Out 2

sustainability
Article
Identifying the Value Co-Creation Model and Upgrading Path of
Manufacturing Enterprises from the Value Network Perspective
Gang Li 1, *, Jiayi Wu 2 and Ning Li 1
1 College of Economics and Management, Xi’an University of Posts & Telecommunications, Xi’an 710061, China
2 Industry School of Modern Post, Xi’an University of Posts & Telecommunications, Xi’an 710061, China
* Correspondence: cligan@xupt.edu.cn
Abstract: The servitization of manufacturing enterprises has two main directions: production serviti-
zation and product servitization. The value co-creation model describes the transformation process of
servitization of manufacturing enterprises; it is far more complex than that of service enterprises, and
requires more in-depth research. This paper explores the value co-creation model and upgrading path
based on the servitization of manufacturing enterprises, based on the idea that the value network sup-
ported by information technology has become a vital support for the servitization value co-creation of
manufacturing enterprises. Referring to the degree of servitization of manufacturing enterprises and
the degree of integration of complementary resources among value network members, we explore
the value co-creation model between manufacturing enterprises and each network subject. We obtain
four models: double-low model, servitization leading model, resource complementary leading model,
and double-high model. We then clarify the characteristics, scope of application, advantages, and
disadvantages of each model, and the means of value creation. We also apply the rough set method
to empirically test the feasibility of the classification parameters of the value co-creation model and
the accuracy of the classification rules, using Chinese listed and non-listed manufacturing enterprises
Citation: Li, G.; Wu, J.; Li, N.
as a sample. The findings provide a theoretical reference and practical guidance for manufactur-
Identifying the Value Co-Creation
Model and Upgrading Path of
ing enterprises to achieve sustainable development and determine the upgrade path of the value
Manufacturing Enterprises from the co-creation model.
Value Network Perspective.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16008. Keywords: servitization of manufacturing enterprises; manufacturing enterprises; sustainability;
https://doi.org/10.3390/ value co-creation; value network; resource integration
su142316008
Academic Editor:
Davide Settembre-Blundo
1. Introduction
Received: 5 October 2022
Value co-creation is the main way for manufacturing enterprises to achieve upgrading
Accepted: 27 November 2022
and add value. Over the years, the research on value co-creation has attracted continuous
Published: 30 November 2022
attention. Through value co-creation, enterprises can cooperate with various participating
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral subjects and create a wide range of value [1,2]. Value co-creation is becoming increasingly
with regard to jurisdictional claims in critical for manufacturing enterprises to address volatile environments and current dynamic
published maps and institutional affil- development [3], and is playing a vital role in the sustainability of the manufacturing
iations. enterprise [4]. However, the traditional value co-creation model research can no longer
meet the needs of modern manufacturing enterprises.
The servitization of manufacturing is the most important characteristic of a servitiza-
tion society, which emphasizes the need for manufacturing enterprises to provide more
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
service value in addition to physical products. In the competitive market environment
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
of excess manufacturing products, modern manufacturing industries are developing in
This article is an open access article
the direction of high integration with services in order to alleviate the trend of gradually
distributed under the terms and
decreasing marginal benefits, rebuild competitive advantages, and obtain new marketing
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
opportunities. Servitization has become the primary means of creating value for manu-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
facturing enterprises, providing them with a continuous and stable source of income [5].
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16008. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316008 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 16008 2 of 23
However, with technological developments (such as the Internet of Things) [6], the interac-
tive support of service value and tangible product value has become more obvious, and
each value co-creation subject has an increasing impact on overall value. The value output
type of manufacturing value co-creation has changed from service value to a mixture
of service and tangible product value, resulting in changes in the value contribution of
different value co-creation participants, a gradual decrease in the role of consumers or
customers, a mismatch between the value co-creation model based on service-dominant
logic and practice, and increasing complexity [7], which requires equal emphasis on a
new service-dominant logic and product-led logic. Therefore, the new sustainable value
co-creation models which can integrate new service-dominant logic and product-led logic
are needed to be explored in line with the development of the times to ensure sustainable
development [8].
The development of information technology has further prompted the shift in the
Internet from a “consumer Internet” to an “industrial Internet” [9], “ecological Internet”,
and “value Internet” [10]. By using “network” thinking to integrate complex interactions
and resources between enterprises and their partners to form value networks has become a
means of business organization and value transfer. Many enterprises had reconstructed
new productivity factors and new production relations in the network era [11], such as the
advanced manufacturing model oriented to a global value network, Haier’s innovative
practice of intelligent manufacturing model of connected factory [12], and Lenovo’s intelli-
gent manufacturing model [13]. Among these value network-based smart manufacturing
models, the value co-creation model based on service-dominant logic solves the problem
of value diversity but cannot meet the need for networked value co-creation of physical
products. In addition, the value co-creation model based on service-dominant logic cannot
promote the integrated development of the digital economy and the real economy, and
makes it difficult to guide manufacturing enterprises to promote the transformation and
upgrade of the manufacturing enterprise. Further, different types of manufacturing enter-
prises cannot judge their own value co-creation stage and cannot adapt to the sustainable
development strategy. Therefore, in order to fill in the above research blank, we need to
study the value co-creation problem from a more macro level of complex network systems
and identify the value co-creation model of manufacturing enterprise from the perspective
of value network in line with the current network environment [14].
This paper breaks through the limitations of single service-dominant logic and service
value co-creation, combines the new characteristics of value network resource integration,
and constructs a matrix model based on resource integration theory and service-dominant
logic. Furthermore, this paper extends the value co-creation model from the concept and
model evaluation to the practical level, focusing on the value co-creation realization ac-
tivities and implementation level of manufacturing enterprises. It reveals the essence of
value co-creation in the new environment of manufacturing enterprises, provides a feasible
path for the sustainable development of value co-creation and upgrading of manufacturing
enterprises, and provides practical guidance for manufacturing enterprises in servitization
to position their value co-creation model. It helps manufacturing enterprises use the advan-
tages of digital and intelligent value to achieve upgrading and sustainable development.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Manufacturing Enterprise Servitization and Value Co-Creation Model
The concept of “servitization” was first proposed by Vandermerwe and Rada in
1988, who argued that manufacturing enterprises should not only produce goods but
also adopt a comprehensive “product-service package” model [15]. The servitization of
manufacturing enterprises is essentially the process of transformation of manufacturing
enterprises from traditional commodity providers to service providers. That is, they form
an operating model in which manufacturing enterprises can improve their competitive
advantage by continuously integrating services into commodities. Several scholars have
explored the servitization of the manufacturing enterprise from the perspective of value
co-creation, believing that the servitization of manufacturing should focus on “value”.

