The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0957-4093.htm

Implementation of 3D printing and Implementation

of 3D printing
the effect on decision making in
logistics management
Stefan Hecker
Department of Production and Logistics Management, University of Siegen,
Siegen, Germany Received 30 January 2020
Revised 21 July 2020
Accepted 20 October 2020
Abstract
Purpose – From a synthesis of literature, the purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual service
development methodology showing the impact of 3D printing as a disruptive technology to the service
portfolio. The methodology is designed to support practitioners and academics in better understanding the
impact of disruptive technologies may have to the service portfolio and participate in the technology.
Design/methodology/approach – A literature review is conducted and based on these findings a conceptual
framework has been developed.
Findings – The design of a methodology for the development of 3D printing services is used to evaluate the
disruption potential of 3D printing and to implement the technology in the service portfolio of a logistics service
provider. The disruption potential of 3D printing influences a logistics manager by make to order decisions. In
addition, it could be proven the service portfolio was diversified.
Research limitations/implications – Literature directly dealing with technology-based service
development for decision making in logistics management is rare and thus the methodology is built on
insights, compiled from the distinct research areas. Further research should be performed on this nascent topic.
Practical implications – Logistics service providers may use the developed methodology to revise their
service portfolio by the consideration of disruptive technologies, in order to reduce strategic misdecisions
regarding the range of services.
Originality/value – This paper looks specifically at decision making for implementing disruptive
technologies to the service portfolio.
Keywords Logistics management, 3D printing, Service development, Decision making
Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction
From the origins of logistics, the Romans understood an efficient supply and transfer of
troops in military operations under this term, the understanding has shifted to creating value
for customers and other associated stakeholders (Walters, 1999). Logistics, with its task of
planning, implementing and controlling the flow of materials and information from the
supplier to the company, within the company and from the company to the customer, forms
the connection between various players in a value chain. In this context, logistics managers as
major players in the value chain mainly undertake three strategic decisions at firm level
(Wanke and Zinn, 2004). This paper focuses on the first stream of decision making in which
decisions are made between the dilemma of make to order versus make to stock. One key
variable affecting this decision is the process technology (Soman et al., 2004; Van Donk, 2001).
A process technology being well-known especially in the past decade is 3D printing. 3D
printing is able to address the problem of increasing transports of goods and warehousing
because goods are produced exactly where they are needed (Abdul-Jalbar et al., 2003).
International flows of goods can be reduced, transport times and routes can be shortened and
inventory levels can be optimized. Regarding the influence of 3D printing on a supply chain, it
The International Journal of
Logistics Management
Many thanks for supporting this paper and constructive discussions by Prof. Dr U. Seidenberg, © Emerald Publishing Limited
0957-4093
Dr W. M€
uller, O. Klunk and M. Sieger. DOI 10.1108/IJLM-01-2020-0049
IJLM seems to be clear productivity of printing increases in the same way as the implementation of
technology increases to the product and service portfolio of the players across the supply
chain (Thomas et al., 2017). There might be changes in constellations and relationships
between them and as a result the part of value creation may change between these players. As
shown in the past, the logistics service provider is a player who always experienced changes
by technologies (Soman et al., 2004; Van Donk, 2001). Depending on the fields of application
and maturity of 3D printing, a logistics service provider in particular may be affected to its
main business activities consisting of transport, storage and transshipment. Some logistics
services providers have already recognized a decreasing sales of warehousing caused by 3D
printing (Carey, 2016). 3D printing can therefore being characterized as a disruptive
technology because its impact on existing services in logistics is able to completely out the
market and make investments of previously dominant market participants obsolete
(Danneels, 2004). In this context, a decision to be undertaken by logistics managers is to
evaluate the disruption potential of 3D printing for the service portfolio of a logistics service
provider and how to implement this technology if necessary. Especially the combination of
innovation and technology management on the one hand side and the development of
logistics services on the other side is what keeps logistics service providers struggling
(Evangelista and Sweeney, 2006). In a study conducted by Ernst & Young (EY) in 2019 with a
total of 900 companies surveyed, 68% of the companies in the logistics and transport sector
stated they were already using 3D printing, 14% were considering using it and 18% were not
interested in using it (Karevska, 2019). These data show the great interest in 3D printing in
logistics. At the time of the survey, 65% of the companies surveyed stated they expected the
production of end products to be subcontracted by means of 3D printing (Karevska et al.,
2019). Compared to a study of EY in 2016, the experience level of the companies participating
in the survey shifted from level 1 (no experience) to level 2 (experimentation and testing) in
2019 and represents the largest share with 39%. In the advanced classifications of level 3
(application in various departments) and level 4 (strategic application in the company), the
proportion of companies has doubled compared to 2016 (M€ uller and Karevska, 2016;
Karevska et al., 2019). When classifying the barriers mentioned for the implementation of 3D
printing, three groups can be formed: high prices and investments, lack of skills and
competences as well as technological restrictions. The focus of this paper is on the lack of
skills and competences of 3D printing regarding logistics service providers. In this context,
3D printing is only one characteristic example for a disruptive technology besides Internet of
things, big data, artificial intelligence, blockchain etc. All these disruptive technologies got in
common they are influencing the way logistics managers undertake their decisions (Forbes
Insights, 2018). The research question of this paper is how decision making in logistics
management is impacted by the implementation of 3D printing to the service portfolio as a
characteristic example for disruptive technologies? Logistics managers have to decide
whether the disruption potential of 3D printing impacts the business of a logistics service
provider and how to implement a disruptive technology to the business model. Without the
implementation of 3D printing it may be, the current service portfolio is no longer competitive
any further. The aim is to design a methodology for logistics managers giving support to
identify the potential of 3D printing and to implement its potential by modifying the current
service portfolio. The methodology can be used as a guideline to modify services depending
on the technological maturity of 3D printing.
The structure of this paper is as follows: the next section is a literature review on service
development with particular attention to technology-orientation and logistics. Several
approaches have been analyzed and connecting as well as delimitation points for a
methodology as a decision support have been identified. The need for action becomes obvious
and the research process is also presented in this section. Results are given in section 3 by a
methodology to evaluate the potential of 3D printing as a representative technology disrupting
the business of a logistics service provider. The methodology can be used as a decision support Implementation
for logistics managers to implement the disruption potential of 3D printing to the service of 3D printing
portfolio and clearly defines instructions and outcome in every stage to be done. Finally, the
theoretical and practical implications of the research are given in the conclusion section, where
the limitations of the study are also presented, and directions for future research are provided.

2. Literature review and research process

In the following section, the aim is to introduce the reader to an interdisciplinary approach of
logistics management, engineering sciences as well as innovation and technology
management. The combination of the mentioned topics is necessary because the economic
success of logistics service providers largely depends on the design and conception of the
range of services. The factor of time and quality have always been essential aspects in
logistics (Gibson et al., 2009 and Kruth et al., 1998). This section gives the literature
background for the research that studies service development, particularly from the point of
view of logistics managers. There are only a few approaches in the literature bringing the
listed topics together with each other. There seems to be a gap between a decision support for
logistics mangers handling their service portfolios and what literature offers them.
Relevant approaches in the literature serve as a basis for designing a suitable
methodology for the service development with particular attention to technologies. The
peculiarity of the development of services, in contrast to product development, lies in the
integration of technologies and the interface with the customer. In terms of logistics
management, a service concept must interlink technologies, processes and corporate
structures. Procedural models are used in this context as a part to develop services
systematically. The present approaches with a service-oriented focus appreciate the
customer integration and the process character of services, whereas the terms of a logistics
service provider are largely ignored (cf. Table 1 left hand side). Despite intensive literature
research, the procedural models with a focus on logistics are limited to relatively marginal
approaches (cf. Table 1 right hand side).
From the entirety of the approaches, the work of Preiß (2014) and Spiegel (2016) deserves
special mention, as these incorporate a systematic assessment of technologies into the
procedure. The methodical support of the user and a clearer structure of the procedure with

