is legit, participation from the sustainability or Circular Economy perspective seems underrepresented. Perhaps the results could be discussed in another round with sustainability experts.

I completely understand your point and I believe it is essential to get feedback from the sustainability / CE perspective. This is actually the motivation for the whole study, to explore the role of data in the transition to Servitization business models and then to present the findings to the sustainability / CE community. I believe that by publishing this paper in Sustainability I will reach out to relevant scholars and sincerely hope that this stimulates further discussion. I have used this comment to motivate one of this paper’s limitations and an area for future research.

5. Chapter 4 presents the findings well structured. However, the link to the current state of research is missing. Many of the issues are already recognized in literature. It should be made more clear, what in the challenges goes beyond this level (e.g. using appropriate references).

This point is well taken: the connection to the current understanding in the literature is not made clear enough. Reviewer 2 also notes this. Following standard practice, I believe it is correct to keep the focus of Chapter 4 solely on my findings and then address your comment about what is new in Chapter 5, the Discussion.

6. The discussion in chapter 5 combines the identified challenges to a new research agenda comprising several research questions. First, the structure of the research agenda is hard to follow, as the differen themes do not really differ from the normal text. Second, it might not make sense to use the themes from chapter 4 to structure the research agenda, as many of the challenges are interrelated between themes (e.g. ecosystem, data sovereignity, trust etc.).

Thanks for highlighting this point. I agree with you, and have changed the structure of the research agenda and present it now as a table (Table 2). Additionally, I have attempted to bring interrelated themes together but in doing so I found that any clustering that I could choose left the same problem of interrelatedness between themes. As such, I decided to maintain consistency across the paper and not confuse the readers by suddenly introducing a new set of themes. I hope you can appreciate this point.

7. Why are the conclusions also listed as chapter 5? They should be extended to feature the limitations of the study and prioritize future research challenges based on the research agenda.

This typo has now been rectified: Chapter 6. I have augmented the brief conclusion with limitations as you suggest, and with prioritized future research challenges that are covered in the updated research agenda.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript investigates the role digital technologies have in  supporting Product Service Systems and servitization, where digital technologies are attributed the role of enabler of the implementation of servitization and PSS through data used in the design and operation stages of PSS. In the case of PSS, which is a system of products and service elements, data and software can be integrated within the PSS and becomes a part of the service. Indeed, the topic is important as there are many examples where apps and data are an essential part of PSS. For example apps (software) are essential to manage Mobility as a Service, which is a type of result orientated PSS (Enoch et al. 2019), and even in a PSS featuring prams apps played a role to allow customers to manage access to the PSS. The manuscript tries to draft an agenda for research on how this integration might work and report on the findings of interview of experts, which generates a number of questions to be addressed specifically of how this integration works. Indeed there are some interesting sections, see 8-13 where the manuscript covers issues related to digital solutions

• I miss a definition of PSS. It might be that the use of PSS and servization and PSS as interchangeable is not helpful here, it might be better to select one of these – or, to be much more clear in the relationship between the two.
• Other definitions are also missing, e.g. what do you mean by "industry associations": trade associations? Networks? 
• Another confusing aspect is the use of the terms “circular economy )(CE)”, “servitization” and “PSS” like they are necessarily interdependent and related. This is not necessarily the case – indeed, CE can be achieved by adopting industrial symbiosis strategies. Too many concepts interlinked – too much confusion. It might be that focusing on PSS – via support of suitable literature – makes the case for PSS being a possible source of environmental benefits.
• As it is the manuscript is too abstract - you need to use examples - the methods section cites interesting ones: infrastructural and agricultural service systems, road water infrastructure, airlines.... use these examples in the findings section to make it less abstract

Discussion: This is a major weakness of the manuscript.  It presents a set of questions but there is no touching base or comparison with previous literature – this is not a proper discussion. This section is too short and not deep enough. Some questions have been widely answered already, e.g. on governance see Catulli et al. (2021). On data sovereignty a lot of work on this has been done e.g. in Mobility as a Service research, e.g. Hensher et al. (2020). Perhaps the questions should be moved to the conclusion section rather than in the discussion section. The discussion MUST compare your findings with extant literature

Baines, T. S., H. W. Lightfoot, O. Benedettini, and J. M. Kay. 2009. The servitization of manufacturing A review of literature and reflection on future challenges. Journal of Manufacturing TechnologyManagement 20:547-567.

Baines, T. S., H. W. Lightfoot, S. Evans, A. Neely, R. Greenough, J. Peppard, R. Roy, E. Shehab, A. Braganza, A. Tiwari, J. R. Alcock, J. P. Angus, M. Bastl, A. Cousens, P. Irvin, M. Johnson, J. Kingston, H. Lockett, V. Martinez, P. Michele, D. Tranfield, I. M. Walton, and H. Wilson. 2007. State-of-the-art in product-service systems. Journal of Engineering Maufacture Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B::221: 1543.