From this perspective, value co-creation is divided into four servitization models [16].
Ding Zhaoguo summarized the value evolution process of servitization manufacturing
and elaborated on four different value creation models of manufacturing in the process of
servitization [17]. Some scholars have also explored the perspective of service derivation
and expounded on the mechanism of value creation of manufacturing enterprises, stating
that there are two main types: service-derived value creation and enhanced service-derived
value creation [18]. Research on the overall servitization of manufacturing enterprises
and manufacturing industries not only focuses on value creation but also goes deeper to
examine value co-creation.
With the gradual replacement of commodity-driven logic by service-dominant logic [3],
research related to the value co-creation model has also gradually shifted to the problem
of the change of value co-creation subjects—that is, the value-added problem of service
value—resulting in the concept of value co-creation. Windahl indicated that value creation
should focus on value creation systems that include multiple actors, emphasizing that
participants rather than the enterprise itself co-create value [19]. Lavie stated that the value
creation mechanism is the process by which all partners in the system create value and share
profits [20]. Jian Zhaoquan et al. proposed that the value creation method in the process of
servitization of manufacturing has shifted from the traditional “enterprise–customer” and
“enterprise–stakeholder” binary relationship to an ecosystem that includes more value cre-
ation subjects [5]. The three different degrees of value co-creation servitization, use-oriented,
and result-oriented are integrated into the three interactive levels of micro, meso, and macro
to create a value co-creation model matrix, and create nine kinds of manufacturing enter-
prise servitization value co-creation models. In the process of studying the evolution of
manufacturing servitization from the perspective of value co-creation, some scholars have
summarized five manufacturing servitization value co-creation models: product extension
servitization, product enhancement servitization, leading product servitization, business
unit servitization, and core capability servitization [21]. According to the different subjects
involved, the value co-creation model can be divided into three categories: (1) the value
co-creation of enterprises and upstream suppliers; (2) the value co-creation of enterprises
and consumers, of which the primary view is that the traditional value co-creation model
led by enterprises is no longer suitable for the current era, and enterprises should adopt
customer-led value co-creation model, as enterprises are only collaborators of value co-
creation and customers are the leading value co-creation [22]; and (3) value co-creation
through the participation of many stakeholders [23],which entails a value co-creation model
in which enterprises, as manufacturing service integrators, suppliers, financial institutions,
and research institutes as professional service providers, and the government and the
media as potential stakeholders, jointly integrate relationships and knowledge resources to
interact with customers. The value co-creation model based on servitization value can be
summarized as the strategic leading layer, with business management providing cultural,
institutional, and organizational support and the financial layer providing financial support
and information mapping, jointly promoting co-creation, sharing, and symbiosis value
between the value co-creation layer and enterprise stakeholders [24], and revealing the
sustainability characteristics of servitization.
The value co-creation model based on the service-dominant logic only emphasizes
the “value co-production” method, and has a limited practical effect on guiding the value
co-creation of manufacturing enterprises. As the value co-creation model extends from
traditional enterprise and consumer fields to the value co-creation model between enter-
prises and enterprises, research related to the value co-creation model also extends from
the traditional consumption field to the industrial production field. The model emphasizes
that the sources of sustainable value creation are information interaction and knowledge
innovation. Thus, such research has focused on value co-creation cooperation channels,
such as virtual brand communities or social media, wherein the value co-creation model
is created by two parties and emphasizes customer participation. Transformed into a
multi-party value co-creation model with the participation of multiple value network
members, the value co-creation model mainly includes commitment, interaction, resource
integration, collaboration, and so on. Regarding the value co-creation model between
enterprises, few scholars have touched on the problem of value co-creation in the process
of servitization of manufacturing enterprises, and few have associated the servitization
of manufacturing enterprises with value co-creation. Therefore, it is vital to study the
value co-creation model within the context of servitization of manufacturing enterprises,
to systematically analyze its scope of application, advantages and disadvantages; and to
examine how each model creates value and realizes value co-creation in different stages of
servitization. Therefore, exploring the role of servitization in value co-creation is crucial to
the sustainable development of manufacturing enterprises.
2.2. Value Co-Creation Model from the Perspective of Value Network

The study of value co-creation model from the perspective of value network is the
study of value co-creation model by many stakeholders to achieve sustainable development.
From the network perspective, the model breaks the traditional perspectives of value cre-
ation in the value chain; that is, the linear relationship between enterprises is considered the
basis for the transmission of resources and for value flow, which makes value creation shift
toward networking. Most scholars have focused on enterprise value networks, including
the different types of value networks at different stages of servitization [25], the mechanism
of value creation through value networks [15], the characteristics of value networks from
multiple dimensions (such as network density and network size) [26], and the innovation of
business models based on different value networks [27]. The identity of manufacturing en-
terprises is transformed into manufacturing service integrators in the network, professional
service providers and other stakeholders are collectively referred to as network subjects,
and manufacturing enterprises realize value co-creation by leveraging the sustainable
features of value networks with each network subject, including customers [15,28,29].
Applying the value network perspective to the servitization research field allows us to
analyze how enterprises and their partners effectively take advantage of value networks
to achieve value co-creation and promote manufacturing servitization through opening
the “black box” within the process of the servitization value co-creation in manufacturing
enterprises [15]. The development of the industrial internet has led to a significant decrease
in the costs of communication and transaction among value network members. Thus,
reduction in the costs of co-creation of tangible product value requires a new value co-
creation model to guide enterprise value co-creation practices. Value co-creation from the
perspective of value networks can change traditional single modes of thinking about value
creation based on value chains and shift attention to the interaction between subjects and
resource integration, broaden the perspective of problem research, and reveal the origin
of value co-creation [25]. Value co-creation emphasizes that each participating subject
has an important impact on overall value in the process of value creation. Feng Changli
explored how value co-creation is carried out between different subjects and argued that
the sources of value co-creation are the interactive activities and resource integration
between subjects [28]. The service-dominant logic rooted in core competence theory and
resource advantage theory considers all economic and social actors as resource integrators,
indicating that the context of value co-creation is networked. The resources required for
value co-creation exceed the enterprise–customer interface; therefore, other stakeholders,
such as suppliers, employees, and alliances, also need to be added to the value co-creation
network. Due to the lack of their resource integration capabilities and the increase in time
cost, some manufacturing enterprises are unable to quickly improve their service levels
to meet the requirements of value co-creation. This requires manufacturing enterprises
to interactively couple to form an open innovation ecosystem value co-creation model
through mergers and acquisitions, inter-enterprise collaboration, and industry–university–
research cooperation. Xuemei Xie and Hongwei Wang posited the “industry–university–
research cooperation model, inter-enterprise collaboration model, cooperation model with
intermediaries, technology purchase model, technology innovation model, technology