Selection of procedural models for service development Procedural models for service development with
without a focus on logistics a focus on logistics

> Scheuing and Johnson (1989) > Pfohl et al. (2007)

> Shostack and Kingman-Brundage (1991) > Busse and Wagner (2008)
> Ramaswamy (1996) > Flowers et al. (2008)
> Edvardsson and Olsson (1996) > Pflaum and Krupp (2009)
> Jaschinski (1998) > Zhou and Wang (2012)
> Meiren (2001) > Preiß (2014)
> Bullinger and Schreiner (2006) > Spiegel (2016)
> Zahn and Stanik (2006)
> Kersten et al. (2006)
> DIN (2008)
> Meyer and B€ottcher (2011) Table 1.
> Leimeister (2012) Literature review of
> Freitag (2014) existing procedural
> Camerin (2017) models for the
> Becker and Klingner (2017) development of
> Senderek et al. (2019) services
IJLM defined outcome of the design steps are still in need of improvement. Nevertheless, the
approaches offer an attempt to combine technology development with service development.
The approaches for the service development without a focus on logistics particularly show
gaps in the requirements for the application in logistics. The problem-solving cycle does not
always apply which is due to a rigid approach. The analyzed approaches, in which the
problem-solving cycle is not taken into account, therefore have no iteration steps leading to
helpful partial outcome. Particularly relevant approaches for the development of 3D printing
services are from Jaschinski (1998), Freitag (2014) as well as Zahn and Stanik (2006). It should
be emphasized the approaches mentioned are based on a generally applicable procedural
model and specified in a user-specific manner. Not least due to the fact generally applicable
procedure models have been tried and tested regarding the user-friendliness, the present
paper can be built on. For user-friendliness, it must be taken into account that a methodology
is not generic. Individual phases letting logistics managers know what and how to do, are
essential for a successfully decision support. Because there is no separate division for service
development in most companies, there is no procedural plan for the development of services
and various methods for service development are unknown. These circumstances have to be
taken into account by a methodology to be designed. In addition, the dynamic development of
3D printing should be focused much more in the service development. It has to be considered,
the majority of companies still has low experience with 3D printing depending on less
information about the handling (Karevska et al., 2019).
The analyzed approaches make clear, there are both connecting and delimitation points
for a methodology to be developed for 3D printing services of a logistics service provider. In
order for services to be an object being planned and designed in the context of 3D printing, a
methodology needs to be developed that considers technical and business issues at the same
time. Potentials and fields of application that may arise from new technologies are either not
recognized or not continuously implemented (Jimo et al., 2019). The review of the existing
business model, especially in highly dynamic markets such as logistics, should be brought
into focus. Long-term success is closely related to strategic planning and therefore requires
methodical support, especially for decisions characterized by uncertainty, with tools tailored
to the user for decision making (Bullinger et al., 2003). Ideally, methodical support for users is
accompanied by templates or software. Future scenarios that may have an impact on existing
business models in logistics could be thought ahead. Through anticipatory planning
regarding strategic management, a company can flexibly and, above all, systematically focus
on technological influences on the business model without taking increased risks. Speed and
adaptability are success factors in dynamic markets and offer the possibility of
differentiation against competitors (Grawe, 2009). A methodology for the service
development as a decision support for logistics managers would close the identified
research gap.
The research process of the paper is as follows (cf. Figure 1): In a first step, requirements
for a methodology are derived by an intensive analysis of interdisciplinary approaches for the
service development with special regard to technologies. On level 1 a general methodology for
service development is invented by analogy observations. This methodology is used as a
meta model and it is evaluated by expert surveys. The suggestions for improvement made in
the interviews and a tool for the selection and adoption of methods are part to design a
methodology for the systematic development of 3D printing services at level 2. Finally, a
validation of the methodology is made by a case study and a requirement comparison.

3. Results
The importance of 3D printing as a technology influencing the business model of logistics
service providers is uncontroversial. Due to a cutting-back of manufacturing steps, 3D
printing enables companies to react more quickly to dynamic market requirements while
reducing process costs (Dauchert and Cuntz, 2017). From a product perspective, 3D printing Implementation
enables product development and market launch to be shortened and companies can react of 3D printing
flexibly to shorter product life cycles (Pfeifer and Niemann, 2015). In terms of supply chains,
logistics as a classic service business represents the step following production within
traditional value chains. 3D printing questions the traditional roles of the players in a value
chain, since delivery could take place digitally in the future and thus production would be
upstream (Thomas et al., 2016). The spare parts business of logistics service providers is often
discussed as an area being subjected to changes due to 3D printing.
From a broader perspective and in relation to the spare parts business of logistics service
providers, the created share of a company within a value chain can change proportionally
within a value chain. Cost-effective spare parts deliveries and minimized effort while
maintaining the same spare part quality can be important arguments for long-term changes
in the spare parts business (Pfeifer and Niemann, 2015). Especially for logistics service
providers, it can mean their main business consisting of transport, storage and handling
changes depending on the fields of application and the level of maturity of 3D printing.
Without an adjustment of the service portfolio it is no longer possible and necessary to
participate within a value chain (Thomas et al., 2016). If the distance between production and
usage of goods is reduced, the distance of the transports to be carried out is reduced to the
scenario in which the customer buys a 3D model and uses it to print the desired product.
By an intensive analysis of the interdisciplinary topics of service development with special
regard to technologies, requirements have been derived which can be separated into
requirements for the approach of a methodology and requirements for using a methodology.
While the requirements for the approach of the methodology are of a general nature, the

Figure 1.
Research process of
the paper
IJLM requirements for the application of the methodology should guaranteed a continuous,
methodical support for logistics managers. The determination of requirements for a design
object is particularly common in constructive disciplines (Wright, 1998 and Sommerville,
1995). Requirements can be equated with expectations, the fulfillment of which is regarded as
mandatory (DIN EN ISO 9000, 2015). As a result, the determination of specific requirements
depends on the object to be developed. In contrast to a procedural model, a methodology
differs in the way that suggestions for the sequence of certain activities propose the how
instead of describing what has to be done. A methodology as a set of methods is known in
science as an examination and research procedure or a planned procedure in order to
ultimately gain new knowledge. Most of the procedural models for the development and
construction of systems described in the scientific literature are based on four basic
principles: The principle of factorization which splits a complex issue into individual,
manageable elements, so the problem is broken down into detailed problems (Jaschinski,
1998). The principle of systematization which intends a development of a solution through
systematic variation (Jaschinski, 1998 and Koller, 1994). The principle of segmentation of
phases which is based on the logical and temporal separation of iterations in procedure. The
aim of segmentation is to achieve partial solutions by defined iterations (Jaschinski, 1998).
The principle of the cycle of solving problems is the consideration of the fundamental
relationships in solving problems (Maglio et al., 2006 and Bullinger et al., 2003). These basic
principles should be adopted as general requirements for a methodology to develop 3D
printing services. In addition to the general requirements of a procedure model for developing
and constructing systems, a methodology for developing 3D printing services in logistics
needs to consider user-specific requirements which should be collected and weighted in
relation to the individual user of the methodology.

