Computers in Industry 138 (2022) 103625

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Industry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compind

Smart already at design time – Pattern-based smart service innovation in

manufacturing ]]
]]]]]]
]]

⁎,1
Martin Ebel , David Jaspert, Jens Poeppelbuss 2
Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Chair of Industrial Sales and Service Engineering, Universitätsstr. 150, 44801 Bochum, Germany

a r t i cl e i nfo a bstr ac t

Article history: Smart service innovation is the process of creating smart product-service systems (PSS) and novel data-
Received 29 March 2021 driven service offerings. It is particularly challenging for manufacturing firms as they have to cope with the
Received in revised form 14 January 2022 two transformational forces of digitalization and servitization at the same time, i.e., they have to both
Accepted 25 January 2022
evaluate the potential of digital technologies for creating new business opportunities and overthink es­
Available online xxxx
tablished business logics from transactional product sales towards relationship-oriented service and so­
lution business. To support the early phases of corresponding innovation processes already at the design
Keywords:
Smart product-service systems time of smart PSS, this article presents the Pattern-Based Smart Service Innovation (PBSSI) method. The
Service design method was developed following a design science research approach that involved a Delphi study for de­
Design science research riving value proposition patterns as one of its core elements and a multiple case study with manufacturing
Value proposition firms to demonstrate and evaluate the method’s utility for practitioners. The PBSSI method combines ex­
Patterns isting approaches to service design with newly developed and empirically grounded value proposition
patterns for smart service. Evaluation feedback indicates that the PBSSI method is useful for online work­
shops and that it effectively supports the exploration and ideation in smart service innovation. In particular,
it helps manufacturing firms to approach smart service innovation in a more customer-centric and sys­
tematic manner.
© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Digitalization and servitization are two transformational forces
that affect the manufacturing industry tremendously. On the one
hand, manufacturing firms can take advantage of digitalization
through Industry 4.0 technologies and the Industrial Internet of
Things (IIoT) for achieving improved levels of connectivity and au­
tonomy in their production systems within and across organiza­
tional boundaries. On the other hand, new business opportunities
emerge through the growing networking of things, machines, and
people. Data-driven services can complement product offerings or
transform the overall business logic of manufacturers towards cus­
tomer-centric service and solution business, which is reflected in the
notion of (digital) servitization (Baines and Lightfoot, 2014;
Kohtamäki et al., 2019; Paschou et al., 2020; Sklyar et al., 2019;
Tronvoll et al., 2020). By moving towards integrated bundles of
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: martin.ebel@isse.rub.de (M. Ebel),
david.jaspert@isse.rub.de (D. Jaspert), jens.poeppelbuss@isse.rub.de (J. Poeppelbuss).
1
ORCID: 0000-0003-2972-3897.
2 panies strive to add digital, so-called smart services to formerly
ORCID: 0000-0003-4960-7818.
products, services, and digital technologies, which are also sub­
sumed under the term smart product-service systems (PSS), manu­
facturers can differentiate themselves from competition by
optimizing their customers’ processes and foresee future events
through predictive data analytics (Chowdhury et al., 2018;
Kuhlenkötter et al., 2017; Pirola et al., 2020). The corresponding
value creation potential is expected to be massive in industrial
sectors, where a certain realization and exploitation of new value
propositions can already be seen (e.g., Parida et al., 2019).
One mistake that should be avoided in such a context is to realize
projects because they are technically feasible but lack added value
for the customer and do not resonate in their willingness to pay
(Porter and Heppelmann, 2014). The chairman from a German in­
dustry association recently made a similar statement: “Customer
value, that’s where it starts. The whole discussion we had about In­
dustry 4.0, meanwhile already 6 years ago, developed traction when we
discussed customer value and thus the customer becomes the
referee.”(Russwurm, 2021) To generate added value, new value pro­
positions must above all be characterized by a more substantial
service and solution orientation (Parida et al., 2019), while definitely
taking advantage of digital technologies, too. Consequently, com­