innovation model, technology purchase model, social media platform strategy model, and
merger and acquisition model, which are regarded as open innovation ecosystem value
co-creation models. The three equivalent paths of different value co-creation models were
extracted using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis [30]. Based on the enterprise core
open innovation ecosystem, which satisfies the characteristics of pluralism, competition,
co-evolution, and complex interaction, Qiongwen Cheng and Yixuan Zhao proposed three
models of value co-creation: the mergers and acquisitions model, the joint venture model,
and the cooperation model. Their findings indicated that the mergers and acquisitions
model and the cooperation models could enhance the value co-creation effect, while the
joint venture model does not have a significant effect on the value co-creation effect [31].
With the establishment of the industrial internet system, the rapid spread of internet
technologies such as 5G, and the strong support of national policies for high-tech industries,
most scholars in the field have paid attention to high-tech industries and explored enter-
prises with a high degree of “Internet+” development for new value co-creation models.
Therefore, how to take advantage of the Internet to help the sustainable development of
the manufacturing enterprise is particularly important. For example, Liping Wang, Juxiang
Li, and Qiong Li built an in-depth value co-creation model for the innovation ecosystem
of the science and technology service industry based on the elements of the ecosystem of
the science and technology service industry [32]. Yongkai Ma, Shiming Li, and Jingming
Pan studied more than 50 domestic and foreign industrial internet platform enterprises
and proposed the “three links” value co-creation model with four subjects: manufacturers,
suppliers, retailers, and customers. The value of “linkage” creation eventually becomes a
co-creation “joint body” [33]. Jinghui Yao adopted five dimensions: initiating subject, core
competence, value proposition, promotion mechanism, and value realization. These studies
distinguished between three typical innovation ecosystem value co-creation models of Inter-
net+ enterprises—namely, institution-led, community-driven, and institution-community
synergy—and adopted three case studies (Multipoint, Hapu, and WeChat applet) for
comparative analysis [34].
The previous study addressed value co-creation and partly explored the problem
of value co-creation in value networks, but ignored the integration of network members’
resources in value co-creation and the fact that the value network of manufacturing en-
terprises is still the main value carrier of physical products (or parts), so that the value
co-creation model of manufacturing enterprises based on value networks should have its
unique way, which is worth studying.
3. Building a Matrix of Value Co-Creation Models

In this section, we begin to construct a network-based value co-creation model coor-
dinating system using two dimensions—degree of servitization and degree of resource
integration—and create a basis for the division of the value co-creation model matrix.
Manufacturing enterprises are distinguished and identified on the basis of the bivariate
control of different degrees of the two dimensions.
3.1. Degree of Servitization

The implementation of a servitization strategy to promote consumer demand is a
prerequisite for value co-creation by enterprises. In addition, in servitization strategies,
enterprises interact with various actors at different levels according to their stage of servi-
tization to provide diversified services to customers, such that all parties involved gain
economies of scale and thus achieve value co-creation [29]. Different degrees of servitization
will lead to different service values created by enterprises, and value co-creation methods
also differ greatly; thus, the degree of servitization is a key driving factor of sustainability
in value network. Yuan Chang presented several strategies for servitization, as well as
the discovery and classification of effective service models at both the product and project
levels, and offered a few insights into sustainable value creation from the perspective of
service innovation [8]. Combining the sustainability characteristics of servitization, the

degree of servitization is included in the value co-creation consideration.
3.2. Degree of Resource Integration

The effective use of resources is a prerequisite for achieving a higher degree of match-
ing between supply and demand. In addition, resources are an important factor for man-
ufacturing enterprises to create value by removing capacity and inventory in deepening
supply-side structural reform, as well as to support enterprises to carry out servitization
in depth [18]. The effective use of resources is also an important prerequisite for servitiza-
tion manufacturing enterprises to achieve value co-creation [35]. Gadrey found that the
technical participation of system actors and resource advantages are causally related to the
provision of PSS (product-service systems) by manufacturing enterprises, and that value
co-creation is essentially the result of resource support for PSS through the participation of
multiple socio-technical competence actors. The purpose of providing PSS is to improve
service quality and thus enhance the service experience of customers, which is a challenge
to current resource needs and capability requirements of enterprises; thus, the integration
of resources and complementary advantages is important for value creation [36]. Pott
pointed out that the key to value co-creation is the interaction between network subjects,
and indicated that interaction activity mainly manifests in the integration of resources [37].
Windahl suggested that resources controlled by subjects can only create value through inte-
gration, thus enabling subjects to achieve value co-creation [38]. The interaction between
subjects and the degree of absorption and integration of enterprise network resources are
important factors influencing the realization of value co-creation. In fact, the interaction
between subjects aids in identifying, integrating, sharing, and matching resources. Achiev-
ing sustainable development of resources is a prerequisite for enterprises to achieve value
co-creation. Enterprises need to create value through the external effects of value networks
so that each actor has different resources to co-create value and the exploration of value
co-creation can go beyond the resource perspective at the enterprise level to the resource
perspective at the network level [15].
With manufacturing enterprises continuing to upgrade their services, such services
are shifting from basic additional services to comprehensive solutions centered around
“products + services”. In the process of this transformation, there is greater demand for
enterprise resources. The cooperation and interaction among subjects in a network is one
way in which to obtain the relevant resources required for value creation, and enterprises
can realize value co-creation in the process of interaction, integration, and application of
resources among subjects [29,37,39]. The prerequisite for value co-creation is a process of
interaction, integration, and application, along with servitization, and the basis for this
transformation is interaction between subjects. The essence of interaction focuses on the
integration of complementary resources by using “network” thinking. Thus, the degree of
utilization and integration of complementary resources in each stage of servitization is a
key influencing factor on whether manufacturing enterprises can achieve sustainable value
co-creation in servitization transformation. Therefore, based on the degree of servitization
and the degree of resource integration, we propose four types of manufacturing enterprises’
value co-creation models, as shown in Figure 1.
a key influencing factor on whether manufacturing enterprises can achieve sustainab
value co-creation in servitization transformation. Therefore, based on the degree o
servitization and the degree of resource integration, we propose four types o
manufacturing enterprises’ value co-creation models, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Classification of value co-creation models for manufacturing enterprises.

Figure 1. Classification of value co-creation models for manufacturing enterprises.
4. Value Co-Creation Model and Characteristics
4. Value
4.1. Co-Creation
Double-Low Model Model and Characteristics
4.1.The double-low
Double-Low model is in the lower-left corner of the coordinate system, as in
Model
Figure 1. Here, the degrees of servitization and complementary resource integration are
The double-low model is in the lower-left corner of the coordinate system, as i
both low, such that there is basically no interactive activity between the enterprise and
Figure
each 1. Here,
network the the
subject, degrees
degree ofofservitization
complementary andresource
complementary
integrationresource integration ar
is at its lowest
both low, such that there is basically no interactive activity between
level, sustainable development capability is weak and the scope of value co-creation the enterprise
is an
each
the network subject, the degree of complementary resource integration is at its lowe
smallest.
Manufacturing
level, enterprises in this
sustainable development mode are
capability in theand
is weak earlythe
stages
scopeof of
servitization and
value co-creation is th
mostly provide
smallest. basic extension services centered around products, with insufficient service
experience and low service
Manufacturing innovation
enterprises in capability.
this modeTheir are in service typesstages
the early are basically after-
of servitization an
sales-related, such as providing basic logistics, installation, maintenance, training, and
mostly provide basic extension services centered around products, with insufficien
other supporting services related to the sale of products. Such supporting services are
service experience and low service innovation capability. Their service types are basicall
mainly based on the use of internal resources to carry out relevant services to achieve value
after-sales-related,
creation, such of
and the efficiency asvalue
providing basicislogistics,
innovation low. The installation,
enterprise takesmaintenance,
the leading trainin
and other supporting services related to the sale of products. Such
position in the process of value co-creation and the customer is a passive recipient; thesupporting services ar
mainly
value flowsbased
to theon the usethrough
customer of internal resources
the value chain to carry
alone andout relevant
rarely servicesthe
complements to achiev
value creation, and the efficiency of value innovation is low. The enterprise takes th
subjects in the value network. In the value network, there is little dialogue between such
enterprises and the network
leading position subjects,
in the process of and theco-creation
value transparency of enterprises
and the customer is extremely
is a passivelow,recipien
resulting in the external value network not yet being formed, lacking
the value flows to the customer through the value chain alone and rarely complemen external network
resources, and mainly using the enterprise’s own internal resources to provide commodity-
the subjects in the value network. In the value network, there is little dialogue betwee
based extension services. Enterprises spend the only resources they have on technological
such enterprises and the network subjects, and the transparency of enterprises
innovation in core product development to meet customer needs. Greater focus on high
extremely
quality low, product
and stable resulting in the external
manufacturing resultsvalue
mostly network
in exchangenot value
yet being formed,
and rarely has lackin
external network
co-creation value. resources, and mainly using the enterprise’s own internal resources t
provide commodity-based extension services. Enterprises spend the only resources the
have on technological innovation in core product development to meet customer need
4.2. Leading Model of Servitization