3.1 General methodology for service development

As shown in the design of the research process (cf. Figure 1), in a first step a general
methodology for service development has been built. As this paper is based on the approach
of service engineering, there will be made an analogy observation to a construction
methodology. Following four steps have to be taken into consideration (Jaschinski, 1998):
(1) Review of the suitability of an existing procedure model as a basis for the service
development
(2) Derivation of basic principles for a procedural model based on results of empirical
investigations of service offering companies
(3) Establishment of a construction-methodical procedure model for service development
considering the basic principles of analogy
(4) Proof of practicability
As a result, an ideally typical procedure model has been used as a basis for the methodology
to develop services. The procedure model serves as a general orientation for the systematic
development of services and divides the development process into six stages: Initial phase,
analysis phase, design phase, preparation phase, testing and implementation. In addition, the
procedure model consists of eight steps which can be seen as a general guideline due to
industry independence (Bullinger and Schreiner, 2006). The development of services can be
described as a spiral of incrementally improved service versions also as a cooperation during
the development and delivery phase (Jaschinski, 1998). According to the service spiral, the
development phase can be divided into phases in which documents are created. By
developing new services, the primary effort is determined by going through cycles several
times in individual phases, as long as requirements are insufficiently defined or potential
customers are unknown (Jaschinski, 1998). A guideline for the selection of methodical tools to Implementation
support the user has to be taken also into account. Methodical tools support the user with an of 3D printing
evaluation of the project by using a selected method to reach the intended outcome in every
single stage (Preiß et al., 2014) .
In consideration of the basic principles of systematic service development explained
above and the general requirements for the approach of a methodology, a general
methodology for the development of services has been designed by analogy considerations.
The general methodology can be used as a meta model for the service development of 3D
printing services. The course of development phases, as well as the necessary methodological
tools and desired outcome in the individual steps are described in the following paragraphs.
In line with the ideal-typical procedure model for the systematic service development, the
general methodology is also divided into six phases and begins with the concern to revise
the service portfolio. The assignment of the methodological tools in the individual steps of the
meta model can be seen as an exemplary selection. The selection of an appropriate method for
the task must be checked for an individual application. As a guideline for choosing a method,
the user should check the achievable outcome with the method by matching the desired
outcome. In consideration of the expression levels of the users, pre-selection suggestions of
methods are a suitable tool of support, especially for method beginners. If one of the
suggested methodological tools is not transferable to the specific application, it is necessary
to replace it.
In the initial phase the focus is on generating ideas. There are ideas for services of
particular interest being completely new, complementary or modifying compared to the
existing service portfolio. The outcome is an idea catalog or a collection of ideas.
Before ideas are evaluated and documented in a ranking or a list in the second stage, the
analysis phase, it is necessary to analyze the requirements of customers regarding the
services offered and to be offered. As an outcome, the formulation of a service idea can be
recorded, considering customer requirements. It is important customer benefits of the
services offered are never neglected. It is advisable to include existing customers and
employees being in close contact with them in this step. The formulated service ideas are
evaluated so the potential for the future can be seen. As a first control option of the evaluated
service ideas, it can be checked whether the ideas are satisfactory and released for further
development phases. This characterizes the iterative nature of the procedure, because if there
are no satisfactory ideas, the process begins again in one of the phases before. If there are
satisfactory ideas, organizational units being affected by the changes of service ideas should
be involved. The outcome of this step is a development plan containing a project and cost
plan. The project plan includes all necessary activities, causes and actions required to prepare
the documents for the development and delivery of the service idea (Jaschinski, 1998). The
second phase concludes with a review whether the service development is satisfactory.
In the third stage, the design phase, the service idea is created in its individual components.
Therefore, it must be determined how the basic functions are designed, customer interfaces are
planned and which infrastructure is required. The outcome is determined in process, interaction
and infrastructure plans. This step shows, it is not necessary to go through every stage in a
sequential order. If, for example, there are no directly customer interfaces or required
infrastructure due to the services provided by cooperation partners or external service providers,
individual steps in the procedure can be left out or they can be processed in parallel. As an
outcome, the service components make up the overall specification described in a basic service
concept. At the end of the design phase, it is checked whether the overall specification is
satisfactory.
In stage 4, the preparation phase, the focus is on the development of two tasks: a service
concept is developed and the necessary potential must be allocatable. The development of a
service concept contains the essential steps for the practical test written in the implementation
IJLM plan. Depending on the implementation plan, a sales, marketing and communication concept
must be created as the potential is allocatable. In addition, the necessary employee skills must
be checked and compared with the current skills. A training and further education plan
specifies which skills are newly acquired and which existing skills can be deepened.
In the testing phase the overall specification of the generated service needs to be tested for
its marketability. Vulnerabilities have to be identified and remedied. The outcome of the
testing phase is documented in a success report, so smooth processes are guaranteed and
economic requirements will be fulfilled.
If there are no weaknesses in the overall specification of the service, the service concept is
released for market launch in the sixth stage, the implementation phase. The outcome is a
revised service portfolio. The reason for an extensive test and implementation phase is to
experience a smooth processing for the customer of the service, who only perceives the
processes that are visible to him anyway and to avoid increased market risks for the service
provider by changing the range of services.
The design of the general methodology for service development has been carried out by
considering the basic principles of constructive and systematic service development
explained above and can be checked immediately on the basis of this, as well as to the general
requirements for the methodology. It can be seen that the general methodology is divided into
phases of development and delivery. Within the process, customers and external partners of
the services are taken into account. The documentation of the outcome is considered in each
of the six stages. The iterations to other process steps is guaranteed across the entire
methodology. According to a problem-solving process, the level of detail of the methodology
increases with progress. A support for decision-making is given by an exemplary pre-
selection of methodical tools in all stages. These are intended to support the user of the
methodology achieving the required outcome.
Expert surveys have been carried out to assess the general methodology for service
development. The criteria comprehensibility, completeness, generality and practicability can
be used for a qualitative assessment of the designed methodology. The criteria are intended to
ensure the actions of the methodology are comprehensible and all necessary steps in service
development are taken into account as well as the methodology is industry-independent and
applicable to the user. The selection of expert surveys is justified due to the high level of
awareness and a pronounced level of maturity of this survey method. A total of 10 experts
were interviewed having several years of experience in service development and service
delivery. All companies in which the interviewed experts work, cover a wide range of services
and customers. Even if the general methodology as a meta model is an industry-independent
guideline for service development, it makes sense to involve users of the modified
methodology at this point in time. If the meta model has weaknesses, these can be identified
and revised here by expert surveys. The surveys were not standardized and guided by
guidelines, so experts were given an opportunity to answer the questions with their own
focus according to their expertise. In order to enable the interviewed experts to prepare for the
survey, the guidelines for the expert surveys were made available to them beforehand. In
addition, prior to the official start of the surveys, the experts were instructed with information
about the background of the investigation, the course of the conversation and planned
conversation content. The order of the questions asked can therefore vary from interview to
interview, although the focus was on assessing the designed methodology regarding the
criteria of comprehensibility, completeness, general applicability and practicability. By
evaluating the criteria, it was possible to choose between high, medium and low. As a result of
the surveys, a natural flow of speech between the experts and the interviewer is achieved, in
which a subjective assessment of the respondents is given. The discussions held were
subsequently recorded. The results of the surveys are represented in Figure 2. It turns out the
generality of the methodology is consistently rated very high. Therefore, an industry-
 Implementation
of 3D printing

80%
60%

60%
high

50%
40% moderate

low
30%

30%
Figure 2.