Catulli, M., L. Sopjani, N. Reed, J. Tzilivakis, and A. Green. 2021. A Socio-technical experiment with a resource efficient Product Service System. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 166:1-10.

Hensher, D. A., C. Q. Ho, C. Mulley, J. D. Nelson, G. Smith, and Y. Z. Wong. 2020. Understanding Mobility as a Service (Maas): Past, Present and Future. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Mont, O. 2004. Institutionalisation of sustainable consumption patterns based on shared use. Ecological Economics 50:135-153.

Mont, O. K. 2002. Clarifying the concept of Product Service System Journal of Cleaner Production 10:237-245.

Conclusions: this section is too short. What is new? PSS / servitization are important? Mont (2002), Mont (2004), Baines et al. (2007), Baines et al. (2009). Perhaps this section should include the questions that are currently in the discussion. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. This manuscript investigates the role digital technologies have in  supporting Product Service Systems and servitization, where digital technologies are attributed the role of enabler of the implementation of servitization and PSS through data used in the design and operation stages of PSS. In the case of PSS, which is a system of products and service elements, data and software can be integrated within the PSS and becomes a part of the service. Indeed, the topic is important as there are many examples where apps and data are an essential part of PSS. For example apps (software) are essential to manage Mobility as a Service, which is a type of result orientated PSS (Enoch et al. 2019), and even in a PSS featuring prams apps played a role to allow customers to manage access to the PSS. The manuscript tries to draft an agenda for research on how this integration might work and report on the findings of interview of experts, which generates a number of questions to be addressed specifically of how this integration works. Indeed there are some interesting sections, see 8-13 where the manuscript covers issues related to digital solutions

Many thanks for this reflection on the objective of this study.

2. I miss a definition of PSS. It might be that the use of PSS and servization and PSS as interchangeable is not helpful here, it might be better to select one of these – or, to be much more clear in the relationship between the two.

You are completely right. I had not made the relationships between these concepts clear enough at the outset. I have now updated the introduction.

3. Other definitions are also missing, e.g. what do you mean by "industry associations": trade associations? Networks? 

Yes, I meant trade associations. I have added a definition.

4. Another confusing aspect is the use of the terms “circular economy )(CE)”, “servitization” and “PSS” like they are necessarily interdependent and related. This is not necessarily the case – indeed, CE can be achieved by adopting industrial symbiosis strategies. Too many concepts interlinked – too much confusion. It might be that focusing on PSS – via support of suitable literature – makes the case for PSS being a possible source of environmental benefits.

This comment relates to your previous comment 2. You are right to note that CE, Servitization and PSS are not necessarily interdependent. They can be but they need not be. I have updated the introduction to make their relationships clearer in the context of this study (lines 57-67), including a new Figure 1.

5. As it is the manuscript is too abstract - you need to use examples - the methods section cites interesting ones: infrastructural and agricultural service systems, road water infrastructure, airlines.... use these examples in the findings section to make it less abstract

I understand your suggestion, to bring the findings more to life for readers. I have added relevant examples in Chapter 4.

6. Discussion: This is a major weakness of the manuscript.  It presents a set of questions but there is no touching base or comparison with previous literature – this is not a proper discussion. This section is too short and not deep enough. Some questions have been widely answered already, e.g. on governance see Catulli et al. (2021). On data sovereignty a lot of work on this has been done e.g. in Mobility as a Service research, e.g. Hensher et al. (2020). Perhaps the questions should be moved to the conclusion section rather than in the discussion section. The discussion MUST compare your findings with extant literature

• Baines, T. S., H. W. Lightfoot, O. Benedettini, and J. M. Kay. 2009. The servitization of manufacturing A review of literature and reflection on future challenges. Journal of Manufacturing TechnologyManagement 20:547-567.
• Baines, T. S., H. W. Lightfoot, S. Evans, A. Neely, R. Greenough, J. Peppard, R. Roy, E. Shehab, A. Braganza, A. Tiwari, J. R. Alcock, J. P. Angus, M. Bastl, A. Cousens, P. Irvin, M. Johnson, J. Kingston, H. Lockett, V. Martinez, P. Michele, D. Tranfield, I. M. Walton, and H. Wilson. 2007. State-of-the-art in product-service systems. Journal of Engineering Maufacture Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B::221: 1543.
• Catulli, M., L. Sopjani, N. Reed, J. Tzilivakis, and A. Green. 2021. A Socio-technical experiment with a resource efficient Product Service System. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 166:1-10.
• Hensher, D. A., C. Q. Ho, C. Mulley, J. D. Nelson, G. Smith, and Y. Z. Wong. 2020. Understanding Mobility as a Service (Maas): Past, Present and Future. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
• Mont, O. 2004. Institutionalisation of sustainable consumption patterns based on shared use. Ecological Economics 50:135-153.
• Mont, O. K. 2002. Clarifying the concept of Product Service System Journal of Cleaner Production 10:237-245.