The leading model of servitization occupies the lower-right corner of the coordinate
system. This entails enterprises with a high degree of servitization dominated by a service-
dominant logic, but with a low degree of integration of complementary resources. On the
basis of providing additional services for commodities, such enterprises extend their ser-
vices along the value chain to pre-sales, in-sales, and after-sales, such as providing extended
services including R&D and design, maintenance, and instructions for use. Alternately,
they directly meet customer needs to provide functional services of goods, such as sharing
and leasing, without directly providing goods. Manufacturing enterprises in this model
usually have certain service experience and strong service innovation capability, giving full
play to the sustainability of servitization and shifting the value concept of the enterprise
from being centered on producing products to focusing on providing services.
Simultaneously, along with deepening of the degree of service, enterprises pay more
attention to the service cooperation with each network subject, and the number of subjects
participating in the enterprise value network gradually increases along with the frequency
of interaction between subjects, causing the external value network to be formed. Cus-
tomized services and customized products increase among the network subjects, and
service technologies and concepts are constantly updated. Enterprises will choose to pro-
vide different services according to their own conditions and characteristics, as well as the
characteristics of the value network subjects. The diversified types of services produce
heterogeneous service effects.
As a result of the deepening of servitization and the expansion of its breadth, the
barriers to competitive advantage built by manufacturing enterprises in the leading model
of servitization are relatively higher than those built in the double-low model, and the
services provided by enterprises begin to show heterogeneity, thus enhancing customer
loyalty. The value of related services has increased and gradually becomes the main source
of enterprise value, which can provide a continuous and stable source of value for the enter-
prise’s income. However, with the increase in the number of value network service subjects,
enterprises face higher risks due to their own limited internal resources and their inability
to meet the demand for resources to provide diversified service types by themselves. For
example, the China media group provides integrated solutions to its customers, including
financial electronics, satellite navigation systems, and wireless communications. The R&D
products, design and manufacturing, and after-sales services included in its integrated
solutions are provided by its internal organization, which is highly servitization. However,
as the group enriches its own internal resources, mostly by absorbing and merging to set
up internal organizations and through working with foreign enterprises to set up joint ven-
tures or holding subsidiaries (such as Grgbanking International Trading Co., Ltd., Hague
Communications Co., Ltd., technology center organizations, etc.), it needs to invest a large
amount of capital and resources when providing integrated solutions to its customers,
which leads to high financial and operational risks, and any minor problems in the overall
solutions provided could lead to significant losses for the business.
4.3. Leading Model of Resource Integration

The resource integration leading mode is in the upper-left corner of the coordinate
system, wherein the degree of enterprise complementary resources integration is higher,
product-led logic is key, but the service degree is lower. The purpose of such enterprises in
integrating resources is mainly focused on the R&D of the enterprise’s core products; there
is greater focus on upgrading products to meet the basic needs of customers as the starting
point to provide a type of product, but the development of product extension services is
ignored, resulting in a low degree of enterprise service and a lack of competitive advantage
in the market.
During the operation of an enterprise, its internal and external resources are continu-
ously expanded through absorptions and mergers, signing strategic partners, etc., and the
network subjects are absorbed into an integrated system with external network resources
that can be utilized and are at an advanced stage of complementary resource integration.
The number of subjects participating in the value network will continue to increase, the
frequency of interaction between subjects is accelerated, dialogue between the enterprise
and each network subject is open, transparency is achieved with each network subject, trust
between the parties is extremely high, and there is a willingness to share risks. Multiple
parties also have rich experience in cooperation and strong innovation abilities, and jointly
participate in researching, designing, consulting, training, providing financing platforms,
promoting, and other overall activities, maintaining long-term and stable cooperation and
mutually beneficial relationships to realize value co-creation.
4.4. Double-High Model

The double-high model is located in the upper-right corner of the coordinate system.
Here, enterprises have a higher degree of servitization and of integration of complementary
resources, and the service-dominant logic and the product-led logic go hand-in-hand. In
the process of increasing servitization, enterprises achieve sustainable multi-party value
co-creation through frequent interactions with network subjects to fully integrate network
resources. In this model, the value network is open, the frequency of interaction between
subjects and the degree of integration of complementary resources are at their highest level,
the enterprise’s value innovation is highly efficient, and the scope of value co-creation is
the largest.
As a carrier of value co-creation, the resources and capabilities in the network are the
origins of value co-creation in the process of providing overall servitization solutions for
customers through manufacturing enterprises in this model. With the deeper interaction be-
tween manufacturing enterprises and each network subject, the complementary resources
in the value network are highly integrated to meet the resource needs of providing total
servitization solutions, enhancing the service innovation capability of enterprises, and
providing a better service experience for customers. This also alleviates the pressure on en-
terprise capital and resource diversity, enabling enterprises to allocate capital and resources
to other areas for diversification, significantly reducing the financial and operational risks
of enterprises on the basis of securing stable returns. For example, when providing overall
servitization solutions, Huawei employs and integrates complementary resources owned
by subjects in the value network, including operational resources owned by network sub-
jects such as software and hardware service enterprises and consulting enterprises, as
well as a large number of customer resources owned by telecom operators. Huawei has
cooperated with and used the relevant resources of 3com to work on enterprise network
data, developed product solutions on storage and security protection with Symantec, and
arrived at strategic agreements with domestic operators such as China Telecom and China
Mobile to integrate general customer resources, while collaborating with operators to focus
on the development of overall service solutions in communications.
5. Empirical Tests
In order to verify the rationality of the value co-creation model matrix constructed
above and the validity of the identification results, we conducted a questionnaire survey
with well-known listed and non-listed manufacturing enterprises in China as the research
object. The degree of servitization and the degree of resource integration are measured and
the results of the corresponding value co-creation patterns of the enterprises are obtained
via a fuzzy set algorithm based on the quantitative results of enterprises’ performance in
each dimension.
5.1. Measurement Scale Design