20%

20%
Evaluation of the
expert surveys to
10%

assess the general

n = 10 methodology for
0%

0%

service development
COMPREHENSIBILITY COMPLETENESS GENERALITY PRACTICABILITY

independent applicability of the methodology can be guaranteed. By assessing the

completeness of the methodology, 40% of the respondents rated as high and 60% as
medium. A possible reason for this assessment is due to the large number of tasks and
required outcome, an assessment is difficult right away. The improvement suggestions
confirm this presumption. As a consequence of the methodology for the development of 3D
printing services, this means the procedure should be simplified and made more targeted. The
practicability is rated as very low at 50%. As with the assessment of completeness, a
simplified procedure can be concluded here. The majority of experts also criticized the
number of methodological tools should be reduced. A user-friendly selection of
methodological tools has to be considered in the methodology for the development of 3D
printing services. Despite the huge experience of the experts regarding the development and
delivery of services, it cannot be assumed all proposed methodological tools are known. Last
but not least, this conviction leads to the fact that the criterion of comprehensibility is rated as
moderate with 30%. 60% of the respondents, on the other hand, rated the comprehensibility
as high. As a conclusion, for the modification of the methodology, it can be stated that
personnel support, for example with a methodical expert, is advisable. This depends on the
experience of the service developer with methodological tools. Personnel support in applying
the methodology was also mentioned several times in the experts’ suggestions for
improvement. Regarding application-oriented research, the results of the expert surveys are
of great importance for the modification of the general methodology. In particular, the
suggestions for improvement are of great importance in order to achieve a consistently high
rating considering all criteria mentioned in the methodology for the development of 3D
printing services. The knowledge gained in this section is used for the conception of the
methodology for the development of 3D printing services. Despite the knowledge gained in
the review of the general methodology for the development of services, an assessment of the
methodology for the development of 3D printing services must be based on a practice-
oriented application as a reliable proof of a successful guideline. This proof has to be provided
with the methodology for the development of 3D printing services based on a case study.

3.2 Methodology for the systematic development of 3D printing services

The practicability of the modified methodology is determined not only by a user-specific
method selection and adaptation but also by the systematics of the process and the
specification of the intended outcome. The outcome of the stages can be characterized in
IJLM terms of designing science as models representing products (Jaschinski, 1998). Product-
representing models characterize the (system) properties treated in procedural steps by a
verbal and graphic form (Roth, 1994). According to this and synonymous with the quality-
oriented redesign of services, the outcome of the methodology for the development of 3D
printing services is referred to service-representing product models (Dn-models). The
expected outcome of the stages is explained in the following paragraphs.
3.2.1 Stage 1. Starting stage. On the basis of the service spiral, the development of 3D
printing services begins with a disaggregation of the current service portfolio in step 1.1.
Even if every logistics service provider should theoretically know which services are offered
to the customer, it all too often happened the service portfolio has grown historically and a
concrete overview can be lost over time. The exercise at the beginning of the methodology is
whether 3D printing services can diversify the existing service portfolio considering the
technological development. The first step is to get an overview of the status quo of the current
service portfolio in order to ensure a systematic development process based on the current
status. It must be clarified which services are currently being offered. Are they core services
or value-added services? On the basis of the current status, the service portfolio needs to be
fully identified, structured and subjected to an evaluation regarding the strategic importance
for the company. Depending on the overview of current services, synergy potential becomes
clear and correlations of individual services also show the correlations of a company’s service
portfolio all in all. The outcome of the analysis of the current service portfolio provides a first
impression of the level of service competence in the company.
An analysis of the sales markets in step 1.2 includes, on the one hand, an analysis of the
three functions (service development, service delivery and service distribution) which form
the service business, and, on the other hand, the two sales markets in which the logistics
service provider operates. Even if the analysis of the product market initially seems to be of
minor importance from the perspective of a logistics service provider, 3D printing services
can be offered complementary to physical products or the logistics service provider becomes
a service offering manufacturer by the implementation of 3D printing technology. If the
logistics service provider may already be working as a manufacturer it is much easier to
analyze the product and the service market.
By taking the view of consumers, volume, quality and seasonality need to be determined
(Seiter, 2016). The aim of step 1.2 is to analyze sales markets in as much detail as possible in
order to lay the foundation for profitable corporate activities in a future-oriented manner. For
the functions forming the service business, Seiter (2016) relies on the respective analysis of
resources and control elements. For the sake of completeness, the function of service
distribution is taken up in the context of this paper, even though the functions of service
development and service delivery represent the focus of the methodology. When assessing
the allocatable resources, it is important to analyze the capacity and quality of employees.
External resources supplementing the service business must also be assessed quantitatively
and qualitatively.
The technological maturity of 3D printing got a central meaning in the modified
performance- market-analysis. It is assumed an increasing performance of 3D printing
technology allows to print much more physical products economically and more 3D printing
services can be offered in order to diversify the service portfolio of a logistics service provider.
The implementation of 3D printing (already in the service development) is likely to have a
significant impact on the three functions making up the service business. This assumption
needs to be checked within the next steps. In the step of service development it is important to
identify 3D printing services that can be offered to complement the existing service portfolio.
Eliminating existing services is explicitly not a task of the methodology.
In step 1.3, the focus is on capturing the technological progress of 3D printing, so that a
dynamic technology matrix (D1-model) is the outcome. The performance of 3D printing
technology is of central importance for the expansion of a business division with 3D printing Implementation
services. In order to get an initial assessment of whether 3D printing could expand the of 3D printing
existing service portfolio, so that adjustments are strategically useful, it is necessary to
determine the relevance for the future. Adopted scenarios about changes in companies
positioning within the value chain have an impact on the service portfolio. Scenarios show
that a misadaption of the service portfolio due to technological changes may result in
decreasing sales volume or the logistics service provider may become superfluous within the
value chain. Scenarios can be created and used as an input for determining the probability of
occurrence. It tends to be recommended that three to five scenarios are developed or
addressed including a best-case and a worst-case scenario (Wulf et al., 2010). Best case means
a very promising future projection occurs, whereas the worst case scenario shows the worst
future projection.
The performance of the 3D printing technology depends on parameters referred to below
as key factors significantly influencing the scope of application of 3D printing and thus also
the position of the logistics service provider within the value chain. The more advanced the
key factors are developed, the broader the fields of application of 3D printing become and the
more changes occur, for example, in the traditional value chain. The key factors need to be
identified, if necessary with the help of 3D printing experts when applying the methodology.
Designed scenarios can be assessed for positioning across the value chain with a likelihood of
occurrence. Regarding the strategic orientation of the service portfolio, positions of a logistics
service provider can also be analyzed, which from today’s perspective are rather unlikely. For
further service development, it is advisable to focus on the occurrence of one specific scenario.
In the present example, scenario 3 is the most likely scenario among the assumed
developments of the key factors of 3D printing with 81% (cf. Figure 3).
In order to determine the strength of impact made by different projections of the key
factors on existing services, a five-stage rating scale is used to assess the influence of the
corresponding state of development of the key factor on the existing services. If the ratings
are less than zero, the projection of the key factor is disadvantageous for the existing services
and vice versa.
Using a technology matrix (cf. Figure 3), five scenarios can be used to simulate the impact
of services currently offered when the respective scenario occurs. A service portfolio
subjecting to high impacts with a high probability of a scenario must be selected for the