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2022.103625
0166-3615/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Ebel, D. Jaspert and J. Poeppelbuss
exclusively product-centric offerings or create complex PSS that
enable and promote novel service-oriented business models
(Weking et al., 2020).
The transition towards a digital and service-oriented business
model leads to challenges in industries that up to now have followed
a strong product-centric approach to innovation (Brunetti et al.,
2020; Nudurupati et al., 2016; Paiola and Gebauer, 2020). With
customer-centricity as a key attribute of new smart service offerings,
companies need to adapt their previous product-centric and tech­
nology-driven innovation processes and ways of thinking (Töytäri
et al., 2018). Studies indicate that existing research on smart service
does not sufficiently take the customer into account (Dreyer et al.,
2019). Additionally, there seems to be a lack of capabilities to
translate new technological possibilities into value-added offerings
(Klein et al., 2018). How to start such a transformational journey is
still a question to answer, too (Demirkan et al., 2015). In business
model innovation, patterns, understood as reusable design knowl­
edge, have drawn attention to support innovation journeys (Weking
et al., 2018). However, these patterns often remain abstract and
unspecific concerning smart service offerings as well as their usage
in customer-centric development approaches. With this in mind,
fellow researchers call for contributions that lead to more customer-
centric (smart) service innovation with approaches such as service
design (Ostrom et al., 2015; Patrício et al., 2018; Teixeira et al., 2019).
Therefore, the following research question guides this study: How to
assist product-centric companies in customer-centric smart service in­
novation with a pattern-based service design approach?
As an answer to this research question, this design science re­
search study develops two artifacts, which complement each other.
The two artifacts are a set of value proposition patterns for smart
service innovation and a method for customer-centric smart service
innovation. The rationale of using patterns is to support the method
users in becoming more effective and efficient in their smart service
innovation processes and, thus, also smart in some sense already at
the design time of smart PSS. The combination of patterns and
method is named the Pattern-Based Smart Service Innovation
(PBSSI) method.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows. Next,
Section 2 summarizes related work on smart service innovation and
service design, approaches for smart service innovation, as well as
patterns and taxonomies as forms of capturing existing design
knowledge that can be used in innovation processes. Subsequently,
Section 3 presents the research approach for developing the value
proposition patterns and the method. In Section 4, the patterns and
the method are presented in detail. Further information is also
provided about the activities undertaken to demonstrate and eval­
uate the results. The article closes with a discussion and conclusions
in Section 5.
2. Related works
2.1. Smart service innovation in manufacturing
The recent introduction of digital technologies is leading to
product and service advances of industrial firms (Ardolino et al.,
2018), which are increasingly developing smart products and smart
services. In this industrial context, smartness is attributed to services
and products that attempt to produce “useful results through ac­
tivities that apply automated capabilities and other physical, in­
formational, technical, and intellectual resources for processing
information, interpreting information, and/or learning from in­
formation […]” (Alter, 2020, p. 384). The extent of smartness can
vary within the four dimensions of information processing (e.g.,
capture, manipulate, display), performed actions (e.g., sensing, ac­
tuating, communicating), internal regulation procedures (e.g., self-
detection, self-diagnosis) and knowledge acquisition (e.g., compiling
2
Computers in Industry 138 (2022) 103625
or extrapolating) (Alter, 2020). As only a few systems and services
can be classified as extremely smart (Alter, 2020), smart services can
be understood as a continuum ranging from marginally to extremely
smart.
Smart service innovation describes the process of reconfiguring
resources, structures, and value co-creation processes in service
systems that result in novel data-driven service offerings (Anke
et al., 2020; Edvardsson and Tronvoll, 2013; Nambisan, 2015). It is a
particular kind of service innovation with smart service systems as
its context (Anke et al., 2020). Smart service systems connect things
and people, collect and process data, are capable of independent
learning, adaptation, and decision making, and thereby automate
and facilitate value co-creation in actor-to-actor networks
(Beverungen et al., 2019; Lim and Maglio, 2018; Boukhris and
Fritzsche, 2019). Smart products are usually considered fundamental
elements of smart service systems as they gather data and serve as
boundary objects between customers and providers (Beverungen
et al., 2019). Therefore, it is also common to speak of smart PSS to
describe integrated bundles of products and services where superior
functionality and connectivity can be achieved through the embed­
ding of digital technologies (Kuhlenkötter et al., 2017; Pirola et al.,
2020). Smart PSS rely on the collection and exchange of data along
the whole life cycle of the smart product in ecosystems with various
stakeholders (Kuhlenkötter et al., 2017). By processing the data into
information that is useful for stakeholders, innovative offerings and
business models can emerge (Baines and Lightfoot, 2014; Paschou
et al., 2020; Weking et al., 2020). Examples of such data-driven and
value-adding smart services are predictive maintenance, process
optimization, or outcome-based contracting (Herterich et al., 2016).
Opportunities for new smart service value propositions should be
managed strategically (Burmeister et al., 2016; Rabetino, 2017).
However, manufacturing companies with a product-centric mindset
face challenges (e.g., Gebauer et al., 2020; Klein et al., 2018; Töytäri
et al., 2018) when engaging in smart service innovation. It is likely
that they underestimate the changes caused when moving towards
smart services (Klein et al., 2018). It appears that companies know
too little about customer needs; focusing too much on technology-
oriented development (Gebauer et al., 2020) and “pushing out a
digital business model without understanding customer value”
(Linde et al., 2021, p. 46). Thus, novel solutions do not sufficiently
match customer expectations, and value propositions are only va­
guely formulated (Klein et al., 2018). However, defining value pro­
positions that meet customer needs and focus on “what customers
truly value” (Lindič and Marques da Silva, 2011, p. 1704) is of utmost
importance for successful service innovation (Skålén et al., 2015).
The value proposition therefore becomes a central concept in smart
service innovation. As a strategic tool, it facilitates the communica­
tion of “an organization’s ability to share resources and offer a su­
perior value package to targeted customers” (Payne et al., 2017, p.
472). To successfully formulate value propositions, it is necessary to
understand customer activities and underlying customer needs (e.g.,
Bettencourt et al., 2014; Bettencourt and Ulwick, 2008; Eggert et al.,
2019). Manufacturing firms need to change their approaches to­
wards more customer-centric and explorative service innovation,
with a clear focus on value propositions (Kohtamäki et al., 2020).
2.2. Approaches to Smart Service Innovation
Manufacturing firms perceive smart service innovation as a
process beset with uncertainty and complexity, which they manage
with iterative development approaches together with multiple other
actors (Poeppelbuss et al., 2021). Tools and methods from a wide
variety of domains, such as business model innovation or software
development, are typically used in practice (Anke et al., 2020). Re­
cent literature further shows that human-centered design and agile
approaches are perceived as particularly useful in smart service
M. Ebel, D. Jaspert and J. Poeppelbuss
innovation (Anke et al., 2020; Maglio and Lim, 2016; Neuhüttler
et al., 2017; Sjödin et al., 2020).
There are several academic articles that discuss how to structure
the smart service innovation process into phases and different levels
of abstraction from a service systems engineering perspective
(Beverungen et al., 2018; Böhmann et al., 2014; Höckmayr and Roth,
2017). Beverungen et al. (2018), for instance, conceptualize a process
for recombinant service systems engineering with the three phases
of service system analysis, design, and transformation, which are
connected with decision points that allow for iterations of phases.
The TRIGGER method by Höckmayr and Roth (2017) takes a multi­
level view, beginning with the analysis of stakeholder constellations
from a system of systems perspective to a more detailed activity
level. Other studies derive process models from case studies on di­
gital servitization. Sjödin et al., 2020, for instance, suggest an agile
co-creation process that follows the ideas of incremental invest­
ments, sprint-based micro-service development, and learning by
doing. Huikkola et al. (2021) discuss the need for integrating existing
development processes across the different domains of product,
service and software development in order to successfully manage
smart solution development.
Considering the complexity of smart service innovation, it is
discussed as to whether novel integrated and smart-service-specific
process models and innovation methods are needed, or whether
loosely coupled and easy-to-use method chunks are more appro­
priate (Anke et al., 2020; Beverungen et al., 2018). Evidence from
practice points to the latter, as loosely coupled and less complex
method fragments seem to be adapted more frequently (Anke et al.,
2020; Wolf et al., 2020). For example, simple tools from business
model innovation (e.g., value proposition design; Osterwalder et al.,
2014) are used and adapted for smart service innovation (Neuhüttler
et al., 2017; Poeppelbuss and Durst, 2019). There also appears to be
general agreement that agile principles and routines must be es­
tablished for smart service development that support continuous
adaptation and trial-and-error learning (Linde et al., 2021).
Service design can be considered as such an approach that sug­
gests using loosely coupled methods. With a plethora of tools
(Stickdorn et al., 2018), service design receives growing interest in
research (Ostrom et al., 2015; Patrício et al., 2018) and associated
tools are increasingly used for smart service innovation (Costa et al.,
2018; Solem et al., 2021). Service design is seen as an approach that
follows a holistic, human-centered, and iterative procedure for ser­
vice innovation (Mager and Sung, 2011; Patrício et al., 2018;
Stickdorn et al., 2018). One of its foundations is the design thinking
process (Patrício et al., 2018), which is usually structured along three
to six phases that are iteratively run through and supported by
various methods and tools (Stickdorn et al., 2018). Service design has
been used in various fields, such as technology-oriented service in­
novation (Teixeira et al., 2017) and value networks (Patrício et al.,
2018). Also, it has been successfully used in the context of trans­
formational endeavors like servitization, where product-oriented
companies try to achieve a stronger service and customer orienta­
tion (Costa et al., 2018; Iriarte et al., 2018). Even though service
design seems to address and solve some of the challenges that
manufacturing firms face in smart service innovation (Solem et al.,
2021), little research has been done to rigorously advance service
design methods and tools by embedding engineering or design sci­
ence perspectives (Teixeira et al., 2019).
2.3. Patterns and taxonomies as design knowledge
Patterns are understood as aggregated and abstracted design
knowledge based on experience or empirical observations
(Drechsler and Hevner, 2018). They are an established tool for ana­
logical reasoning in innovation tasks, e.g., using business model
patterns for idea generation in business model innovation
3
Computers in Industry 138 (2022) 103625
(Gassmann et al., 2014; Remane et al., 2017), or using design heur­
istics as stimulation in idea generation (Yilmaz et al., 2016). Patterns
deliver “insights into design problems, capturing the essence of recur­
ring problems and their solutions in a compact form” (Chung et al.,
2004, p. 233) and have already proven to be efficient and valuable for
systematic innovation (Bocken et al., 2014; Lüdeke‐Freund et al.,
2019; Mettler and Eurich, 2012). They offer working solutions that
are reusable for different problems (Leitner, 2015; Lüdeke‐Freund
et al., 2019). Patterns mirror the idea that innovations usually are a
recombination of existing solutions or elements (Beverungen et al.,
2018; Gassmann et al., 2014) and that concepts and fundamental
principles of existing solutions can be used for solving new problems
(Ahmed, 2005). The origins of using patterns in design tasks can be
found in architecture (Alexander, 1977) and product innovation
(Altshuller, 2002; Gassmann and Zeschky, 2008). Although the use of
existing solutions may lead to a so-called design fixation, in which
new solutions are too closely tied to existing concepts, the use of
analogies has been found to be beneficial for idea generation, i.e., in
terms of idea quality and novelty (Fu et al., 2011; Sio et al., 2015).
According to Amshoff et al. (2015), patterns can refer to different
levels of granularity. That is, patterns can, on the one hand, represent
complete frameworks with interconnected components. On the
other hand, they can describe similarities in specific components or
dimensions of a business model. The latter kind of patterns describe
“proven building blocks for designing business models” (Amshoff
et al., 2015, p. 6). Presented in different ways (Lüdeke‐Freund et al.,
2019), patterns exist for generic business models (Gassmann et al.,
2014), for the use of disruptive technologies (Amshoff et al., 2015),
and for business models in the context of Industry 4.0 (Weking et al.,
2020). Even if thematically close to this study’s field of investigation,
such patterns do not address the value propositions of smart ser­
vices in particular yet.
For the development of patterns, it can be helpful to use taxo­
nomies (Weking et al., 2020). Taxonomies aggregate important de­
sign knowledge by classifying information by a set of dimensions,
each consisting of further characteristics (Nickerson et al., 2013).
Looking into recent studies that have developed taxonomies relevant
to smart service innovation (e.g., Azkan et al., 2020; Dehnert et al.,
2021; Paukstadt et al., 2019) the value proposition is always con­
sidered a key dimension. But underlying characteristics of value
propositions, which would contain valuable insights for new service