This section assesses the current degree of servitization of manufacturing enterprises
using a seven-level scale system to quantify the indicators. The indicators covered in the
questionnaire are based on the research of Fu Jian, Xin Wu, Laura Johanna Oberle, Jiguo Liu,
Yiting Zhao, Jun Zhang, Bill McEvily, Alfred Marcus, and other scholars [40–42], combined
with the situation of Chinese manufacturing enterprises. The questions were designed to
comprehensively measure the degree of servitization of enterprises from two major aspects:
service input and service output of the manufacturing enterprises, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Measurement of servitization degree.
Measurement Items 1
Have a well-developed program of collaborative R&D service activities
Have platforms with information on exchange-demand characteristics and preferences
Have a transportation and storage service system
Have a remote diagnosis and maintenance guidance system for products
Engage in continuous search and development of more efficient service activities
Establish a professional services business unit
Seek significant reductions in supply chain response time
Have a higher share of service business performance in total performance
1 Source: authors’ elaboration based on analysis of relevant references.
This part of the paper, the measurement scale of the degree of complementary resource
integration refers mainly to the studies of Yan Si, Hao Xu, Yuqin Liu, Erming Xu, and
Kai Xu [43–45] and reviews the actual situation of complementary resources in domestic
manufacturing enterprises. The eight items are summarized in Table 2, which is used to
compose the research questionnaire.
Table 2. Measurement scale for complementary resources.
Measurement Items 1
Network subjects can bridge resource gaps with each other
Organize regular or occasional technical and related personnel exchange meetings
Establish a consultative resolution mechanism on key technology breakthroughs
Establish a sharing platform for technology and information exchange
Have programs to integrate resources according to development needs
Have a contingency plan for resource integration in response to external changes
Significant improvement in the rationalization of resource allocation
Significant improvement in the achievement of innovation goals
1 Source: authors’ elaboration based on analysis of relevant references.
5.2. Data Collection

5.2.1. Sampling Procedure
The data used in this paper are 80 questionnaires from 40 enterprises from the follow-
ing sectors: Automobile, Electric apparatus manufacture, Pharmaceutical manufacturing,
Chemical engineering manufacturing, and else. In addition, the Google search engine
and Wechat have also been explored to get contact information regarding the industries of
interest. In order to solicit the respondent’s participation in the survey and to maximize
the response rate, the manager of each firm was first contacted via email and phone calls.
Further, the questionnaire has been sent to these industries including a cover letter stating
the purpose of the survey, a promise to keep the secrecy of data, and to provide a detailed
report. After one week after the initial mailing, the first reminder was sent as an email to
the participants. At the end of the second week, the participants, who did not respond after
the first reminder, were contacted via phone call, as a second reminder.
5.2.2. Reliability and Validity Tests

SPSS software (version 16) was used to carry out reliability and validity tests, the
results are shown in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3. Cronbach’s reliability analysis.
Correction Term Total The alpha Coefficient of Cronbach‘s

Name
Correlation (CITC) the Deleted Term Alpha Coefficient
Question 1 a 0.784 0.959
Question 2 0.745 0.960
Question 3 0.795 0.959
Question 4 0.660 0.961
Question 5 0.658 0.961
Question 6 0.629 0.962
Question 7 0.685 0.961
Question 8 0.708 0.961
Question 9 0.755 0.960
0.962
Question 10 0.724 0.960
Question 11 0.755 0.960
Question 12 0.853 0.958
Question 13 0.779 0.959
Question 14 0.865 0.958
Question 15 0.734 0.960
Question 16 0.774 0.960
Question 17 0.814 0.959
Question 18 0.852 0.958
a see details in Appendix A.
Table 4. KMO and Bartlett’s test.
KMO Value 0.927

Approx. chi-Square 1275.094
Bartlett’s test of sphericity df 153
p-value 0.000
From Table 3, we can see that the reliability coefficient value is 0.962, which is greater
than 0.9, thus indicating the high quality of the reliability of the questionnaire. For the
“alpha coefficient of deleted items”, the reliability coefficient does not increase significantly
when any item is deleted, thus indicating that the item should not be deleted. For the “CITC
values”, the CITC values of the analyzed items are all greater than 0.4, which indicates
that there is a good correlation between the analyzed items, and also indicates that the
reliability level is good.
The validity was verified using KMO and Bartlett’s test. As seen in Table 4: the KMO
value was 0.927, which is greater than 0.8. In addition, the p value is 0, which is less than
0.05. In summary, the test results indicate that the questionnaire is of high-reliability quality
and good validity. The data can be used for further analysis.
5.3. Empirical Methodology

5.3.1. Theory and Applications Related to Rough Sets
Rough set theory, as a data analysis and processing theory, was introduced in 1982
by the Polish scientist Pawlak. It is a mathematical tool used to deal with uncertainty
based on probability theory, fuzzy sets, and evidence theory. The availability of a large
amount of information and various uncertainties make it difficult to arrive at scientific
and rational decisions. Decision support systems comprise tools that assist in decision-
making, and their key feature is the ability to perform “IF THEN” rules for judgment
analysis. Rough set theory can find these rules based on the analysis of a large amount
of previous empirical data, and decision support systems based on rough sets make up
for the shortcomings of conventional decision-making methods in this regard by allowing
some less clear and less complete attributes in the decision object and by reasoning to reach
essentially positive conclusions.
As the application of rough sets becomes more widespread, rough set tool application
software is also becoming more comprehensive. There are ROSE, LERS, KDD-R, MATLAB,
and Rosetta—the latter of which is a general-purpose tool that was jointly developed by
Warsaw University in Poland and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
After careful consideration, this paper used Rosetta to measure the degree of servitization
and the degree of integration of complementary resources.
5.3.2. Related Concepts of Rough Sets
Definition 1. A decision table S = (U, A, V, f ) is a knowledge representation system, where U is

a thesis domain, A is a non-empty finite set of attributes A = C ∪ D, C ∩ D 6= ∅, C is a set of
conditional attributes, and D is a decision attribute. The distinguished matrix S is an n × n matrix
with any element of a∗ ( x, y) = { a ∈ C | f ( x, a) 6= f (y, a), ∈ w( x, y)}, for x, y ∈ U, w( x, y)
satisfying x ∈ posc ( D ) and y ∈
/ posc ( D ), or x ∈
/ posc ( D ) and y ∈ posc ( D ), or x, y ∈ posc ( D ),
and ( x, y) ∈
/ Ind( D ).
Definition 2. The distinguishing function is denoted by ∆∗ , which is a Boolean function that

specifies a Boolean variable “a” for each property a ∈ A in the knowledge expression system, a
Boolean letter a1 ∨ a2 ∨ . . . ∨ ak if a( x, y) = { a1 , a2 , . . . ak } 6= ∅, denoted by ∑ a∗ ( x, y) and a
Boolean constant 1 if a∗ ( x, y) = ∅. The distinguishing function ∆∗ is defined as:
∆∗ = ∏ ∑ a∗ (x, y). (1)