Figure 3.
Exemplary outcome of
the technology matrix
considering the impact
of scenarios on existing
services as a decision
support for logistics
managers
IJLM strategy development in the next step. A service portfolio classified in the area of the question
mark should be critically included in the further strategy development. In the area of less
importance, i.e. where the probability of occurrence and the effects of 3D printing for existing
services are low, further processing within the methodology should initially be avoided.
With the knowledge of how the current service portfolio could be influenced by 3D
printing-i.e. 3D printing represents an opportunity to change services in a business division-
the next step can be taken. If it turns out the likelihood of occurrence from the analyzed
scenarios and the impact on existing services is low, the service portfolio should initially
remain unchanged and the technological development of 3D printing should be observed, so
previous steps should be checked again at regular, temporary intervals.
Building on the determined impact of 3D printing on existing services, the central question is
answered in step 1.4 by the strategy to be pursued by offering 3D printing services. Without a
strategic thrust (D2-model) there is no basis for decision making as a guideline for further procedural
steps. It has been proven to determine the strategic thrust of a company to be based on a company
level and a business unit level (Seiter, 2016). At company level, the strengths and weaknesses to be
determined (company analysis) and the opportunities and risks to be identified (environmental
analysis) show how one’s own resources can be used promisingly and which market potentials exist
that are not (yet) tapped with currently allocatable resources. As an outcome of step 1.4, there is a
strategic thrust corresponding to the environment of the analyzed company, the knowledge of the
identified sales markets and the impact of 3D printing on existing services.
3.2.2 Stage 2. Analyzing stage. If 3D printing is classified as suitable for the strategic
thrust, appropriate 3D printing services must be generated in step 2.1 and their potential has
to be determined. 3D printing services are generated for the scenario with the highest
likelihood of occurrence. By generating 3D printing services, the focus is on services
expanding existing services of a logistics service provider. In this context, the benefits of the
modified service portfolio should be much bigger than the total amount of benefits generated
for individual services. At this point it should be pointed out, it is not the task of the
methodology to check the existing service portfolio for a removal of existing services.
Regardless of the methodological tools used to generate ideas for 3D printing services, it
should be referred the generation of ideas is fundamentally based on personnel suggestions,
such as suggestions from employees, customers, suppliers and cooperation partners or
subject-related suggestions such as publications, research institutions, trade fairs, congresses
and patent specifications (Burr and Stephan, 2006). With the most likely scenario, in the
present case scenario 3 with a likelihood of 81%, the future relevance of the 3D printing
services can be determined as a central criterion. The future relevance serves as an input for
determining the attractiveness of a service. With the outcome to be achieved as a potential
portfolio (D3-model), the generated 3D printing services are prepared for the most likely
scenario so the attractiveness and accessibility of the 3D printing services are evident.
Criteria for evaluating the accessibility of a 3D printing service are time and financial
expenditure, based on the current position of the logistics service provider, in order to offer
the corresponding 3D printing services. The assessment of time and financial expenditure is
equally balanced in the assessment of accessibility. Regarding the attractiveness of 3D
printing services, an evaluation to the indicators revenue potential of the service, competitive
intensity, multiplicability, compatibility with current resources and future relevance is
recommended. In general, it can be assumed the higher the attractiveness of a 3D printing
service and the easier to implement for a logistics service provider, the higher the potential for
success. In principle, there is a conflict of aims between extremely difficult accessibility on the
one hand and high attractiveness on the other hand. It is important to select those 3D printing
services for further processing, having a high potential for a logistics service provider. 3D
printing services with medium success potential have to be examined more closely and
3D printing services with low success potential have to be rejected. Ideally, the generated 3D
printing services access the existing competences of the logistics service provider and Implementation
support the existing service portfolio in such a way that synergy potentials arise. of 3D printing
In step 2.2, an extension list (D4-model) has to be created as a shell model. The extension
list consists of these 3D printing services, which-according to the potential portfolio-have a
high or medium potential for success. In the middle of the shell model there is the central
service idea, which complies with the strategic thrust and the outcome of the analysis of the
sales markets, as well as a bundling of the generated ideas. The currently offered services and
the generated 3D printing services are assigned to the shells matching the central service
idea. It should be emphasized, several key service ideas can also be taken up and pursued
later. On the inner shell there are optional services which means they are an integral part of
the service idea. These services that can be used are allocated on the outer shell. The
distinction between non 3D printing services symbolized as triangles and 3D printing
services symbolized as quadrilaterals makes it easy to visualize in which areas there are
extension options and potential synergies between the services. The extension list can also be
displayed using other graphical notes. The preparation as a satellite or molecular model is
although conceivable. Accessibility to offer the services as a logistics service provider should
initially be of secondary importance, as stage III deals with allocatable resources.
3.2.3 Stage 3. Conception stage. Regarding the design of the service process, it should be
noted that step 3.1 is divided into three separate tasks which do not necessarily have to be
carried out in the order listed but are also skipped or can take place in parallel. Depending on
the central service idea, this complies with the principle of efficient service development
(Daugherty et al., 2011). The first task in step 3.1 is the combination of existing services with
promising 3D printing services from the extension list in a service plan (D5-model), so
interfaces with external players are getting visible. External players are, for example, service
providers such as service technicians or software companies being involved in the service
delivery. It is advisable to create a service blueprint of the current process as a starting point
for creating the future value chain. By using a service blueprint, the necessary activities for
the service delivery are visualized and listed in relation to the customer’s perception. New
services can be designed or existing services can be optimized with this tool. By dividing a
process into individual actions, the inefficient sources can be identified and avoided in the
further process design. In terms of lean management, a process is considered efficient if
wasting of any kind is avoided (Seiter, 2016). With a service blueprint for measuring the
current status, a service plan can be drawn up and thus is the basis for designing the intended
service process. A service plan in a value chain is characterized by a process being triggered
by an activity of the customer and also ends with an activity of the customer. Individual
activities are listed chronologically, so a logical sequence is created. In addition, the
arrangement of activities in the respective area of influence shows in whose area of
responsibility the activity is carried out. Different alternatives of the service delivery can also
be included in a value chain being designed in dependence to the technological performance
of 3D printing. In principle, changes in the value chain can be made best, where the process
steps can be carried out independently of other players.
With the second task in step 3.1, the required infrastructure for the service delivery of the
generated idea has to be determined. The required resources (personnel, material and
equipment, as well as land area) can either be determined on the basis of the created value
chain or, in the case of non-existent interfaces with non-company players, determined using
the internal process flow. The aim of this step is to create an infrastructure plan. If several
alternatives of the service delivery are conceivable, several infrastructure plans can also be
drawn up.
The third part of step 3.1 focuses on plannings of cooperations. The starting point of the
step is at least one idea of a 3D printing service has been selected and broken down regarding
the required infrastructure. Up to this point, the costs for carrying out the service activities
IJLM are quantified. The question to be answered now is whether the logistics service provider
carries out the service activities itself, i.e. what real net output ratio is intended, and to what
extent collaborations with other players will be entered. According to the service plan of the
first part of step 3.1, different cases can be designed (D6-model: Service interaction
alternatives). Every designed case differentiates the respective subject of cooperation. It is
conceivable the delivery of the complete service is carried out by an external player,
individual service activities within the service are outsourced or individual types of capacity
are sourced externally. It tends to be advisable not to include those services, service activities
or capacities in a cooperation that got a major contribution to the strategy implementation
and that can be carried out at lower costs. In principle, cooperations always involves costs. A
concrete breakdown can be made according to the costs of the initiation, operating phase and
cancellation. Before the designed decision support is used for the operational review, the
strategic importance of the potential cooperation object should always be checked on a case-
by-case basis. A graphical support, whether cooperations with external players are a
possibility for offering 3D printing services or to reduce costs in the implementation of 3D
printing services, successfully completes this step.
In step 3.2, the interactions of the service delivery are used to build on and a transition is
made directly to determining the employee competences of the logistics service provider for a
smooth and high-quality service delivery. The outcome of this step is a competence portfolio
(D7-model) serving as a basis for the personnel management. For the assessment of the
required competences of the service activities being in the area of responsibility, the key skills
and key resources to perform the service activity have to be identified. Competences required
to perform the service activities are derived from a bundling of the key skills with the key
resources. Subsequently, both the key skills and resources must be assessed regarding the
strategic competence relevance and competence position in the company. It has to be
assessed which competences should be built up within the company (Make) and which should
be acquired externally through the acquisition of companies (M&A) or by a purchase of
suppliers (Buy). At this point, the development of skills needs to be considered for these
service activities that are not passed on to cooperation partners.
In the last step of the conceptual phase, step 3.3, a service concept (D8-model) is the
required outcome. The outcome of the previous stages are brought together in the conceptual
phase. The decision made by the logistics service provider in the beginning of the
methodology expanding services by 3D printing is also associated with entrepreneurial risks.
It is important to minimize risks if possible. By determining a transformation path bundling
previous outcome and showing a long-term, strategic thrust of the company, it can be clearly
determined which contribution the generated services have on sales, profits and to customer
acquisition and retention. For example, a transformation from a pure service provider to a
producing service provider to a service providing producer can be intended. Service
development is a holistic design framework for a successful management of the services
offered. The design parameters of the strategy, service program, organizational design and
leadership behavior are combined to create competitive advantages (Beyer, 2007). The
frequently discussed quality of service delivery and the constant adaptation to new
technologies and their integration into the company are necessary for the sustainable
generation of competitive advantages. As the transformation path continues, a logistics
service provider has the opportunity to actively shape the market and may become the
market leader if the company intends to changes due to disruptive technologies.
3.2.4 Stage 4. Preparation. The preparation of the service concept in stage 4 can be done if
there is a promising service concept. An implementation plan as the outcome of this step
serves the targeted implementation of the designed service concept. Project management
tools can be used to ensure timely implementation. From the previous step, it becomes clear
whether additional potentials are required. These can be built from existing or new resources
in order to be able to implement the planned service concept. A target-performance Implementation
comparison can be used to check resources and checkboxes are suggested to be used for of 3D printing
fulfillment. Planning ends with the in-house communication but also with the communication
of all involved players for the intended service delivery. At this point, there should not be any
questions unanswered and all responsibilities should be clarified.
3.2.5 Stage 5. Testing. In the fifth stage, the test phase, the developed service concept is
tested. The aim of this step is to generate a success report to show whether the diversification
of the service portfolio is satisfactory. The diversification in the methodology for the
development of 3D printing services is defined as “output-related in the sense of the
heterogeneity of the service portfolio” (Ansoff, 1988). In this context, measurable quantities
represent, for example, the quantity of markets or the quantity of industries in which the
logistics service provider operates (Beyer, 2007). With regard to the present paper, however,
the expansion of the range of services for new markets and business areas also provides an
opportunity to measure the degree of diversification. It is recommended, to gradually increase
the intended degree of diversification of the range of services in order to minimize associated
risks when entering new markets and business areas.
In addition, a success report should be used as an important performance indicator. Key
performance indicators reflect the promise of performance (Seiter, 2016). According to the
service functions illustrated in step 1, performance indicators can be applied specifically to
the development, delivery or distribution of 3D printing services. Because the methodology
focuses on service engineering, both the first are explained in the following paragraphs. Due
to the fact the primary goal of service engineering is the development of new services or the
advance of existing services, developed services can be seen as a reference point for
performance indicators of service development. Whether the intended quality of services is
given, can be determined either by the employees in service sales and service delivery,
because only high-quality services can be successfully sold and implemented. However,
customers of the service can be asked about the satisfaction of the service development.
Likewise, the sales achieved with a specific service are limited by the meaningfulness, since
target settings are specified by the management. A performance indicator with a temporal
component is the throughput time from the beginning of the service development to the point
in time when the service is sold (Seiter, 2016). The basis for a performance indicator of service
delivery is formed by the service plan drawn up, together with the interactions with other
players from step 3.1. The disposability can be measured for the resources shown there. It is
recommended individual indicators are defined for each type of resource and
interdependencies between individual resources are also taken into account. The lead,
waiting or delivery time are examples for performance indicators to recording the
chronological sequence of activities in a value chain. In this case, it is important to define
these indicators from the customer’s point of view. In addition, performance indicators can
also be used to check the guaranteed service levels for customers. Indicators to check the level
agreed with the customer, can include the speed of response to inquiries, the waiting time for
service delivery, the duration of the service delivery, the service delivery at an agreed point in
time, or content-related dimensions of what the service is intended to achieve. The level of
performance, which is not contractually agreed with the customer, but is still expected, can be
checked by the flexibility in dealing with customer requirements or an appealing appearance
of service technicians. Sales or the number of existing customers can be used by measuring
performance indicators of the service delivery from the company’s perspective (Seiter, 2016).