development and analogical reasoning remain abstract, e.g., social
value, hedonic and functional value (Paukstadt et al., 2019). The
taxonomy of Azkan et al., (2020) only distinguishes four generic
characteristics in the dimension of “main value”: condition mon­
itoring, decision support, quality control, and predictive operations.
Furthermore, instructions for how to use such taxonomies in in­
novation processes remain unspecific. Taxonomies are described to
be useful for classification purposes (e.g., Dehnert et al., 2021), or
they are supposed to serve as a source of inspiration (e.g., Azkan
et al., 2020; Paukstadt et al., 2019; Weking et al., 2018), but such use
cases are not further elaborated on. Hence, there still seems to be a
lack of design knowledge with a focus on the value proposition to­
wards the customer as a key concept in smart service innovation, as
well as proper instructions on how to use and apply such knowledge
in innovation processes.
3. Research approach
3.1. Design science research process
The objective of this study was to build artifacts that assist
manufacturing firms in smart service innovation while considering
the particular challenges they face. This study followed an iterative
approach that builds on the design science research (DSR) process by
Peffers et al. (2007). DSR is considered as an appropriate and
M. Ebel, D. Jaspert and J. Poeppelbuss
Fig. 1. Research process.
rigorous approach to tackle the challenges of smart service innova­
tion in the manufacturing industry (Teixeira et al., 2019) through the
development of artifacts that affect organizational and personal
behaviors (Hevner et al., 2004). Different types of artifacts can arise
from DSR, which are commonly classified as constructs, models,
methods, and instantiations (March and Smith, 1995). These artifact
types are developed in a series of build and evaluation cycles
(Hevner et al., 2004), using a variety of research methods
(Sonnenberg and vom Brocke, 2012; Peffers et al., 2012).
The research process of this study drew on empirical research
methods including a Delphi study to build and evaluate the value
proposition patterns (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2018) and a multiple case
study to demonstrate and evaluate the method (Sonnenberg and
vom Brocke, 2012; Peffers et al., 2012). The overall process can be
divided into the design of the patterns, understood as being of the
artifact type constructs, and the PBSSI-method, understood as being
of the artifact type method. The method development followed the
ideas of situational method composition (Brinkkemper, 1996; Bucher
et al., 2007). Inspired by action research (Sein et al., 2011), the re­
searchers worked intensively together with practitioners from
manufacturing as experts and users throughout the research pro­
cess (Fig. 1).
3.2. Problem identification and definition of objectives.
The typical starting point for a DSR endeavor is the identification
of the problem and the definition of objectives that should be
achieved by the artifacts to be developed (Peffers et al., 2007). The
problem statement for this study was derived from current literature
on smart service innovation and service design as well as from ex­
isting patterns, taxonomies, and approaches (see previous section on
related works). As described, customer-centric smart service in­
novation poses challenges for manufacturing companies. The chal­
lenges are mainly attributed to insufficient customer orientation and
issues with clearly articulating value propositions that fit customer
needs. Moreover, tensions between a traditional engineering
mindset and a more service-oriented or solution-oriented mindset
can be observed (Kohtamäki et al., 2020). Finally, there is a lack of
systematic approaches that allow for mapping customer pain points
with potential smart service solutions (e.g., Gebauer et al., 2020;
Klein et al., 2018). Considering the front-end of innovation appears
meaningful (Tate et al., 2018) because the associated phases (i.e.,
idea generation, idea screening, concept development) are of con­
siderable importance for service innovation processes (Alam, 2006).
Moreover, many manufacturing firms are still at the beginning of
digital servitization (Baines et al., 2020) and routines dedicated to
4
Computers in Industry 138 (2022) 103625
smart service innovation have yet to be established. The front-end in
particular is characterized by uncertainty, and activities are often
unstructured and “chaotic” (Koen et al., 2001, p. 49).
In response to this problem definition, the objective of this study
was to develop artifacts that facilitate the front-end of smart service
innovation by exploiting existing design knowledge and putting the
value proposition for the customer – and not technological options
from a provider perspective – center stage. Building on existing
design knowledge can simplify smart service innovation processes
because patterns allow creating something new by the recombina­
tion of existing elements (Beverungen et al., 2018; Gassmann et al.,
2014). Following March and Smith (1995), the results were expected
to be a combination of two types of artifacts. First, the main artifact
is a method in its essence, which was labeled the Pattern-Based
Smart Service Innovation (PBSSI) method. The patterns, which are a
basic element of the PBSSI method, can be understood as constructs
(March and Smith, 1995). As existing patterns and taxonomies lacked
a detailed description of customer-centric value propositions, it was
crucial to identify existing value propositions of smart services and
develop corresponding patterns first.
The requirements for the artifacts to be developed were to enable
the customer-centric development of smart services and to help in
reconfiguring existing design knowledge during idea generation in
order to come up with new value propositions that match customer
needs. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, a further require­
ment was that the artifacts should be applicable in online workshops
using video meetings and virtual whiteboards.
3.3. Development and evaluation of the patterns
The first artifact type to be developed was a set of constructs
(March and Smith, 1995). Constructs describe a problem, specify
solutions, and form “shared knowledge of a discipline” (March and
Smith, 1995, p. 256). Patterns can be considered as such constructs
as they capture existing solutions to be reused in innovation pro­
cesses.
Due to the aforementioned shortcomings of existing patterns for
smart service innovation, it was decided to develop new patterns.
These were supposed for idea generation and should explicitly focus
on the value propositions of smart service offerings. The value pro­
position can be seen as a means for organizations to communicate in
which way they share resources and offer a superior value to their
customers (Payne et al., 2017).
As described earlier, patterns can rest on empirically observable
solutions. To capture existing smart service solutions and develop
patterns relevant for smart service innovation in manufacturing, a
M. Ebel, D. Jaspert and J. Poeppelbuss
Delphi study was conducted. The Delphi study is an established
method in pattern development (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2018) that
aims to collect information from experts in an iterative process. The
participants can evaluate and adapt their responses across multiple
rounds of surveying and feedback in order to finally generate a
reasonable level of consensus (Schmidt, 1997). To assure the needed
level of expertize, only participants from the manufacturing industry
who had sound knowledge and experience with smart service of­
ferings in their working environment were invited as experts to the
Delphi panel. An online survey was provided for each round of the
Delphi study. In the end, the Delphi study went on for three rounds
between November 2019 and August 2020. The researchers con­
tacted the experts directly and through social media platforms (e.g.
LinkedIn). 101 potential participants accessed the online survey. 31
respondents completed the first round; 22 took part in the second
and third rounds.
In the first round of the Delphi study, the participants were asked
to give their understanding of smart service and name smart service
offerings they were familiar with. The result from condensing their
answers was the following smart service definition: A smart service is
a digitally supported, data-based, and user-oriented service. In order to
provide a smart service, data from networked objects (e.g., smart pro­
ducts) is (automatically) collected, provided, processed, analyzed, and
interpreted into value-added information. This definition is in line
with the definition of smartness and smart services as described
earlier (see Section 2.1). The experts mentioned smart service of­
ferings from their companies or their immediate environment, but
also from other areas that they considered relevant. No restrictions
were made here deliberately in order not to exclude potentially
transferable solutions from other industries. A minimum of three
was required from each expert, and we limited the maximum
number to eight. Further, the experts were asked to describe each
smart service offering in their own words and to define what dis­
tinguishes them from other offerings. The online survey provided
free text boxes without length restrictions for the answers. The
average processing time for the first round of the Delphi study was
39 minutes per expert. The result was a total of 133 smart service
offerings mentioned by the Delphi panel. 116 of these were de­
scribed in an understandable way and subject to the subsequent
coding process.
The 116 descriptions of smart service offerings were analyzed by
the researchers, following a two-level coding manual (Saldaña,
2013). The 1st level coding aimed at finding similarities among the
different descriptions of smart service offerings. Each service de­
scription was summarized in a short phrase and then grouped to­
gether with a descriptive code (see Fig. 2, 1st level coding). For
example, predictive maintenance services were named and de­
scribed repeatedly by the Delphi panel. All of them were captured
under one descriptive code. Also, very similar offerings that, e.g.,
only differed in the asset under consideration were combined. Thus,
for example, the service offerings of an “automatically self-ordering
refrigerator” and “printers [that] order automatically required con­
sumables” were subsumed as: “[...] having consumables for the ma­
chine/systems procured automatically”. This procedure led to over 50
codes describing distinct smart service offerings and corresponding
value propositions relevant to the manufacturing industry.
The descriptive codes served as the basis for the following 2nd
level coding, which was more interpretive. The descriptive codes
were analyzed in order to identify the main value drivers of the
described service offerings from the customer’s perspective (re­
flecting the value proposition). In doing so, categories of value pro­
positions were obtained that integrate several descriptive codes. In a
last step, similar categories were combined, giving them so-called
5
Computers in Industry 138 (2022) 103625
pattern codes. Pattern codes are abstract concepts that “pull together
material into a smaller number of more meaningful units” (Punch
and Oancea, 2014, p. 175). Accordingly, categories such as Automated/
Proactive Procurement, Control, and Automation, or Administrative
Support were subsumed under the pattern code Automatize. The 2nd
level coding enabled us to identify 30 categories and twelve broader
patterns. An excerpt of the data structure is illustrated in Fig. 2 using
the pattern code Access as an example. Finally, textual descriptions
were prepared for all patterns (see Table 2 in the Results section). A
simplified Alexandrian pattern form (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2018)
provided the basis for summarizing each pattern with an individual
pattern name, a problem statement, a context description, a solution
statement, and examples for each pattern (Leitner, 2015).
In the second round of the Delphi study, the participants were
asked to evaluate the patterns and give feedback. 22 of the 31 par­
ticipants (about 71%) from the first round took part. They evaluated
in how far they found the general approach of using patterns
meaningful and whether they found the specific set of patterns
conclusive and complete. In the third round, the participants were
asked if they could imagine to use the patterns when innovating
smart service business models.
3.4. Development, demonstration and evaluation of the method
The research objective was to embed the patterns into a cus­
tomer-centric method for smart service innovation, which was the
second artifact to be developed. Methods describe a “set of steps
used to perform a task” (March and Smith, 1995, p. 257). For method
development, the process of situational method composition, which
is a common approach for method development based on a variety
of different method fragments (Bucher et al., 2007), was adapted.
Following Brinkkemper (1996), existing method fragments were
selected and combined. They stemmed from diverse domains, in­
cluding service design, new service development, and business
model innovation. In addition, the value proposition patterns were
added as a new method fragment. The resulting method was named
the Pattern Based Smart Service Innovation (PBSSI) method. It usually
comprises two workshop sessions (A and B) and additional customer
interviews in-between to be conducted by the method users.
The utility of the resulting PBSSI method was demonstrated in a
multiple case study (Yin, 2018) with three case organizations from
the German mechanical engineering sector. Case studies are a
common approach for demonstrating and evaluating artifacts in DSR
(Peffers et al., 2012; Prat et al., 2015). In the first case, a manufacturer
of food processing machinery (FOOD) intended to develop smart
service innovations together with a software company (SOFT), who
supports FOOD in digitalization projects. The second case was a
manufacturer of air compressors (AIR); and the third case was a
manufacturer of liquid and solid conveying equipment (PUMP). 16
persons from these firms participated in total (Table 1). Some par­
ticipants only attended a single workshop. The majority, however,
participated in the two workshops A (column WS-A in Table 1) and B
(WS-B) that the PBSSI method comprises. The customer interviews
(column CI in Table 1) in-between were conducted by individual
employees or by smaller teams from the case organizations.
In each of the cases, feedback interviews with workshop parti­
cipants were conducted to evaluate the method’s utility and its ef­
fects on smart service innovation processes. In this context, the focus
was on addressing challenges such as customer orientation and in­
appropriate mindsets and the extent to which these may be chan­
ging. The interviews were analyzed qualitatively regarding the
usefulness, effectiveness, utility, and operational feasibility of the
method (Prat et al., 2015).
M. Ebel, D. Jaspert and J. Poeppelbuss Computers in Industry 138 (2022) 103625