( x,y)∈U ×U
The distinguishing function ∆∗ has the following property: All ensemble fetches in
the minimal value-taking paradigm of the function ∆∗ are all D refinements C.
Definition 3 (attribute approximation). For the attribute set P, find all the savable attributes
by P using the distinguished matrix and the distinguished function. An algorithm ( P, Q) is said
to be contrastive if all attributes P are non-saveable. An algorithm R ⊆ P( R, Q) is said to be an
approximate determination of ( P, Q) when ( P, Q) is adversarial and compatible.
Definition 4 (rule approximation). For each decision rule in the system, find the equivalence
class of decision attributes and the equivalence class of each attribute to find the minimum set of
conditional attributes that satisfy the ⊆ relationship. This is a simplification of the original rule.
Definition 5. In the information system S = (U, C, D, V, f ), for ∀ X ∈ U and the equivalence

relation R, define the upper and lower approximations of the subset with respect to the X equivalence
relation R, as follows:
R( x ) = { x |(∀ x ∈ U ) ∧ ([ x ] R ⊆ X )}
(2)
= U {Y |∀Y ∈ U/R) ∧ ()}
R( x ) = { x |(∀ x ∈ U ) ∧ ([ x ] R ∩ X 6= ∅)}
(3)
= ∪{Y |(Y ∈ U )(Y ∩ X 6= ∅)}
where [ x ] R is the set of all elements in the representation that are equivalent to x under the relation
I ND ( P). The set is called the bn R = R( x ) − R( x ) R boundary domain of X, pos R ( x ) = R( x ) R is
the positive domain of X, and neg R ( x ) = U − R( x ) R is the negative domain of X.
5.3.3. The Rough Set Analysis Process

Rough sets, as an effective data analysis method, can process uncertain assessment
data and extract potentially valuable assessment information from a large amount of un-
certain information. In this paper, we mainly apply the methods of rough set attribute
approximation and importance judgment to study the value co-creation model of manufac-
turing enterprises.
negative domain of X .
5.3.3. The Rough Set Analysis Process

Rough sets, as an effective data analysis method, can process uncertain assessment
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16008 data and extract potentially valuable assessment information from a large amount 13 ofof 23
uncertain information. In this paper, we mainly apply the methods of rough set attribute
approximation and importance judgment to study the value co-creation model of
manufacturing enterprises.
The process of classifying the value co-creation model for manufacturing enterprises
The process of classifying the value co-creation model for manufacturing enterprises
using
using the rough
the rough set approachcan
set approach canbe
bedivided
dividedinto
intofour
four steps,
steps, asas shown
shown in Figure
in Figure 2. 2.
Figure2.
Figure 2. Analysis
Analysis process
processof
ofrough
roughset-based
set-basedmodel
modelevaluation.
evaluation.
5.4.
5.4. Empirical Analysis
Empirical Analysis
5.4.1. Establishment of Rules
5.4.1. Establishment of Rules
Rosetta
Rosetta machine learningbuilds
machine learning buildsrules
rulesthat
thatarearetypically
typically logical
logical andand semantically
semantically
explicit,
explicit, that
that describe objectivelaws
describe objective lawsorordomain
domain concepts
concepts implied
implied by by
thethe
datadata distribution,
distribution,
and that can
and that can be written
written in the form if...then.... A set of rules is learned from thethe
in the form if...then.... A set of rules is learned from training
training
data
datathat
thatcan
canbebeused
usedto
todiscriminate
discriminate between
between unseen examples.
examples. Clearly,
Clearly, each
each rule
rule in
in the
the set
set can
can be viewed
be viewed as aassubmodel,
a submodel, where
where thethe rule
rule setset
is is
anan integrationofofthese
integration thesesubmodels,
submodels,and
and increasing
increasing the number
the number of training
of training samples
samples improves
improves the the ability
ability to describe
to describe thethe sample
sample space.
space.
At the stage of establishing rules via machine learning, this paper combines the
At the of
summaries stage of establishing
previous scholars to rules via machine
classify learning, involved
the servitization this paperincombines the
manufacturing
summaries into
enterprises of previous scholarsand
eight categories to classify the servitization
the complementary involved
resources intoineight
manufacturing
categories. As
enterprises earlier,
mentioned into eight categories
dummy and the
variables are complementary
set to correspond resources into eight
to the above eightcategories.
categories of
As mentioned earlier, dummy variables are set to correspond to the above
servitization situations and eight categories of complementary resources situations. This eight categories
of servitization
approach is also situations and eight
used to design categories
a research of complementary
questionnaire resourcesscale
with a seven-level situations.
system. In
This approach is also used to design a research questionnaire with a
order to ensure the universality of the research results for each manufacturing enterprise, seven-level scale
valid questionnaire data of 20 listed manufacturing enterprises, such as Xi’an Sitech Electric
Co., Ltd., Foshan Haday Food Co., Ltd., and Yutong Bus Co., Ltd.; and 10 non-listed
manufacturing enterprises, such as Shaanxi Iron and Steel Group Co., Ltd., Taian Jinshi
Machinery Co., Ltd., and Xi’an Baiyue Goat Dairy Group Co., Ltd. were selected after
consulting with relevant experts to ensure the validity of the data used to establish the rules.
The research questionnaire was quantified and imported into the rough set analysis
software Rosetta, and the genetic algorithm was used to approximate the classification. In
the mode classification stage, the initial assessment system needs to be approximate, even
if there is some redundant knowledge, because the attributes in the information system
are not equally important; this guarantees the streamlining of the assessment system. The
genetic algorithm (RESE) in the Rosetta software was selected in this paper to simplify the
initial assessment system, and the error tolerance was set to 0.2 according to the experience
of previous scholars. A total of 405 rules were generated, and this large number of complete
rules guaranteed the feasibility of the method. Using the rule preview function of Rosetta,
we were able to see that the generated rules were based on different combinations of
questions and scores to calculate the 0–1 score of the corresponding validation items—i.e.,
“I think we have a complementary degree of resource integration in tripartite value co-
creation”, “I think we have a complementary degree of resource integration in tripartite
value co-creation”, and “I think we have a complementary degree of resource integration
in tripartite value co-creation”, etc.
5.4.2. Proving of Rules