4. Conclusions
Regarding 3D printing, the analyzed activities of logistics service providers show they
have recognized the urgency of implementing new technologies into their service
portfolio. With 3D printing, as a characteristic example of a disruptive technology, which
IJLM was used in the developed methodology, it is possible for logistics managers to identify
the disruption potential of 3D printing in relation to the service portfolio of a logistics
service provider. In addition, the requirements for the approach and for using placed on
the methodology by a case study with a global logistics service provider can all be
verified as fulfilled. In the case study it could be shown 3D printing is most likely (81%) to
be performed by the logistics service provider. From the status quo of the current service
portfolio, logistics managers are given decision support through step-by-step
instructions of how 3D printing services can be developed and clearly defines
instructions to be done and outcome in every stage to be achieved. In case of the
benchmark company, fourteen 3D printing services were developed, whereby 3D printing
is seen as an opportunity and a possibility to modify the services offered. In addition, the
methodology diversifies the service portfolio of the logistics service provider according to
an individually desired level. An important element of the designed methodology is the
methodical toolbox. It supports the logistics manager in decision making with a
maximum five-step schedule from the assessment of the project situation through the
analysis, selection and adaptation of methods to the implementation of a task-appropriate
tool. As shown in the case study, the methodical toolbox is unsuitable for beginners, if
they do not work with methodical experts. Advanced and method experts, however, are
provided with a guiding framework specifying options for action, but still allows creative
scope. The toolbox as well as the methodology are more to be understood as a guideline
not only focusing on the “right” outcome, but rather as support in the decision making
process with alternatives. The successful application of the methodology in the
benchmark company shows that the decision making process is positively influenced
by logistics managers and thus simplifies an ever more demanding day-to-day work.
Depending on the first stream of decision making, the implementation of 3D printing to
the service portfolio influences the decision of a logistics manager in the case study on
make to order decisions. The decision depends on the maturity of 3D printing and of
course on the product to be printed. The results of the case study by the benchmark
company have shown the developed methodology can be used as a decision support for
the modification of the service portfolio in the spare parts business for different future
scenarios depending on the technological development of 3D printing. By taking into
account the most likely scenario within the methodology, the distance of spare parts to be
transported reduces as well as the carbon dioxide which gets into the environment. For
logistics management, this means a shift from worldwide production to decentralized
production facilities regarding spare parts. If the implications of such a shift can also be
transferred to other goods and thus the redistribution of production and distribution
facilities is required to be clarified in further research. The identified gap in theory in the
form of a suitable methodology for the development of technology-based services and the
need to modify the service portfolio in the business of a logistics service provider being
influenced by the implications of different technologies could thus be closed in the present
case. For teaching and research, the results demonstrate not only physical products can
be developed and are subject to the influence of technologies but also services. In addition
to the operational logistics management of products, in the future there should be a focus
on the strategic corporate orientation regarding the influence of technologies.
However, it seems to be clear the methodology as a paper-based tool can be made
more efficient. Despite, the service-representing product models, which ensure a
good understanding by graphic preparations, the implementation of the
methodology should be increased by software in its efficiency. Further research
should also be carried out on the generalizability of the methodology. It would be of
interest, whether other disruptive technologies or other user groups instead of
logistics managers, also produce meaningful outcomes as a practical verification Implementation
of the methodology. of 3D printing
References
Abdul-Jalbar, B., Gutierrez, J., Puerto, J. and Sicilia, J. (2003), “Policies for inventory/distribution
systems: the effect of centralization vs. decentralization”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 81, pp. 281-293.
Ansoff, H. (1988), The New Corporate Strategy, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Becker, M. and Klingner, S. (2017), “Konzepte zur kundenspezifischen Anpassung von
Dienstleistungen (Concepts for the customization of services)”, in Thomas, O., N€ uttgens, M.
and Krechting, D. (Eds), Smart Service Engineering: Konzepte und Anwendungsszenarien f€ ur die
digitale Transformation (Smart Service Engineering: Concepts and scenarios of application for a
digital transformation), Springer, Wiesbaden, pp. 2-28.
Beyer, M. (2007), Servicediversifikation in Industrieunternehmen-Kompetenztheoretische Untersuchung
der Determinanten nachhaltiger Wettbewerbsvorteile (Service diversification in industrial
companies-Competency based analysis of determinants for sustainable competitive advantages),
Deutscher Universit€ats-Verlag, Wiesbaden.
Bullinger, H. and Schreiner, P. (2006), “Service Engineering: Ein Rahmenkonzept f€
ur die systematische
Entwicklung von Dienstleistungen (Service engineering: a framework for the systematic
development of services)”, in Bullinger, H.J. and Scheer, A.W. (Eds), Service Engineering-
Entwicklung und Gestaltung innovativer Dienstleistungen (Service engineering-Development and
design of innovative services), Springer, Berlin et al, pp. 53-84.
Bullinger, H.J., F€ahnrich, K.P. and Meiren, T. (2003), “Service engineering – methodical development of
new service products”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 85 No. 3,
pp. 275-287.
Burr, W. and Stephan, M. (2006), Dienstleistungsmanagement-Innovative Wertsch€opfungskonzepte im
Dienstleistungssektor (Service management-Innovative value creation concepts in the service
sector), Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart.
Busse, C. and Wagner, S.M. (2008), “An audit tool for innovation processes of logistics service
providers”, in Wagner, S.M. (Ed.), Managing Innovation-the New Competitive Edge for Logistics
Service Providers, Haupt, Bern, Stuttgart, Wien, pp. 107-134.
Camerin, M. (2017), Mit Dienstleistungen wachsen-Wie Sie mit der 5-Schritte-Methodik die
Wettbewerbsposition Ihres Unternehmens sp€
urbar verbessern (Growing with services-How you
can noticeably improve your company’s competitive position with the 5-step methodology),
Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.
Carey, N. (2016), “Sensing threat, UPS plans to expand ist 3D printing operations”, available at: https://
www.reuters.com/article/us-united-parcel-3dprint/sensing-threat-ups-plans-to-expand-its-3d-
printing-operations-idUSKCN11M2AL (accessed 28 January 2020).
Danneels, E. (2004), “Disruptive technology reconsidered. A critique and research agenda”, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 246-258.
€
Dauchert, H. and Cuntz, A. (2017), “Okonomische Potenziale des industriellen 3D-Drucks f€ ur
Produktion und Innoation (Economic potentials of industrial 3D printing for production and
innovation)”, in Leupold, A. and Glossner, S. (Eds), 3D Printing-Recht, Wirtschaft und Technik
des industriellen 3D-Drucks (3D Printing-Law, economy and technology of industrial 3D
printing), M€unchen, C.H. Beck oHG, pp. 54-75.
Daugherty, P.J., Chen, H. and Ferrin, B.G. (2011), “Organizational structure and logistics service
innovation”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 26-51.
DIN EN ISO 9000:2015-11 (2015), DIN EN ISO 9000, Qualit€ atsmanagementsysteme: Grundlagen und
Begriffe (Quality management systems: basics and terms), Beuth, Berlin.
IJLM DIN (2008), PAS 1082 – Standardisierter Prozess zur Entwicklung industrieller Dienstleistungen in
Netzwerken (Standardized process fort he development of industrial services in networks), Beuth,
Berlin.
Edvardsson, B. and Olsson, J. (1996), “Key concepts for new service development”, The Service
Inudustries Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 140-164.
Evangelista, P. and Sweeney, E. (2006), “Technology usage in the supply chain: the case of small
3PLs”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 55-74.
Flowers, A.D., Cort, S.G., Artman, L.B. and Ballou, R.H. (2008), “A focused innovation model for
logistics service providers”, in Wagner, S.M. (Ed.), Managing Innovation-the New Competitive
Edge for Logistics Service Providers, Haupt, Bern, Stuttgart, Wien, pp. 79-106.