Fig. 2. Excerpt from the data structure.

4. Results support processes with augmented reality applications or virtual

4.1. Value proposition patterns
4.1.1. Design
The Delphi study yielded 116 descriptions of smart service of­
ferings, which were analyzed following the two-level coding
manual. The coding process resulted in a set of twelve value pro­
position patterns for smart service offerings (Table 2). The numbers
in the first column of Table 2 provide the share of descriptions that
were aggregate into one pattern in comparison to the total amount
of 116 descriptions from the Delphi panel (e.g., 15/116 for the pattern
Access). The value propositions’ descriptions provide information
about the supplier’s tasks when delivering the proposed offering and
the customer’s expected benefit. The patterns range from the pure
provision of data in condition monitoring systems to virtualized
conferencing tools. For instance, the Access pattern describes a firm’s
promise to make data and information accessible and useable to
customers. This can be achieved through specific services such as
maintenance scheduling or condition monitoring. In both ways, the
provider grants digital access to information that the customer is
interested in. Another value proposition pattern is Analyze, which
usually requires in-depth data analyses. Other smart service offer­
ings can also rearrange actor constellations in the larger service
ecosystem, e.g., through the Match pattern that can be implemented
in the form of two-sided platforms where the service provider acts
as an intermediary between customers and suppliers.
4.1.2. Evaluation
In the second round of the Delphi study, the participants were
asked to evaluate the patterns and give feedback. They rated the

Table 1
Participants in case studies and evaluation interviews.

Case Firm size Participant Position WS-A CI WS-B Duration of evaluation interviews

FOOD and SOFT 50-250 each SOFT-1 Senior Consultant X X X 0:22 h 0:23 h
SOFT-2 Project Manager X X X 0:14 h 0:12 h
FOOD-1 Technical Director X X X 0:11 h –
FOOD-2 After-Sales-Manager X X 0:15 h 0:21 h
FOOD-3 Project Lead X X 0:21 h 0:26 h
FOOD-4 Technology Sales Representative X X 0:20 h 0:19 h
AIR 750-1000 AIR-1 Teamlead R&D X X X 0:20 h 0:32 h
AIR-2 Senior Developer X X X 0:28 h 0:52 h
AIR-3 Teamlead Product Management X X X 0:27 h 0:41 h
AIR-4 Product Manager X X 0:16 h 0:31 h
AIR-5 Innovation Manager X X 0:10 h 0:41 h
PUMP 750-1000 PUMP-1 Service Manager X X X – 0:30 h
PUMP-2 Product Manager X X – 0:26 h
PUMP-3 Customer Interaction Manager X X 0:28 h 0:43 h
PUMP-4 Developer 0:12 h –
PUMP-5 Consultant 0:14 h –

6
M. Ebel, D. Jaspert and J. Poeppelbuss Computers in Industry 138 (2022) 103625

Table 2
Value proposition patterns.