Twenty manufacturing enterprises were selected as validation samples and the seven-
level scale data of the attribute column of the degree of servitization and the attribute
column of the degree of integration of complementary resources were standardized from
0–1 before the software was run; i.e., enterprises with scores greater than 3 were stan-
dardized to 1, whereas the rest were 0. The Rosetta software then analyzed the imported
attribute column data according to the generated rules to obtain the judgment column.
The scores of the rnterprises judged by the software were aggregated to derive the
value co-creation model for each enterprise, as shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Classification results of the value co-creation model for the validation sample.
Degree of
Degree of
No. Name of the Enterprise Complementary Model Classification
Servitization
Resource Integration
SGM-Dongyue Co., Ltd. (Shanghai,
1 0 0 Double-low model
China)
2 Joyoung Co., Ltd. (Jinan, China) 0 0 Double-low model
3 ZTE Co., Ltd. (Shenzhen, China) 1 0 Leading model of servitization
Sichuan Changhong Electric Co., Ltd.
(Mianyang, China)
5 Vatti Co., Ltd. (Qingdao, China) 1 0 Leading model of servitization
6 TCL Co., Ltd. (Huizhou, China) 0 0 Double-low model
CR Double-Crane Co., Ltd. (Beijing,
7 1 0 Leading model of servitization
China)
Skyworth-RGB Co., Ltd. (Shenzhen,
China)
9 Qingdao Haier Co., Ltd. (Qingdao, China) 1 1 Double-high model
Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. of Zhuhai
(Zhuhai, China)
Foxconn Technology Group Co., Ltd.
(Shenzhen, China)
SF Diamond Co., Ltd. (Zhengzhou, Leading model of resource
12 0 1
China) integration
13 Yao Bai Shui Ni Co. (Xi’an, China) 1 0 Leading model of servitization
Avic Xi’an Aircraft Industry Group Co.,
Ltd. (Xi’an, China)
Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology
Co., Ltd. (Hangzhou, China)
Shaanxi Diantong Machinery
16 1 1 Double-high model
Manufacturing Co. (Shanghai, China)
Shaanxi Sheng Zhuoyu Management Co.
(Xi’an, China)
Durr Paintshop Systems Engineering Co. Leading model of resource
18 0 1
(Shanghai, China) integration
Xi’an Xing Hang Aviation Technology Co.,
19 1 1 Double-high model
Ltd. (Xi’an, China)
Shaanxi Yu Chen Aviation Equipment Co.,
Ltd. (Shanghai, China)
The classification of the value co-creation model of the validation sample enterprises
is plotted according to Figure 3.
As shown in Figure 3, the 20 manufacturing enterprises were classified into four
models. When the classification results were compared with the self-assessment results of
the enterprises, it was found that only individual enterprises produced errors. After the
error results were fed back to experts and scholars who have conducted in-depth research
in manufacturing enterprises, they concluded that the classification results of this method
were more in line with the actual situation of the enterprises. This indicates that the rules
generated using the rough set software Rosetta according to the sample data are applicable
and accurate, and the classification results of the value co-creation model are valid.
Figure3.3.Sample
Figure Sampleenterprise
enterpriseclassification
classificationresults.
results.
6. Value
As Co-Creation
shown in Figure Model 3, Upgrade Path
the 20 manufacturing enterprises were classified into four
models. When the classification results were compared
Through empirical verification, the value co-creation with the self-assessment
mode division method results
in thisof
the enterprises, it was found that only individual enterprises produced
paper can accurately divide manufacturing enterprises so that they can precisely anderrors. After the
error results
quickly locatewere fed back
the existing to experts
mode in the and scholars
process who
of value have conducted
co-creation in-depth
according to the research
specific
in manufacturing
situation enterprises,
of the degree they concluded
of servitization that the
and resource classification
integration results of this
of enterprises. Thismethod
paper
were more
proposes in lineupgrade
several with the paths
actual to
situation of the enterprises.
help enterprises developThis indicatesdevelopment
sustainable that the rules
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16008 generatedand
strategies using
help the rough set enterprises
manufacturing software Rosetta
achieve according toofthe
higher levels sample
value data
17 ofare
co-creation, as
25
applicable
shown and accurate,
in Figure 4. and the classification results of the value co-creation model are
valid.
6. Value Co-Creation Model Upgrade Path

Through empirical verification, the value co-creation mode division method in this
paper can accurately divide manufacturing enterprises so that they can precisely and
quickly locate the existing mode in the process of value co-creation according to the
specific situation of the degree of servitization and resource integration of enterprises.
This paper proposes several upgrade paths to help enterprises develop sustainable
development strategies and help manufacturing enterprises achieve higher levels of value
co-creation, as shown in Figure 4.
Figure4.4. Upgrade
Figure Upgrade path
pathof
ofvalue
valueco-creation
co-creationmodel
modelfor
formanufacturing
manufacturingenterprises.
enterprises.
6.1. Single-Servitization Upgrade Path

The single-service upgrade path is suitable for enterprises using a double-low model
or a leading model of resource integration.
Such manufacturing enterprises should re-examine the industrial chain, reconstruct
6.1. Single-Servitization Upgrade Path

The single-service upgrade path is suitable for enterprises using a double-low model
or a leading model of resource integration.
Such manufacturing enterprises should re-examine the industrial chain, reconstruct
the value network around customer needs, shift from traditional product production to pro-
viding customers with total solutions that include services, and reshape the management
of the service extension value chain derived from it. On the other hand, when centering
on customer needs and opening up the service industry chain process, it is necessary to
increase service element investment, develop industrial cooperative R&D services, develop
customized design services, carry out whole-life-cycle management, innovate distribution
and logistics transparency services, and enhance energy-saving and environmental protec-
tion services to encourage suppliers and customers to participate in value co-creation and
enhance the servitization stage.
Complementary resource integration leads manufacturing enterprises to get rid of
the lower levels of service development as well as the service low-end lock, but also to
enhance their core competitiveness to attract the network of external resources to participate
in service upgrading. It also encourages them to pay attention to the value perception
of each value network subject to attract them to actively participate in value network
servitization collaboration activities and realize the highly dynamic matching of service
supply and demand in mutual collaboration [46]. Small- and medium-sized manufacturing
enterprises can make use of the value perception of the value network. Such enterprises can
build a service feedback exchange platform with the help of internet technology and use
“network” thinking to collect feedback from all parties at relatively low service costs. Large
manufacturing enterprises with strength can realize added value by providing high-end
customized services with high heterogeneity and competitive advantages for customers.
Under the premise of guaranteeing the centralization of core technology, manufacturing
enterprises can decentralize non-core service businesses and take advantage of value
network cooperative enterprises to realize service upgrading. For example, joint logistics
enterprises can provide traceable logistics services, joint financial enterprises can provide a
digital platform with transparent cost and revenue, joint big data mining enterprises can
realize consumer behavior prediction and inventory remote calling services, etc.
Manufacturing enterprises can also take advantage of the development of Internet+
and digital economy elements to fully reduce interaction barriers between manufacturing
and various network subjects, break the inertia of the traditional production model, change
to a modern service economy development model, update and establish a development
concept compatible with the current internet era as soon as possible, improve managers’
knowledge of new industries and technologies, and use modern technology to improve
the servitization capabilities of their enterprises [47]. Such enterprises can also use modern
technology to improve their servitization capabilities. Utilizing the sustainability features
of the service and “integrating services into manufacturing” is a way for manufacturing
enterprises to upgrade from a double-low model or a leading model of resource integration
to a leading model of service or a double-high model.
6.2. Single-Resource-Integration Upgrade Path

The single-resource-integration upgrade path is applicable to manufacturing enter-
prises with a double-low model or a leading model of servitization.
In the double-low model, to achieve resource integration capacity enhancement, man-
ufacturing enterprises should first clarify the type of resources to be integrated, such as
customer resources, technical resources, information resources, etc., with limited internal
resources to leverage external sustainability resources. These enterprises should target
integration on the customer side and establish a resource matching or customer service
platform that meets the actual situation of the enterprises to collect and integrate various
customer resources in response to the growing personalized needs of customers. Fur-
ther, manufacturing enterprises with a high degree of servitization can integrate supplier
resources through information sharing, material planning, e-procurement, cooperative