Forbes Insights (2018), Logistics 4.0: How IoT Is Transforming the Supply Chain, Forbes, available at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insights-inteliot/2018/06/14/logistics-4-0-how-iot-is-transforming-
the-supply-chain/#286167a9880f (accessed 21 January 2020).
Freitag, M. (2014), Konfigurierbares Vorgehensmodell f€ ur die exportorientierte Entwicklung von
technischen Dienstleistungen (Configurable process model for the export-oriented development of
technical services), Fraunhofer Verlag, Stuttgart.
Gibson, I., Rosen, D. and Stucker, B. (2009), Additive Manufacturing Technologies: Rapid Prototyping
to Direct Digital Manufacturing, Springer, Berlin.
Grawe, S.J. (2009), “Logistics innovation: a literature-based conceptual framework”, The International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 360-377.
Jaschinski, C. (1998), Qualit€
atsorientiertes Redesign von Dienstleistungen (Quality-oriented redesign of
services), Shaker Verlag, Aachen.
Jimo, A., Braziotis, C., Rogers, H. and Pawar, K. (2019), “Traditional vs additive manufacturing supply
chain configurations: a comparative case study”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 39 No. 2019,
pp. 765-774.
uller, A., Wienken, R., Kilger, C. and Krauss, D. (2019), “3D printing:
Karevska, S., Steinberg, G., M€
hype or game changer?-A global EY report 2019. EYGM Limited”, available at: https://www.ey.
com/de_de/news/2019/10/deutsche-unternehmen-buessen-vorreiterrolle-bei-3d-druck-ein
(accessed 08 April 2020).
Karevska, S. (2019), “EY’s global printing report 2019. Ernst & Young GmbH”, available at: https://
www.ey.com/de_de/news/2019/10/deutsche-unternehmen-buessen-vorreiterrolle-bei-3d-druck-
ein (accessed 08 April 2020).
Kersten, W., Kern, E.-M. and Zink, T. (2006), “Collaborative service engineering”, in Bullinger, H.-J. and
Scheer, A.-W. (Eds), Service Engineering-Entwicklung und Gestaltung innovativer
Dienstleistungen (Service engineering-Development and design of innovative services), Springer,
Berlin, pp. 351-369.
Koller, R. (1994), Konstruktionslehre f€ ur den Maschinenbau. Grundlagen zur Neu- und
Weiterentwicklung technischer Produkte mit Beispielen (Design for mechanical engineering.
Basics for new and further development of technical products with examples), 3rd ed., Springer,
Berlin.
Kruth, J., Leu, M. and Nakagawa, T. (1998), “Progress in additive manufacturing and rapid
prototyping”, CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 525-540.
Leimeister, J.M. (2012), Dienstleistungsengineering und –management (Service engineering and
management), Springer, Berlin.
Maglio, P.P., Srinivasan, S., Kreulen, J. and Spohrer, J. (2006), “Service systems, service scientists,
SSME, and innovation”, Communications of the ACM-Services science, Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 81-85.
Meiren, T. (2001), “Entwicklung von Dienstleistungen unter besonderer Ber€
ucksichtigung von Human
Ressources (Development of services considering human resources)”, in Bullinger, H.-J. (Ed.),
Entwicklung und Gestaltung innovativer Dienstleistungen (Development and design of innovative
services), Tagungsband zur Service Engineering 2001, Stuttgart.
Meyer, K. and B€ottcher, M. (2011), Entwicklungspfad Service Engineering 2.0: Neue Perspektiven f€
ur die Implementation
Dienstleistungsentwicklung (Development path of Service Engineering 2.0: New perspectives for
service development), Leipziger Beitr€age zur Informatik: Band XXIX, Leipzig. of 3D printing
uller, A. and Karevska, S. (2016), “How will 3D printing make your company the strongest link in
M€
the value chain?-EY’s Global 3D printing Report 2016”, available at: https://www.eycomstg.ey.
com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-3d-druck-studie-executive-summary/$FILE/ey-how-will-3d-
printing-make-your-company-the-strongest-link-in-the-value-chain.pdf (accessed 21
January 2020).
Pfeifer, M. and Niemann, P. (2015), “Wie der 3D-Druck M€arkte ver€andert (How 3D printing is
changing markets)”, available at: https://www.digital-engineering-magazin.de/fachartikel/wie-
der-3d-druck-maerkte-veraendert (accessed 27 December 2018).
Pflaum, A. and Krupp, M. (2009), Entwicklung einer Vorgehensweise f€
ur das Engineering Smart Object-
€ berlegungen zu Design-Flow, Design-Fragen und methodischer
basierter Dienstleistungen: U
Unterst€utzung bei der Entwicklung hybrider Produkte im Smart Object-Umfeld [Development of
a Process for the Engineering of Smart Object-Based Services: Considerations Regarding
Design Flow, Design Questions and Methodical Support in the Development of Hybrid
Products in a Smart-Object Environment], Fraunhofer IIS, Erlangen.
Pfohl, H.-C., Frunzke, H. and K€ohler, H. (2007), “Grundlagen f€
ur ein Innovationsmanagement in der
Logistik (Basis for innovation management in logistics)”, in Pfohl, H.-C. (Ed.),
Innovationsmanagement in der Logistik (Innovation management in logistics), Hamburg, Dt,
Verkehrs-Verlag, pp. 16-93.
Preiß, H. (2014), Service Engineering in der Logistik: die systematische Entwicklung von AIDC-
technologiebasierten Mehrwertdienstleistungen (Service engineering in logistics: The systematic
development of AIDC technology-based value-added services), Fraunhofer-Verlag, Stuttgart.
Ramaswamy, R. (1996), Design and Management of Service Processes-Keeping Customers for Life.
Reading et al, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Boston.
Roth, K. (1994), Konstruieren mit Konstruktionskatalogen (Designing with design catalogs), 2nd ed.,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Scheuing, E. and Johnson, E. (1989), “A proposed model for new service development”, The Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 25-34.
Seiter, M. (2016), Industrielle Dienstleistungen-Wie produzierende Unternehmen ihr
Dienstleistungsgesch€
aft aufbauen und steuern (Industrial services-How manufacturing
companies build and manage their service business), 2nd ed., Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.
Senderek, R., Ragab, S., Stratmann, L. and Krechting, D. (2019), “Smart service engineering”, in Stich,
V., Schumann, J., Beverungen, D., Gudergan, G. and Jussen, P. (Eds), Digitale
Dienstleistungsinnovationen-Smart Services agil und kundenorientiert entwickeln (Digital
service innovations-Develop smart services in an agile and customer-oriented manner),
Springer Vieweg, Berlin, pp. 3-16.
Shostack, G. and Kingman-Brundage, J. (1991), “How to design a service”, in Congram, C. and
Friedman, M. (Eds), The AMA Handbook of Marketing for the Service Industries, AMACOM,
New York, pp. 243-261.
Soman, C.A., Van Donk, D.P. and Gaalman, G. (2004), “Combined make-to-order and make-to-stock in
a food production system”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 90 No. 2,
pp. 223-235.
Sommerville, I. (1995), Software Engineering, 5th ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading.
Spiegel, T.U. (2016), Technologieorientiertes Service Engineering in der Kontraktlogistik – Konzeption
eines Gestaltungsmodells f€ ur die systematische Entwicklung technologiebasierter
Logistikdienstleistungen (Technology-oriented service engineering in contract logistics-
Conception of a design model for the systematic development of technology-based logistics
services), Universit€atsverlag, Berlin.
IJLM Thomas, O., Kammler, F., Zobel, B., Sossna, D. and Zarvic, N. (2016), “Supply Chain 4.0: revolution in
der Logistik durch 3D-Druck (Supply Chain 4.0: revolution in logistics through 3D printing)”, in
IMþio Fachzeitschrift f€ ur Innovation, Organisation und Management, imc information
multimedia communication AG, pp. 58-63.
Thomas, O., N€
uttgens, M. and Krechting, D. (Eds) (2017), Smart Service Engineering: Konzepte und
Anwendungsszenarien f€ ur die digitale Transformation (Smart Service Engineering: Concepts
and scenarios of application for a digital transformation), Springer, Wiesbaden.
Van Donk, D.P. (2001), “Make to stock or make to order: the decoupling point in the food processing
industries”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 297-306.
Walters, D. (1999), “The implications of shareholder value planning and management for logistics decision
making”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 240-258.
Wanke, P.F. and Zinn, W. (2004), “Strategic logistics decision making”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 466-478.
Wright, I.C. (1998), Design Methods in Engineering and Product Design, Mc Graw-Hill, New York.
Wulf, T., Meißner, P. and Stubner, S. (2010), A Scenario-Based Approach to Strategic Planning-
Integrating Planning and Process Perspective of Strategy, Chair of Strategic Management and
Organization, Leipzig, Working Paper No. 6.
Zahn, E. and Stanik, M. (2006), “Integrierte Entwicklung von Dienstleistungen und Netzwerken-
Dienstleistungskooperationen als strategischer Erfolgsfaktor (Integrated development of
services and networks-service cooperation as a strategic success factor)”, in Bullinger, H.-J.
and Scheer, A.-W. (Eds), Service Engineering-Entwicklung und Gestaltung innovativer
Dienstleistungen (Service engineering-Development and design of innovative services), Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 299-319.
Zhou, G.H. and Wang, X.Q. (2012), “The research on the process of new service development in
logistics enterprises”, International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, Vol. 10
Nos 3/4, pp. 334-345.