Pattern Value Proposition

Access (15/116) Problem: Lack of information about the status or condition of machinery and equipment.
Accessibility of data and information. Solution: Data is made accessible by installing sensors or providing access to existing interfaces. Furthermore,
the data can be aggregated on a platform and may be visualized as part of condition monitoring applications
and dashboards. Information about machine conditions, usage behavior or maintenance schedule plans help
customers acquire transparent and timely information about their assets.
Examples: Energy metering, maintenance schedule, condition monitoring, asset tracking

Analyze (4/116) Problem: Data from machine and/or systems needs to be transformed into actionable information.
Analysis of data and processes. Solution: Data streams and event logs are continuously monitored and analyzed. Information about energy
wastage, changing machine conditions, and capacity utilization are used to reduce default risks and increase
productivity.
Examples: Status analysis, efficiency reports, risk analysis

Assist (5/116) Problem: Inefficiencies due to non-value-adding activities/processes.

Assistance of customers in their value creation. Solution: Non-value-adding activities are taken over or streamlined through digital channels. Customers
spend less time on secondary processes, allowing them to focus on their core activities.
Examples: Safety documentation, maintenance ticketing, spare part suggestion/ ordering

Automize (17/116) Problem: Errors and inefficiencies in recurring tasks.

Automation of processes up to autonomous systems. Solution: Recurring tasks or complete processes are automated. No or less human intervention is required,
which relieves personnel and/or reduces the risk of error.
Examples: Chat bots in 1st level support, smart grid, proactive procurement

Match (5/116) Problem: Time consuming and complicated ways of interaction and/or exchange between two or more
Connection of suppliers with demanders of certain different partners. Missed business opportunities.
assets or services. Solution: Demand and supply for various interest groups like drivers and commuters, hosts and travelers,
employers, and employees are brought together on a digital platform. The platform provider becomes an
intermediary and operates the platform.
Examples: Booking platform, two-sided platforms, ride-sharing service

Operate (9/116)
Operation of an asset on behalf of the customer.
Problem: High capital expenditures and risks with regards to operating assets.
Solution: The asset is operated by the provider, who is remunerated for the output. Capital expenditures
decrease while operational expenditures increase for the customer. The risk is minimized through low
capital commitment and full-service contracts.
Examples: Performance-based contracting, power-by-the-hour, output-based pricing

Optimize (13/116)
Optimization of assets, processes or procedures.
Problem: Efficiency loss over time or due to contextual factors.
Solution: The provider focuses on the improvement of predefined values of a machine, process, or
procedure. Inefficiencies are uncovered and eliminated by comparison with target values or contextual
factors and suggestions for parameter optimization or decisions are given.
Examples: Asset optimization, route planning, setpoint adjustment, benchmarking

Personalize (5/116) Problem: Individual solution is needed.

Individually adapted services. Solution: Based on recognized and monitored behavioral patterns, services are individualized for the
customer. In this way, offers can be adapted to the respective customer and are tailored to the individual's
own preferences and interests.
Examples: Buying recommendations, behavior-dependent insurance

Predict (13/116) Problem: Unplanned breakdowns or late noticed issues that require a quick response.
Predictions about future events. Solution: By evaluating historical data and comparing it with real data, a forecast of possible future events
can be made. Recurring or evolving problems which can be attributed to data are foreseen and anticipated.
This allows early intervention, which prevents failures and minimizes consequential costs.
Examples: Failure forecast, predictive maintenance, predictive quality

Recognize (8/116) Problem: Anomalies leading to unsatisfactory outputs and/or complex component recognition.
Recognition of patterns in data. Solution: Data retrieved from machines, products or processes might exhibit patterns or correlations that can
support root-cause analysis as well as component and failure recognition. The detection of these, the monitoring
of limit values or the comparison with known values and available information can facilitate decision making.
Examples: Parts identification, quality control, security network scan, anomaly detection

Share (10/116)
Share assets among stakeholders and monitor usage.
Problem: Assets are not procured due to high costs or capacity of assets is not fully used.
Solution: To achieve the best possible capacity utilization, assets are shared among various stakeholders.
Operating time is maximized by avoiding downtimes through use and sharing between different users.
Customers can thus avoid expensive capital investment.
Examples: Free floating carsharing, asset on demand, capacity sharing, pay- per-use

Virtualize (12/116) Problem: External competence is required which is time consuming and costly or real-world environments
Virtualization of processes and work steps via digital are dangerous.
channels. Solution: Physical components of a service can be virtualized for customer’s personnel with instructions
provided remotely from experts. Besides, the savings potential of travel and personnel costs, certain things
can be simulated in a safe environment to avoid risks.
Examples: Remote support, virtual training, augmented reality applications

7
M. Ebel, D. Jaspert and J. Poeppelbuss Computers in Industry 138 (2022) 103625

Table 3
Method fragments and design decisions.

Phase Method and tools Design decision Existing knowledge base and references

Super-ordinate Exploration and As customer orientation is one objective of the artifact, Service design (Teixeira et al., 2019)
ideation from service service design as a holistic, user-centered, and iterative
design approach seems appropriate. Important phases of typical
service design processes include exploration and ideation.
Explore Stakeholder maps, Smart service innovation concerns many stakeholders, Service design (Stickdorn et al., 2018), Value
(Understanding the personas, empathy which is why the wider ecosystem needs to be understood Proposition Canvas (Osterwalder et al., 2014)
problem to be solved) maps, Ecosystem maps first (e.g. using Stakeholder Maps as a tool). Then focusing
on a target customer and understanding specific needs is
required (e.g., using Personas and Empathy Maps).
Customer journey To generate value, the customer’s value-creation processes Journey mapping (Rosenbaum et al., 2017),
mapping need to be understood and problems must be highlighted. job mapping (Bettencourt and Ulwick, 2008)
This is where visualization of the process comes in handy.
Hypotheses elicitation In previous phases, the customer’s perspective is often Hypotheses engineering (Melegati, 2020)
taken although the customer is not directly involved or
present. Therefore, one should always challenge the
assumption and hypotheses that are made.
Customer interviews, If the customer is not well known and if personas or Service design (Stickdorn et al., 2018),
laddering technique customer journeys are merely based on assumptions, customer value research
customer interviews should be conducted. In order to gain (Zeithaml et al., 2020)
in-depth knowledge of the customer's needs and values,
the laddering technique can be used.
Ideate How-Might-We- In the transition to the ideation phase, a clear picture of Service design (Stickdorn et al., 2018)
(Finding new smart service question the problem to be solved should be created so that all
opportunities) participants are working towards a common goal.
Value proposition Previous business model patterns and taxonomies were Pattern theory (Leitner, 2015), Business model
patterns not suitable because they did not describe the value patterns and taxonomies (Remane et al., 2017;
propositions of smart services or they were very generic. Weking et al., 2018)
Therefore, we decided to develop new patterns through a
Delphi study with experts from practice and use them as
stimuli.
Idea clustering and Since ideas from participants may overlap, ideas need to be Service design (Stickdorn et al., 2018)
rating clustered. Afterward, the ideas are evaluated.
Template for value The concepts to be pursued are briefly summarized in a Value proposition design
proposition statements value proposition statement to generate a common (Osterwalder et al., 2014)
understanding of the ideation outcome.

following statements on five-point Likert scales: “The classification
according to the value proposition is meaningful.”, “The classifica­
tion into the twelve patterns appears conclusive.”, “The classification
into the twelve patterns appears complete.” Most respondents
considered the classification as meaningful (Mean = 4.5; with 1 fully
disagree and 5 fully agree). The set of patterns was both perceived as
fairly conclusive (Mean = 4.6) and complete (Mean = 4.4).
In the third round, the participants were asked if they could ima­
gine using the patterns to innovate smart service business models. The
results indicated some degree of uncertainty among participants
(Mean = 3.8 for the statement “I can imagine using the patterns to
develop new smart service business models”). They suggested dif­
ferent measures to improve accessibility and usability, including, e.g., a
visualization of the patterns, short descriptions with examples, as well
as concrete and feasible guidelines for workshops. This feedback was
considered in the development of the PBSSI method.
4.2. Pattern‐based smart service innovation method
4.2.1. Design
The PBSSI method aims at supporting manufacturing firms in the
development of new customer-centric value propositions. Table 3
illustrates method fragments from other research contributions,
which were used as building blocks for devising the new PBSSI
method. Building on service design (Patrício et al., 2018; Stickdorn
et al., 2018), the method covers the two main phases of exploration
and ideation. Service design was chosen as the overarching frame­
work because it shapes user-centered service development (Ostrom
et al., 2015; Teixeira et al., 2019), can change existing mental models
(Vink et al., 2019), and is increasingly used in the context of service
innovation, PSS and servitization (Costa et al., 2018; Iriarte et al.,
2018; Solem et al., 2021).
Especially the ideation phase of service design, where concepts
for new value propositions are developed (Stickdorn et al., 2018),
was considered to benefit from the patterns. The patterns can be
understood here as stimuli that support cognitive processes through
the possibility of analogical reasoning (Knoll and Horton, 2011).
However, in order to apply the patterns to individual customer
problems and not to develop value propositions that do not address
real needs of the targeted customers, a detailed understanding of the
customer is to be established and validated first. This process is also
described as the exploration or research phase and is essential in
service design (Stickdorn et al., 2018). Table 3 shows the method
fragments that were used for the phases of exploration and ideation,
as well as related design decisions and associated references.
The resulting PBSSI method is instantiated in two workshops,
conducted with the help of a video meeting and a collaborative
online whiteboard. The workshops (A and B) last five to six hours
each. The separation into two workshops gives the opportunity to
collect data for the validation of assumptions (e.g., about the cus­
tomer needs) in-between. In workshop A, customer insights and
needs tend to be created hypothetically and should first be validated.
Given the aforementioned challenges in manufacturing, a stronger
engagement with the exploration phase seems advisable to get a
clear picture of the customer’s needs, pain points, and value creation
processes before moving into the solution space in the ideation
phase. Iterations are also possible here to revise results, e.g., moving
back to the exploration phase after the customer interviews.
In the initial workshop A, the focus lies on building a uniform
understanding of the smart service innovation project and exploring
a target customer, as well as defining a problem that is to be solved
by means of an innovative smart service offering. As the develop­
ment of smart service offerings is an interdisciplinary problem to
solve (Anke, Poeppelbuss et al., 2020), participants from different