Your point is well taken: the Discussion chapter failed to make the connection to extant literature. Reviewer 1 also notes this. As such, I have significantly changed Chapter 5 to highlight where the findings of this study challenge or extend current thinking. Your detailed comments in the manuscript itself (for which, many thanks!) are of great benefit here, and they help to guide the discussion towards the most interesting points.

7. Conclusions: this section is too short. What is new? PSS / servitization are important? Mont (2002), Mont (2004), Baines et al. (2007), Baines et al. (2009). Perhaps this section should include the questions that are currently in the discussion. 

Again, your comment is well taken. I have now added to the conclusion to highlight limitations, in line with the suggestion of Reviewer 1. I also follow your suggestion to move the research agenda questions and related future research avenues to the Conclusions chapter.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for considering the reviewer's comments! I have no further remarks before publication.

Author Response

Thank you for considering the reviewer's comments! I have no further remarks before publication.

Many thanks for your constructive feedback in the previous round. I am delighted that you are now satisfied that this manuscript may proceed to publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author

The manuscript has considerably improved.  The clearly identified additions (red sections) add value to the manuscript. As I had previously written the role of digital technology in PSS is the central contribution. I also like the table with the questions at P15, I think this is useful for researchers who can easily see the proposed questions. I recommend minor amendments:

• P2, Line 78 from "exploration enritchment" to "exploration enrichment" (plus, do a whole spellcheck!)
• P3 Line 121 from "sustainability gains as a digital" to "sustainability gains, as a digital"
• This is just a question, perhaps it is my lack of knowledge: P11, Line 493: should it read "sensors and edge and far edge data..." is this a repetition? Or are "edge" and "far edge" normal expressions?
• P12, line 553, from "activity, such that when labour costs" to "activity, so that when labour costs"

In the conclusions:

• P15, line 666-667 - I do not think the phrase "how this may influence manufacturing firms to adopt the Circular Economy" works or even makes sense. I think the circular economy is "dragged" in this manuscript and it is unnecessary. I am fine of the use elsewhere but I think the will or not to adopt the circular economy has not been demonstrated in this paper. You could consider something such as "how it might offer manufacturing firms the ability to embrace the CE", but it is not necessary. I think the key contribution is insight into how digitalization affects (shapes?) PSS and servitization. 
• P15 701/702 (the title of the table). This title is too long - it does not work. Please find a way to shorten it
• Finally... the findings section (4) VERY cumbersome to read. It is also very long. Good job you inserted the titles. I wonder whether you could use white space to allow the reader to catch their breath. For example, between "European design principles" (P11) and "Hybrid strategies" you could insert a space so the reader has a pause. As it is I found it very hard to read that section

Author Response

The manuscript has considerably improved.  The clearly identified additions (red sections) add value to the manuscript. As I had previously written the role of digital technology in PSS is the central contribution. I also like the table with the questions at P15, I think this is useful for researchers who can easily see the proposed questions. I recommend minor amendments:

Many thanks for your constructive feedback in the previous round. I am delighted that you recognize the improvements.

P2, Line 78 from "exploration enritchment" to "exploration enrichment" (plus, do a whole spellcheck!)

This typo has been corrected along with a thorough spellcheck of the entire manuscript.

P3 Line 121 from "sustainability gains as a digital" to "sustainability gains, as a digital"

This punctuation error has been corrected.

This is just a question, perhaps it is my lack of knowledge: P11, Line 493: should it read "sensors and edge and far edge data..." is this a repetition? Or are "edge" and "far edge" normal expressions?

Indeed, edge and far edge are two different extensions to the cloud infrastructure where, increasingly, intelligence is situated. The far edge is further from the end user.

P12, line 553, from "activity, such that when labour costs" to "activity, so that when labour costs"

This grammatical error has been corrected.

In the conclusions:

P15, line 666-667 - I do not think the phrase "how this may influence manufacturing firms to adopt the Circular Economy" works or even makes sense. I think the circular economy is "dragged" in this manuscript and it is unnecessary. I am fine of the use elsewhere but I think the will or not to adopt the circular economy has not been demonstrated in this paper. You could consider something such as "how it might offer manufacturing firms the ability to embrace the CE", but it is not necessary. I think the key contribution is insight into how digitalization affects (shapes?) PSS and servitization.

Many thanks for this comment to clarify the opening of the conclusion. I completely agree and have adopted your suggestion.

P15 701/702 (the title of the table). This title is too long - it does not work. Please find a way to shorten it

I have now shortened the title of Table 2 from 24 words to 12: A research agenda into how digitalization shapes PSS and Servitization business models.

Finally... the findings section (4) VERY cumbersome to read. It is also very long. Good job you inserted the titles. I wonder whether you could use white space to allow the reader to catch their breath. For example, between "European design principles" (P11) and "Hybrid strategies" you could insert a space so the reader has a pause. As it is I found it very hard to read that section

There is, indeed, a lot of information to present in section 4. I have followed your suggestion and added white spaces between subtopics to improve readability.