Further reading
Bullinger, H.-J. and Scheer, A.-W. (Eds), (2006), Service Engineering-Entwicklung und Gestaltung
innovativer Dienstleistungen (Service engineering-Development and design of innovative services),
Springer, Berlin.
Leupold, A. and Glossner, S. (Eds), (2017), 3D Printing-Recht, Wirtschaft und Technik des industriellen
3D-Drucks (3D Printing-Law, economy and technology of industrial 3D printing), M€ unchen, C.H.
Beck oHG.
Pfohl, H.-C. (Ed.), (2007), Innovationsmanagement in der Logistik: Gestaltungsans€atze und praktische
Umsetzung (Innovation management in logistics: Design approaches and practical
implementation), Verkehrs-Verlag, Hamburg, Dt.
Stich, V., Schumann, J., Beverungen, D., Gudergan, G. and Jussen, P. (Eds), (2019), Digitale
Dienstleistungsinnovationen-Smart Services agil und kundenorientiert entwickeln (Digital service
innovations-Develop smart services in an agile and customer-oriented manner), Springer Vieweg,
Berlin.
Wagner, S.M. (Ed.), (2008), Managing Innovation-the New Competitive Edge for Logistics Service
Providers, Haupt, Bern, Stuttgart, Wien.

Corresponding author
Stefan Hecker can be contacted at: hecker.stefan@web.de

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com