8
M. Ebel, D. Jaspert and J. Poeppelbuss
Fig. 3. The Pattern-Based Smart Service Innovation (PBSSI) method.
departments (e.g., service, IT, R&D, sales) should be involved. Since
different departments also bring different perspectives, one of the
first tasks is to sketch a shared visualization of the existing service
ecosystem. This step helps to achieve the required reflexivity, i.e., an
awareness of the existing institutional arrangements in the service
ecosystem (Vink and Koskela-Huotari, 2021). By applying method
and tools collaboratively on the virtual whiteboard, a shared visua­
lization (Li et al., 2016) can be developed in a distributed synchro­
nous setting of collaborative sensemaking (Isenberg et al., 2011).
Therefore tools like stakeholder maps and ecosystem maps are used
(Stickdorn et al., 2018). Together with further steps shown in Fig. 3
and applying methods and tools from the exploration phase
(Table 3), the outcome of workshop A is a thorough understanding of
the current service ecosystem and the definition of a target cus­
tomer, as well as their jobs-to-be-done, a customer journey map and
customer pain points (Bettencourt and Ulwick, 2008; Osterwalder
et al., 2014; Stickdorn et al., 2018).
Since workshop A only involves representatives from the man­
ufacturing firm who try to adopt the perspective of the customer, the
findings should be regarded as hypotheses (Melegati, 2020). To make
this visible, workshop participants are asked to mark important
assumptions on the whiteboard that they would like to challenge
and that need to be tested before the ideation phase starts with
workshop B. These hypotheses have to be validated through a direct
exchange with the targeted customer, because perceptions of values
and needs are complex constructs that can only be discovered
through direct exchange (Eggert et al., 2019; Eyal et al., 2018;
Zeithaml et al., 2020). Customer interviews are a reasonable way to
get the needed information (Eyal et al., 2018). The focus here should
be on exploring the real customers’ experiences. At best, customers
should report on challenges in the daily handling of products and
their service experiences, as these insights offer great potential for
new solution development (Bettencourt et al., 2014). Since compa­
nies are often not experienced in conducting such exploratory in­
terviews, the application of the laddering technique as a structured
method for capturing tacit needs and values is suggested (Jüttner
et al., 2013; Macdonald et al., 2016; Zeithaml et al., 2020).
In the second workshop B, ideas for new smart service offerings
are developed. Using the customer feedback from the interviews, the
9
Computers in Industry 138 (2022) 103625
first step of workshop B is to clearly define a How-Might-We (HMW)
question. This question is supposed to define a clear point of view
towards the problem to be solved, so that all participants are
working towards a common goal (Stickdorn et al., 2018). It is im­
portant to mention that up to this point, only the problem has been
researched and understood. The HMW-question opens up the solu­
tion space and initiates the ideation phase.
For the generation of ideas, the PBSSI method draws on the de­
veloped value proposition patterns. The patterns were deliberately
kept at an abstract level to restrict creativity as little as possible. In
workshop B, they are presented to the workshop participants in the
form of pattern cards (Fig. 3), summarizing the most important in­
formation from Table 3 and serving as a visual and text-based sti­
mulus for idea generation. For the collaborative idea generation
phase, a multi-stage brainwriting process with the utilization of
virtual whiteboards is proposed. For this purpose, the pattern cards
are visualized on the whiteboard and introduced briefly to the par­
ticipants. Each individual person is then given a randomized selec­
tion of patterns. Each participant collects ideas for himself or herself
by considering analogies in the context of the HMW-question. For
example, participants can use the pattern Predict to ideate where a
prediction can help a customer with the defined problem. After a
first run-through, the participants share the ideas they have devel­
oped with each other and then go into a second brainwriting phase
in which they can create new ideas, but also pick up and expand on
ideas from their colleagues. Such a multi-stage hybrid process is
beneficial for the development of ideas (Girotra et al., 2010). In
service design, it is also important not to have restrictions and to
generate as many ideas as possible (Stickdorn et al., 2018).
After having created ideas, the workshop participants can then
jointly discuss, cluster, and evaluate them. As a final step in the
process, the ideas are formulated in a structured value proposition
statement (Osterwalder et al., 2014; Payne and Frow, 2014) that fits
the customer problem and context (according to the HMW-ques­
tion). The goal is to conceptualize at least two to three value pro­
positions which are to be tested in the prototyping phase. However,
this is no longer part of the PBSSI method, which solely focuses on
the exploration and ideation phase at the front-end of smart service
innovation.
M. Ebel, D. Jaspert and J. Poeppelbuss Computers in Industry 138 (2022) 103625

Table 4
Examples of developed value proposition concepts.

Case Target customer How-Might-We question Value proposition

FOOD Technician Max who is responsible for
and SOFT fixing systems in case of a breakdown.
AIR Service manager Peter whose job is to
ensure the functionality of its plant for
the next harvest season.
PUMP Maintenance manager Klaus who is in
charge of asset management.
How might we support Max in case of a problem in
such a way that his pride is not hurt, we are more
involved and do not have to act like firefighting?
How might we assist Peter with digital services to
decrease the impact of malfunction under pressure
in the harvesting season of his customer?
How might we digitally support Klaus in his daily
asset management tasks without losing personal
contact and unexpectedly straining the planned
budget?
A quality improvement of self-service actions through a
service knowledge base that Max can use on-site for
problem analysis to save time and avoid lengthy trouble-
shooting processes and exchanges with multiple
people.
Like a battery check of a smartphone, Peter can make
sure that his assets run properly before the season by a
test cycle run and a condition monitoring report. It will
help to reduce downtime in comparison to the current
single maintenance after the season.
An asset pooling platform with loaned equipment that is
temporarily offered as redundancy, thus avoiding the
capital commitment of redundant assets and replacing
in-house redundancy planning.

4.2.2. Demonstration and evaluation
The PBSSI method was demonstrated in the three cases FOOD
and SOFT, AIR, and PUMP, which all belong to the German me­
chanical engineering sector. All participating firms were established
manufacturers that try to create new digital offerings based on their
products. All of them already offered services but none was gen­
erating accountable revenues with smart service solutions. FOOD
and AIR were setting up their first digital business development
projects at the time of the workshops, while PUMP could already be
considered as a frontrunner in the field of digitalization. SOFT as a
pioneer in the field of remote support technologies as well as PUMP
had gained multiple awards for their innovation efforts and digital
solutions.
In line with the outline of the PBSSI method, two workshops (A
and B) were conducted virtually at each case organization. The re­
sulting value propositions after conducting both workshops were,
e.g., concepts for a pooling platform for capital assets, an automated
test cycle to check the condition of a plant, and improved ways of
communication with customers’ maintenance staff. The solutions
showed a strong contextualization and adaptation to specific cus­
tomer problems, which were elaborated in the first workshops and
validated by customer interviews. With regard to the patterns, it can
therefore be assumed that there was no too close orientation to
existing solutions (design fixation). Results are shown in Table 4.
The workshops were facilitated by one researcher, who also
conducted the semi-structured interviews with the participants
after workshops A and B to gather feedback on the PBSSI method for
evaluation purposes. The interview guideline mainly aimed at eval­
uating the PBSSI method but also addressed observations on
changed behaviors and mental models of the workshop participants
in the context of smart service innovation (Vink et al., 2019). The aim
was to examine how the PBSSI-method differs from existing ap­
proaches, which activities were considered particularly helpful, and
whether the approach helps to address challenges such as the lack of
customer centricity.
Overall, the feedback indicated that the method worked properly
and the participants were very satisfied with the overall process. The
implementation in an online environment was seen as challenging
at the beginning, but all participants were able to participate vir­
tually in the workshops with the help of video conferencing tools
and the collaborative whiteboard. Participants would like to use the
experiences of the workshops and collaborate more virtually in the
future, even if a desire for in-person workshops remains.
Furthermore, the PBSSI method helped in questioning and adjusting
assumptions about customer needs and related decisions. In the
evaluation interviews, the respondents frequently emphasized the
concept of customer-centric development. The evaluation results
point to some changes in the mindsets of the participants who
started to question the common internal and technological driven
innovation approaches. The participants found the patterns helpful
for ideation and, indeed, new ideas for smart service value propo­
sitions emerged during the workshops.
In addition to the positive statements provided in the evaluation
interviews, however, it was also noted that the implementation is
often hampered by a lack of time in daily business. Regarding the
experience, there were participants who wished for a better doc­
umentation in order to be able to implement the method in future
projects and others who did not feel comfortable applying the
method without further instruction or facilitation.
To give a structured and deeper insight into the evaluation
feedback, interview statements are provided (Table 5) along the four
evaluation criteria (Prat et al., 2015). Precisely, these refer to (I) the
usefulness, i.e., the degree to which the artifact positively impacts
individual task performance, (II) the effectiveness, i.e., the degree of
goal attainment in a real situation, (III) the utility, i.e., the value of
goal attainment weighing up benefits and efforts, and (IV) the op­
erational feasibility, e.g., the degree to which practitioners adopt the
artifact in their daily practices (Prat et al., 2015).
5. Discussion and conclusions
This article presents a twofold contribution that includes, first, a
set of twelve value proposition patterns and, second, a method that
makes use of these patterns for facilitating smart service innovation
in manufacturing. These two results were developed using DSR as
the overall research approach. The research approach further in­
cluded empirical data collections by means of a Delphi study and
evaluation workshops in a multiple case study with feedback in­
terviews.
The patterns were developed in a Delphi study with experts from
practice. Through an inductive coding of examples provided by the
31 Delphi panelists, a set of twelve patterns (from Access to
Virtualize) for smart service innovation in the manufacturing in­
dustry was developed. By suggesting these patterns, this article
concurs with other researchers who argue that innovation chal­
lenges can be tackled more effectively by recombining existing
knowledge. It also follows the assumption that innovative business
models do not have to be built up from scratch; rather, many refer
back to and recombine existing patterns (Gassmann et al., 2014).
Even if these patterns reveal known elements; reassembling,
copying, and reusing components from existing solutions can lead to
business model innovation that is new to a firm or new to an in­
dustry (Abdelkafi et al., 2013). The Delphi study indicated that
practitioners find the developed set of patterns meaningful.
The new set of patterns addresses the criticisms of previous
patterns, which were described as confusingly numerous and diffi­
cult to compare (Weking et al., 2018). Thus, in contrast to most of the
existing conceptualizations of business model patterns and

10
M. Ebel, D. Jaspert and J. Poeppelbuss
Table 5
Statements from the evaluation Interviews.
Definition
I. Usefulness “The degree to which the artifact positively impacts the task
performance of individuals”
(Prat et al., 2015, p. 266)
II. Effectiveness “The degree to which the artifact achieves its goal in a real
situation”
(Prat et al., 2015, p. 265)
III. Utility “[…] the value of achieving the artifact’s goal, i.e. the difference
between the worth of achieving this goal and the price paid for
achieving it”
(Prat et al., 2015, p. 265)
IV. Operational “[…] the degree to which management, employees, and other
feasibility stakeholders, will support the proposed artifact, operate it, and
integrate it into their daily practice” (Prat et al., 2015, p. 265)
following the idea of different granularity levels of such business
model patterns by Amshoff et al. (2015), this study deliberately fo­
cused on the value proposition aspect of smart service business
models only. This should make the patterns easier-to-use in practice.
They were labeled abstractly, indicating what is done for the cus­
tomer but not further specifying them in every specific detail. This
was a deliberate decision as the patterns should not be merely
copied, but rather serve as an inspiration for workshop participants
who work out the value proposition details for the specific context of
their customers. The patterns can encourage workshop participants
in the ideation process, for example, to think about what informa­
tion needs to be made accessible (Access), or where virtualized
processes can solve customer pain points (Virtualize). Thereby, the
patterns support manufacturing firms in avoiding “hazy value pro­
positions and difficulties conveying benefits to customers” (Klein
et al., 2018, p. 852), which are seen as major challenges in service
innovation. Also, innovation success is said to depend on the value
that customers see in the smart service (Wuenderlich et al., 2015).
The set of patterns that this study provides can inspire firms to craft
a customer-centric value proposition. When applying the patterns,
however, it should be considered that a certain familiarization effect
can occur over time. This could be disadvantageous since stimuli for
generating ideas can also lead to so-called design fixation (Sio et al.,
2015). In the field of design, this is usually avoided by using more
distant analogies (Knoll and Horton, 2011). Here, it must be em­
phasized again that the patterns are intended as stimuli during idea
generation only. For the purpose of smart service innovation, it is
particularly important to first explore the needs and challenges and,
at best, the values expected by the customer, in order to then use the
patterns for individual problem solving and not for mimicking ex­
isting value propositions.
The PBSSI method integrates the set of patterns and is designed
in a way that it helps manufacturers with traditional approaches in
research and development to open up towards more customer
11
Computers in Industry 138 (2022) 103625
Statements from the interviews
• What I also really liked was that you don’t use one toolbox or one
methodology, but you mix several different methodologies and take
from each the one you need at the moment. (FOOD-1)
• I would rate the benefit of the workshop as relatively high. In my
opinion, such workshops are very helpful in first introducing a
methodology to a broad number of employees on how to approach a
problem. (AIR-5)
• The first workshop, that was already good, was maybe not so much
the enlightenment. But actually, the catching up with clients was
really very exciting for me personally. (PUMP-3)
• It must be said quite honestly, previously we developed something
that only we [as a company] liked. [...] [And in assumption mapping]
how many [assumptions] then finally emerged, I found a bit scary.
(FOOD-3)
• [Customer requirements] have become clear, of course for this
specific problem. [...] We use this result. (AIR-3)
• I found [the patterns] extremely helpful, because I think that’s
something you often miss, that you don’t have these templates.
(PUMP-3)
• The workload was manageable for me. We also worked hand in
hand here, [...], so that no one was overburdened. (FOOD-4)
• I did this for the first time and didn’t have the routine [...], I would
give it [effort/value ratio] 6 of 10 points with a tendency towards a
good score for the value. (AIR-3)
• It’s a lot of time, but it was worth it. (PUMP-2)
• I have used these pattern cards again several times now. Yes, and
also discussed this with our CEO. [...] They’re great. I think they’re
great. It’s really ingenious. (SOFT-1)
• It was very good, and the only thing I can add is that [...] if you want
to apply the whole thing, let’s say in a broad way, I think a
documentation would be quite helpful. (AIR-5)
• For me, it was also a bit of a blueprint or template, I would say, for
further strategic workshops that we will do in the team. (PUMP-1)
centricity when developing smart PSS. A key idea of the PBSSI
method is to assist the ideation phase of smart service innovation by
using existing design knowledge in the form of patterns. The method
expands the existing knowledge base of methods for smart service
innovation (e.g., Höckmayr and Roth, 2017; Neuhüttler et al., 2017;
Sjödin et al., 2020). In particular, the proposed method, which is
composed of different method fragments, shows that not every
method has to be fully invented from scratch (Anke et al., 2020;
Beverungen et al., 2018), and that methods can be meaningfully
linked with each other across different academic fields (e.g., service
design, marketing, and information systems) that deal with smart
service innovation.
The multiple case study further demonstrated the utility of the
patterns as a central element of the PBSSI method. In line with recent
works on circular business model innovation (e.g., Kristoffersen et al.,
2020), it can be assumed that the quick rethinking and reconfiguration
of value propositions is particularly relevant since software and data-
driven offerings can change rapidly nowadays (Alcayaga et al., 2019).
The presented patterns provide an opportunity to speed up and to
enrich the available stimuli available during idea generation, thus be­
coming already smart at the design time of smart PSS.
Having demonstrated the PBSSI method in a multiple case study,
first positive effects regarding the innovation processes were ob­
served at the case organizations, including stronger customer or­
ientation and scrutiny of previous product-oriented approaches. The
method thus seems to address important challenges in the context
of smart service innovation (Kohtamäki et al., 2020; Töytäri et al.,
2018). However, even though service design is said to have trans­
formational power with regard to the mindset (Vink et al., 2019), this
first instantiation within a multiple case study only shows initial
evidence of such a change in the mindset of the workshop partici­
pants. In order to be able to make a conclusive statement on this, the
method needs to be adopted by more firms and changes need to be
investigated in the long term, comparing them with control groups.
M. Ebel, D. Jaspert and J. Poeppelbuss
In addition, it is difficult to assess which contextual factors and
events influence such changes. One possible explanation could be
the service design practice of “sensing surprise” (Vink et al., 2019, p.
91), which leads to a change in mental models. The concept of
mental models is closely related to the concept of mindset as these
“involve actors’ assumptions and beliefs about how something
works and how to act based on that understanding” (Vink et al.,
2019, p. 78). Participants in the workshop reported, for example, that
they were surprised about the many assumptions the development
was based on, or how simple and insightful the customer interviews
were. However, such experiences are always dependent on the in­
dividual.
Even though service design’s applicability in an industrial con­
text has generally been shown before (Costa et al., 2018; Iriarte et al.,
2018), this work extends previous findings. The results underpin the
potential of service design to solve existing challenges in industrial
environments. Even though conducted virtually during COVID-19
pandemic times, the method proved to be useful to the participating
case organizations. These are promising findings and offer the op­
portunity for further research in the context of digital collaboration
and the influence of IT as an enabler and operand resource in service
innovation processes (Lusch and Nambisan, 2015).
This study is also beset with some limitations. First, it only
considered the early phase (i.e., the front-end) of smart service in­
novation. We put a strong focus on the development of the right
attitude of involved actors towards the value proposition for the
customer. Other skills need to be built for successful smart service
implementation, too, as later phases like scaling and market in­
troduction can also yield major challenges (e.g., Klein et al., 2018). As
Huikkola et al. (2021)postulates, companies should further think
beyond the actual innovation processes and align practices, routines,
and processes from various areas for smart solution development.
These additional challenges and more holistic approaches should be
addressed more intensively in future research. Second, the selection
of previously existing methods and tools as building blocks for the
PBSSI method was subjective and based on the researchers’ knowl­
edge and experience; others might have selected different ap­
proaches from the vast amount of options. Third, the fact that one of
the researchers himself guided the participants through the work­
shops may raise the question of how effective the method would be
without facilitation. Fourth, the method evaluation is based on a
multiple case study with qualitative feedback only. Here, quantita­
tive approaches for evaluation purposes should also be considered
when conducting additional workshops using the PBSSI method.
Finally, it must be noted that the list of patterns might not be con­
sidered exhaustive by everyone. As the sample of respondents in the
Delphi study was limited to 31 experts from mechanical engineering
and as business models in practice constantly evolve, it cannot be
excluded that other smart service offerings could exist or are about
to emerge, which would call for future extensions or modifications
of the set of patterns.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Martin Ebel: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Writing – original draft. David Jaspert:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – original
draft. Jens Poeppelbuss: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing
– review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing fi­
nancial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
12
Computers in Industry 138 (2022) 103625
Acknowledgements
Parts of this work were supported by the German Federal
Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under the grant number
02K16C000.
References
Abdelkafi, N., Makhotin, S., Posselt, T., 2013. Business model innovations for electric
mobility—what can be learned from existing business model patterns? Int. J.
Innov. Manag. 17 (01), 1340003. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919613400033
Ahmed, S., 2005. Encouraging reuse of design knowledge: a method to index
knowledge. Des. Stud. 26 (6), 565–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.02.
005
Alam, I., 2006. Removing the fuzziness from the fuzzy front-end of service innovations
through customer interactions. Ind. Mark. Manag. 35 (4), 468–480. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.04.004
Alcayaga, A., Wiener, M., Hansen, E.G., 2019. Towards a framework of smart-circular
systems: an integrative literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 221, 622–634. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.085
Alexander, C., 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford
university press,.
Alter, S., 2020. Making sense of smartness in the context of smart devices and smart
systems. Inf. Syst. Front. 22 (2), 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-
09919-9
Altshuller, G., 2002. 40 Principles: TRIZ Keys to Innovation Vol. 1 Technical Innovation
Center, Inc,.
Amshoff, B., Dülme, C., Echterfeld, J., Gausemeier, J., 2015. Business model patterns for
disruptive technologies. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 19 (03), 1540002. https://doi.org/10.
1142/S1363919615400022
Anke, J., Ebel, M., Poeppelbuss, J., Alt, R., 2020. How to tame the tiger - exploring the
means, ends and challenges in smart service systems engineering. ECIS 2020 Proc.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/155.
Anke, J., Poeppelbuss, J., Alt, R., 2020. It takes more than two to tango: identifying roles
and patterns in multi-actor smart service innovation. Schmalenbach Bus. Rev. 72
(4), 599–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41464-020-00101-2
Ardolino, M., Rapaccini, M., Saccani, N., Gaiardelli, P., Crespi, G., Ruggeri, C., 2018. The role
of digital technologies for the service transformation of industrial companies. Int. J.
Prod. Res. 56 (6), 2116–2132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1324224
Baines, T., Lightfoot, H.W., 2014. Servitization of the manufacturing firm: exploring the
operations practices and technologies that deliver advanced services. Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manag. 34 (1). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2012-0086
Azkan, C., Iggena, I., Gür, I., Möller, F., Otto, B., 2020A. A taxonomy for data-driven
services in manufacturing industries. PACIS 2020 Proc. 184.https://aisel.aisnet.
org/pacis2020/184.
Baines Ziaee, T., Bigdeli, A., Sousa, R., Schroeder, A., 2020. Framing the servitization
transformation process: a model to understand and facilitate the servitization
journey. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 221, 107463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.036
Bettencourt, L.A., Ulwick, A.W., 2008. The customer- centered innovation map. Harv.
Bus. Rev. 86 (5), 109–114.
Bettencourt, L.A., Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L., 2014. A service lens on value creation: mar­
keting’s role in achieving strategic advantage. Calif. Manag. Rev. 57 (1), 44–66.
https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.57.1.44
Beverungen, D., Lüttenberg, H., Wolf, V., 2018. Recombinant SErvice Systems
Engineering. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 60 (5), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-
018-0526-4
Beverungen, D., Müller, O., Matzner, M., Mendling, J., vom Brocke, J., 2019.
Conceptualizing smart service systems. Electron. Mark. (29:1), 7–18. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12525-017-0270-5
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2014. A literature and practice review to
develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 42–56. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039
Böhmann, T., Leimeister, J.M., Möslein, K., 2014. Service systems engineering. Bus. Inf.
Syst. Eng. 6, 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-014-0314-8
Boukhris, A., Fritzsche, A. 2019. What is smart about services? Breaking the bond
between the smart product and the service. ECIS 2019 Proc. https://aisel.aisnet.
org/ecis2019_rp/150.
Brinkkemper, S., 1996. Method engineering: engineering of information systems de­
velopment methods and tools. Inf. Softw. Technol. 38 (4), 275–280. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0950-5849(95)01059-9
Brunetti, F., Matt, D.T., Bonfanti, A., De Longhi, A., Pedrini, G., Orzes, G., 2020. Digital
transformation challenges: strategies emerging from a multi-stakeholder ap­
proach. TQM J. 32 (4), 697–724. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2019-0309
Bucher, T., Klesse, M., Kurpjuweit, S., Winter, R., 2007. Situational method en­
gineering. In: Working Conference on Method Engineering. Springer, Boston, pp.
33–48.
Burmeister, C., Lüttgens, D., Piller, F., 2016B. Business model innovation for industrie
4.0: why the ‘industrial internet’ mandates a new perspective on innovation. Die
Unternehm. 70 (2), 124–152. https://doi.org/10.5771/0042-059X-2016-2-124
Chowdhury, S., Haftor, D., Pashkevich, N., 2018. Smart product-service systems (Smart
PSS) in industrial firms: a literature review. Procedia CIRP 73, 26–31. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.333
Chung, E.S., Hong, J.I., Lin, J., Prabaker, M.K., Landay, J.A., Liu, A.L., 2004. Development
and evaluation of emerging design patterns for ubiquitous computing. Proceedings
M. Ebel, D. Jaspert and J. Poeppelbuss
of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods,
and techniques 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1145/1013115.1013148
Costa, N., Patrício, L., Morelli, N., Magee, C.L., 2018. Bringing service design to man­
ufacturing companies: integrating PSS and service design approaches. Des. Stud.
55, 112–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.09.002
Dehnert, M., Gleiss, A., Reiss, F., 2021. What makes a data-driven business model? A
consolidated taxonomy. ECIS 2021 Proc. 17.https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2021_rp/
139.
Demirkan, H., Bess, C., Spohrer, J., Rayes, A., Allen, D., Moghaddam, Y., 2015.
Innovations with smart service systems: analytics, big data, cognitive assistance,
and the internet of everything. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst.(37). https://doi.org/10.
17705/1CAIS.03735
Drechsler, A., Hevner, A.R., 2018. Utilizing, producing, and contributing design
knowledge in DSR projects. In: International Conference on Design Science Research
in Information Systems and Technology. Springer, pp. 82–97.
Dreyer, S., Olivotti, D., Lebek, B., Breitner, M.H., 2019. Focusing the customer through
smart services: a literature review. Electron. Mark. 29 (1), 55–78. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12525-019-00328-z
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., 2013. A new conceptualization of service innovation
grounded in S‐D logic and service systems. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 5 (1), 19–31.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17566691311316220
Eggert, A., Kleinaltenkamp, M., Kashyap, V., 2019. Mapping value in business markets:
an integrative framework. Ind. Mark. Manag. 79, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2019.03.004
Eyal, T., Steffel, M., Epley, N., 2018. Perspective mistaking: accurately understanding
the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective. J.
Personal. Soc. Psychol. 114 (4), 547–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000115
Fu, K., Schunn, C., Cagan, J., Wood, K., Kotovsky, K., 2011. On the benefits and pitfalls of
analogies for innovative design: ideation performance based on analogical dis­
tance, commonness, and modality of examples. J. Mech. Des. 133 (8). https://doi.
org/10.1115/1.4004396
Gassmann, O., Zeschky, M., 2008. Opening up the solution space: the role of analogical
thinking for breakthrough product innovation. Creat. Innov. Manag. 17 (2),
97–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2008.00475.x
Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., Csik, M., 2014. The Business Model Navigator: 55
models that will revolutionise your business. Pearson, UK.
Gebauer, H., Fleisch, E., Lamprecht, C., Wortmann, F., 2020. Growth paths for over­
coming the digitalization paradox. Bus. Horiz. 63 (3), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.bushor.2020.01.005
Girotra, K., Terwiesch, C., Ulrich, K.T., 2010. Idea generation and the quality of the best
idea. Manag. Sci. 56 (4), 591–605. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1144
Herterich, M.M., Brenner, W., Uebernickel, F., 2016. Stepwise evolution of capabilities
for harnessing digital data streams in data-driven industrial services. MIS Q. Exec.
15 (4), 297–318.
Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S., 2004. Design science in information systems
research. MIS Q. 28 (1), 75–105.
Höckmayr, B., Roth, A., 2017. Design of a method for service systems engineering in
the digital age. ICIS 2017 Proc. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2017/ServiceScience/
Presentations/8.
Huikkola, T., Kohtamäki, M., Rabetino, R., Makkonen, H., Holtkamp, P., 2021.
Overcoming the challenges of smart solution development: co-alignment of
processes, routines, and practices to manage product, service, and software in­
tegration. Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102382
Iriarte, I., Hoveskog, M., Justel, D., Val, E., Halila, F., 2018. Service design visualization
tools for supporting servitization in a machine tool manufacturer. Ind. Mark.
Manag. 71, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.01.003
Isenberg, P., Elmqvist, N., Scholtz, J., Cernea, D., Ma, Kwan-Liu, Hagen, H., 2011.
Collaborative visualization: definition, challenges, and research agenda. Inf. Vis.
10 (4), 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473871611412817
Jüttner, U., Schaffner, D., Windler, K., Maklan, S., 2013. Customer service experiences:
developing and applying a sequentialincident laddering technique. Eur. J. Mark. 47
(5/6), 738–769. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561311306769
Klein, M.M., Biehl, S.S., Friedli, T., 2018. Barriers to smart services for manufacturing
companies – an exploratory study in the capital goods industry. J. Bus. Ind. Mark.
33 (6), 846–856. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2015-0204
Knoll, S. W., & Horton, G. (2011, January). The impact of stimuli characteristics on the
ideation process: an evaluation of the change of perspective 'analogy'. In 2011 44th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). IEEE.doi:10.1109/
HICSS.2011.416.
Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R., Clamen, A., Davidson, J., D’Amore, R., Elkins, C.,
Herald, K., Incorvia, M., Johnson, A., Karol, R., Seibert, R., Slavejkov, A., Wagner, K.,
2001. Providing clarity and a common language to the ‘fuzzy front end’. Res.
Technol. Manag. 44 (2), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2001.11671418
Kohtamäki, M., Parida, V., Oghazi, P., Gebauer, H., Baines, T., 2019. Digital servitization
business models in ecosystems: a theory of the firm. J. Bus. Res. 104, 380–392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.027
Kohtamäki, M., Einola, S., Rabetino, R., 2020. Exploring servitization through the
paradox lens: coping practices in servitization. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 226. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107619
Kristoffersen, E., Blomsma, F., Mikalef, P., Li, J., 2020. The smart circular economy: a
digital-enabled circular strategies framework for manufacturing companies. J.
Bus. Res. 120, 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.044
Kuhlenkötter, B., Wilkens, U., Bender, B., Abramovici, M., Süße, T., Göbel, J., Herzog, M.,
Hypki, A., Lenkenhoff, K., 2017. New perspectives for generating smart PSS solu­
tions – Life cycle, methodologies and transformation. Procedia CIRP 64, 217–222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.036
13
Computers in Industry 138 (2022) 103625
Leitner, H., 2015. Pattern theory: introduction and perspectives on the tracks of
Christopher Alexander. HLS Softw.
Li, K., Tiwari, A., Alcock, J., Bermell-Garcia, P., 2016. Categorisation of visualisation
methods to support the design of human-computer interaction systems. Appl.
Ergon. 55, 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.01.009
Linde, L., Sjödin, D., Parida, V., Gebauer, H., 2021. Evaluation of digital business model
opportunities: a framework for avoiding digitalization traps. Res. Technol. Manag.
64 (1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2021.1842664
Lim, C., Maglio, P.P., 2018. Data-Driven Understanding of Smart Service Systems
Through Text Mining. Serv. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.2018.0208
Linde, L., Frishammar, J., Parida, V., 2021. Revenue models for digital servitization: a
value capture framework for designing, developing, and scaling digital services.
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3053386
Lindič, J., Marques da Silva, C., 2011. Value proposition as a catalyst for a customer
focused innovation. Manag. Decis. 49 (10), 1694–1708. https://doi.org/10.1108/
00251741111183834
Lüdeke-Freund, F., Carroux, S., Joyce, A., Massa, L., Breuer, H., 2018. The sustainable
business model pattern taxonomy—45 patterns to support sustainability-oriented
business model innovation. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 15, 145–162. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.spc.2018.06.004
Lüdeke‐Freund, F., Gold, S., Bocken, N.M.P., 2019. A review and typology of circular
economy business model Patterns. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (1), 36–61. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jiec.12763
Lusch, R.F., Nambisan, S., 2015. Service innovation: a service-dominant logic per­
spective. MIS Q. 39 (1), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.1.07
Macdonald, E.K., Kleinaltenkamp, M., Wilson, H.N., 2016. How business customers
judge solutions: solution quality and value in use. J. Mark. 80 (3), 96–120. https://
doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0109
Mager, B., Sung, T.J., 2011. Special issue editorial: designing for services. Int. J. Des. 5
(2), 3.
Maglio, P.P., Lim, C.-H., 2016. Innovation and big data in smart service systems. J.
Innov. Manag. 4 (1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_004.001_0003
March, S.T., Smith, G.F., 1995. Design and natural science research on information
technology. Decis. Support Syst. 15 (4), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-
9236(94)00041-2
Melegati, J., 2020. Understanding hypotheses engineering in software startups
through a gray literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
infsof.2020.106465
Mettler, T., Eurich, M., 2012. A ‘design-pattern’-based approach for analyzing e-health
business models. Health Policy Technol. 1 (2), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
hlpt.2012.04.005
Nambisan, S., 2015. Service innovation: a service-dominant logic perspective. MIS Q.
39 (1), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.1.07
Neuhüttler, J., Woyke, I.C., Ganz, W., 2017N. Applying value proposition design for
developing smart service business models in manufacturing firms. In:
International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Springer,
Cham, pp. 103–114.
Nickerson, R.C., Varshney, U., Muntermann, J., 2013. A method for taxonomy devel­
opment and its application in information systems. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22 (3),
336–359. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.26
Nudurupati, S.S., Lascelles, D., Wright, G., Yip, N., 2016. Eight challenges of servi­
tisation for the configuration, measurement and management of organisations.
J. Serv. Theory Pract. 26 (6), 745–763. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-02-2015-
0045
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., Smith, A., 2014. Value Proposition Design:
How to Create Products and Services Customers Want. John Wiley & Sons.
Ostrom, A.L., Parasuraman, A., Bowen, D.E., Patrício, L., Voss, C.A., 2015. Service re­
search priorities in a rapidly changing context. J. Serv. Res. 18 (2), 127–159.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670515576315
Paiola, M., Gebauer, H., 2020. Internet of things technologies, digital servitization and
business model innovation in BtoB manufacturing firms. Ind. Mark. Manag.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.03.009
Parida, V., Sjödin, D., Reim, W., 2019. Reviewing literature on digitalization, business
model innovation, and sustainable industry: past achievements and future pro­
mises. Sustainability 11 (2), 391. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020391
Paschou, T., Rapaccini, M., Adrodegari, F., Saccani, N., 2020. Digital servitization in
manufacturing: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Ind. Mark.
Manag. 89, 278–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.012
Patrício, L., de Pinho, N.F., Teixeira, J.G., Fisk, R.P., 2018. Service design for value net­
works: enabling value cocreation interactions in healthcare. Serv. Sci. 10 (1),
76–97. https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.2017.0201
Patrício, L., Gustafsson, A., Fisk, R., 2018. Upframing service design and innovation for
research impact. J. Serv. Res. 21 (1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094670517746780
Paukstadt, U., Strobel, G., Eicker, S., 2019. Understanding services in the era of the
internet of things: a smart service taxonomy. ECIS 2019 Proc. 19.https://aisel.
aisnet.org/ecis2019_rp/72.
Payne, A., Frow, P., 2014. Developing superior value propositions: a strategic mar­
keting imperative. J. Serv. Manag. 25 (2), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-
01-2014-0036
Payne, A., Frow, P., Eggert, A., 2017. The customer value proposition: evolution, de­
velopment, and application in marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 45 (4), 467–489.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0523-z
Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Tuunanen, T., Vaezi, R., 2012. Design science research
evaluation. In: International Conference on Design Science Research in Information
Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 398–410.
M. Ebel, D. Jaspert and J. Poeppelbuss
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S., 2007. A design science
research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24 (3),
45–77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302
Pirola, F., Boucher, X., Wiesner, S., Pezzotta, G., 2020. Digital technologies in product-
service systems: a literature review and a research agenda. Comput. Ind. 123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2020.103301
Poeppelbuss, J., Durst, C., 2019. Smart Service Canvas – A tool for analyzing and de­
signing smart product-service systems. Procedia CIRP 83, 324–329. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.04.077
Poeppelbuss, J., Ebel, M., Anke, J., 2021. Iterative uncertainty reduction in multi-actor smart
service innovation. Electron. Mark. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-021-00500-4
Porter, M.E., Heppelmann, J.E., 2014. How smart, connected products are transforming
competition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 92 (11), 64–88.
Prat, N., Comyn-Wattiau, I., Akoka, J., 2015. A taxonomy of evaluation methods for
information systems artifacts. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 32 (3), 229–267. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07421222.2015.1099390
Punch, K.F., Oancea, A., 2014. Introduction to research methods in education. Sage.
Rabetino, R., 2017. Strategy map of servitization. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 13. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.11.004
Remane, G., Hanelt, A., Tesch, J.F., Kolbe, L.M., 2017. The business model pattern da­
tabase—a tool for systematic business model innovation. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 21
(01), 1750004. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919617500049
Rosenbaum, M.S., Otalora, M.L., Ramírez, G.C., 2017. How to create a realistic customer
journey map. Bus. Horiz. 60 (1), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.09.010
Russwurm, S., 2021. Dinge, die wir verpasst haben, January 4.〈https://www.
thepioneer.de/originals/steingarts-morning-briefing/podcasts/dinge-die-wir-
verpasst-haben〉.
Saldaña, J., 2013. The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 2nd ed. Sage.
Schmidt, R.C., 1997. Managing delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical tech­
niques. Decis. Sci. 28 (3), 763–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.
tb01330.x
Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R., 2011. Action design re­
search. Manag. Inf. Syst.: Mis Q. 35 (1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043488
Sio, U.N., Kotovsky, K., Cagan, J., 2015. Fixation or inspiration? A meta-analytic review
of the role of examples on design processes. Des. Stud. 39, 70–99. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.destud.2015.04.004
Sjödin, D., Parida, V., Kohtamäki, M., Wincent, J., 2020. An agile co-creation process for
digital servitization: a micro-service innovation approach. J. Bus. Res. 112,
478–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.009
Skålén, P., Gummerus, J., von Koskull, C., Magnusson, P.R., 2015. Exploring value
propositions and service innovation: a service-dominant logic study. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 43 (2), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0365-2
Sklyar, A., Kowalkowskia, C., Tronvoll, B., Sörhammar, D., 2019. Organizing for digital
servitization_ a service ecosystem perspective. J. Bus. Res. 11. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.012
Solem, B.A.A., Kohtamäki, M., Parida, V., Brekke, T., 2021. Untangling service design
routines for digital servitization: empirical insights of smart PSS in maritime in­
dustry. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-10-2020-0429
14
Computers in Industry 138 (2022) 103625
Sonnenberg, C., vom Brocke, J., 2012. Evaluations in the science of the artificial–re­
considering the build-evaluate pattern in design science research. In: International
Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, pp. 381–397.
Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M.E., Lawrence, A., Schneider, J., 2018. This Is Service Design
Doing. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
Tate, M., Bongiovanni, I., Kowalkiewicz, M., Townson, P., 2018. Managing the ‘fuzzy
front end’ of open digital service innovation in the public sector: a methodology.
Int. J. Inf. Manag. 39, 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.11.008
Teixeira, J.G., Patrício, L., Huang, K.-H., Fisk, R.P., Nóbrega, L., Constantine, L., 2017. The
MINDS method: integrating management and interaction design perspectives for
service design. J. Serv. Res. 20 (3), 240–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094670516680033
Teixeira, J.G., Patrício, L., Tuunanen, T., 2019. Advancing service design research with
design science research. J. Serv. Manag. 30 (5), 577–592. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JOSM-05-2019-0131
Töytäri, P., Turunen, T., Klein, M., Eloranta, V., Biehl, S., Rajala, R., 2018. Aligning the
mindset and capabilities within a business network for successful adoption of
smart services. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 35 (5), 763–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jpim.12462
Tronvoll, B., Sklyar, A., Sörhammar, D., Kowalkowski, C., 2020. Transformational shifts
through digital servitization. Ind. Mark. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2020.02.005
Vink, J., Edvardsson, B., Wetter-Edman, K., Tronvoll, B., 2019. Reshaping mental models
– enabling innovation through service design. J. Serv. Manag. 30 (1), 75–104.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-08-2017-0186
Vink, J., Koskela-Huotari, K., 2021. Building reflexivity using service design methods. J.
Serv. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705211035004
Weking, J., Hein, A., Böhm, M., Krcmar, H., 2018. A hierarchical taxonomy of business
model patterns. Electron. Mark. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-018-0322-5
Weking, J., Stöcker, M., Kowalkiewicz, M., Böhm, M., Krcmar, H., 2020. Leveraging
industry 4.0 – a business model pattern framework. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 225, 107588.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107588
Wolf, V., Bartelheimer, C., Beverungen, D., 2020. Establishing smart service systems is
a challenge: A case study on pitfalls and implications. WI 2020 Proc. https://doi.
org/10.30844/wi_2020_t4-wolf.
Wuenderlich, N.V., Heinonen, K., Ostrom, A.L., Patricio, L., Sousa, R., Voss, C., Lemmink,
J.G.A.M., 2015. ‘Futurizing’ smart service: implications for service researchers and
managers. J. Serv. Mark. 29 (6/7), 442–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2015-
0040
Yilmaz, S., Daly, S.R., Seifert, C.M., Gonzalez, R., 2016. Evidence-based design heuristics
for idea generation. Des. Stud. 46, 95–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.
05.001
Yin, R.K., 2018. Case Study Research Design and Methods, 6th Ed. Sage Publishing,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zeithaml, V.A., Verleye, K., Hatak, I., Koller, M., Zauner, A., 2020. Three decades of
customer value research: paradigmatic roots and future research avenues. J. Serv.
Res. 23 (4), 409–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520948134