R&D, production collaboration, inventory management, and other activities with suppliers
on servitization platforms or resource matching platforms. At the same time, customer
participation resources are shared with suppliers, and the actual capabilities of the demand
side and suppliers are highly matched to ensure a dynamic balance between the supply
side and the demand side.
The key for manufacturing enterprises to carry out sustainability resource integration
comprises technical resources. Manufacturing enterprises need to establish technical
cooperation mechanisms across enterprise boundaries; guarantee zero distance, zero time
difference, and zero intermediary communication of technical resources; build strategic
alliances and partnerships of mutual trust, interdependence, long-term cooperation, and
common development; and reduce innovation R&D risks and innovation pressure [48]. In
a free and efficiently flowing, open, and active market [49], we can guarantee the effective
communication and flow of knowledge, talent, and capital among technology resource
integration enterprises.
Manufacturing enterprises should pay more attention to the integration of intangible
resources on top of the integration of tangible resources. With the improvement of IoT
traceability, platform capability, and computing service capability [50], many enterprises
have achieved the digital transformation of production factors, and these intangible digital
elements, which are the key direction of resource integration in the future of manufacturing
enterprises, are also important elements of value co-creation inputs for manufacturing
enterprises. Therefore, integrating intangible resources in the network requires enterprises
to undertake special planning and construction in their organizational structure and per-
sonnel literacy, stimulate the potential of employees, and broaden the depth and breadth of
organizational learning through underlying technical changes to drive top-level organiza-
tional structure changes. From the perspective of change of manufacturing, value network
member enterprises should strive to integrate digital elements and other resources, cooper-
ate with enterprises to change from physical to digital, foster the digital transformation of
the manufacturing enterprise from the point-line-value network radiation structure, and
realize the improvement of the integration degree of intangible resources of the whole
value network [47]. Tapping the tangible and intangible resources of sustainability, and
thus upgrading the level of value co-creation in manufacturing enterprises.
6.3. An Upgrade Path with Equal Emphasis on Servitization and Resource Integration
The upgrade path of servitization and resource integration is suitable for manufactur-
ing enterprises using the double-low model as well as manufacturing enterprises in the
leading mode of servitization and the leading mode of resource complementation. The
latter two are unilateral development modes. Neglecting any one of these factors will
affect the sustainability of the business. So, the two-pronged upgrade path is particularly
important to avoid neglecting the other side of the enterprise caused to the loss of one side
and avoiding the emergence of an uncertain situation.
From a production-oriented manufacturing enterprise to a servitization manufacturing
enterprise, the relationship between manufacturing enterprises and customers and the
relationship with upstream and downstream suppliers have changed, and enterprises need
to adjust and restructure their management model, organizational structure, and business
processes accordingly [47]. This can be achieved by more effectively embedding these
aspects in the loosely coupled servitization manufacturing network system structure and
striving to become the core node enterprise in the network structure so as to integrate
services and resources in the value network. With the development of Internet+ and
big data, the servitization transformation of manufacturing enterprises requires them to
purposefully create, extend, and modify their current resource base that is closely related
to manufacturing [51] in order to integrate customers into the online marketing and sales
process and into the internet service care system. For example, the urgent shipment
of goods may require the selection of air freight service resources; global marketing of
customers may require the selection of warehouse network resources integrated with
other countries; customers’ requirement for visibility of the production process inevitably
raises the requirement for the selection of webcast resources, and so on. Cooperative
interaction with various value network subjects is also an effective way to avoid the risks
of servitization of enterprises [52]. Therefore, the process of servitization of manufacturing
enterprises is actually the process of implementing sustainable strategies to optimize
resource allocation.
Manufacturing enterprises need to promote servitization and resource integration to
complement each other, play a dual sustainable role and develop synergies to enhance
value co-creation. Since complementary resources in the servitization process are important
factors supporting enterprises in value co-creation, even large manufacturing enterprises
with strong resources need to conduct network resource integration to create more value.
In order to guarantee effective interaction of resources, enterprises need to broaden the
channels connecting each department with external value networks by reducing the lev-
els of organizational structure, realize the interaction and information sharing between
each level and the external network subject, improve the application mechanism of com-
plementary resource interaction, implement information and resources from all parties
into manufacturing planning in a timely manner, make timely responses to the needs of
customers and partners, adjust the degree of enterprise servitization, improve the degree
of matching resources and servitization, and realize the matching of supply and demand.
Enterprises also need internal management changes and should follow the rules of synergy
and interaction, self-learning, self-organization, and self-adaptive adjustment, as well as
enhancing the internal self-organization of synergy and interactive cooperation ability,
implementing “information management talent + resource integration talent + market
management talent” in their servitization manufacturing talent development system, and
relying on the government. Key talent projects increase the training of talent in the field of
servitization manufacturing [47]. This would help realize the synergistic development of
service and resource integration and provide deeper source power for matching supply
and demand.
7. Conclusions and Implications

The prerequisite for value co-creation in manufacturing enterprises is servitization, and
resources are the key elements of value creation in this process, while network subjects are
resource integrators who can achieve value co-creation through interaction and integration
of complementary resources. This paper explores the value co-creation model against the
background in which the value network supported by information technology provides
vital support for the servitization value co-creation of manufacturing enterprises. Thus, it
has theoretical innovation significance.
Although the “value co-creation model” has been widely analyzed in digital contexts
and various types of services [53], it has always been considered as a single way named
“service-dominant logic” which is different from traditional value production way. So
there lacks of classification research on value co-creation. Previous research on the value
co-creation model first focused on measuring and managing the value co-creation process;
these studies proposed a range of models and techniques for managing and measuring
customer input, empowerment, innovation, and so on [54]. Many studies researched the
co-creation activities or interactive behaviors model of actors. Several of them proposed
the maturity model of value co-creation with four measurement indicators consisting of
articulation, interaction, platform, and management which reveal the behavioral dimen-
sions of multi value co-creation [55]. Some scholars also studied the business models of
value cocreation [56], such as Indonesian researchers who applied a business model canvas
based on service-dominant logic to investigate the blueprint for cooperation and creativity,
aiming at expediting the process of innovation and invention in the healthy-food industry
by applying value co-creation [57], but value co-creation models in these studies are mostly
classified with single-dimensional indicators.
With the development of information technology and the deepening of servitization

level of manufacturing enterprises, “industry-specific value co-creation” is becoming the
trend [58]. Some researchers study industry business model innovation [59] and the value
co-creation of the collaborative network of tourism in three border zone between Brazil–
Argentina–Paraguay, and construct a user value co-creation model for web applications [60],
also study value co-creation by multiple stakeholders with different capabilities and even
conflicting objectives in the Finnish commercial inland fishery [55]. Based on the same
theoretical context, our research has filled the gap in the value co-creation of tangible
products and intangible services in manufacturing enterprises, which is a further extension
of the PSS which has been defined as “a marketable set of products and services capable of
jointly fulfilling a user’s need” [61]. The new models proposed in this paper, thoroughly
extend the value co-creation model types and classifications from the pure service field
and suggest a comprehensive and neural understanding of servitization and resource
integration in the PSS. Our value co-creation model also strengthens the links among
PSS, value co-creation, sustainability, and information technology in the context of value
network [62]. Our value co-creation model focuses on two main aspects of value co-creation
and investigates the model with two-dimensional indicators from the strategic view instead
of business or activities views.
Meanwhile, from the perspective of the value network as the analytical dimension of
the value creation model, the degree of integration of complementary resources and the
degree of servitization can help enterprises of all scales locate their current situation in time,
find counter-measures to grasp opportunities, and achieve a greater degree of matching
supply and demand. When manufacturing enterprises transform into servitization enter-
prises, the “network” resources are often scattered. Within this context, it is difficult for the
accumulated resources to support the service projects. Enterprises may doubt whether the
implementation of servitization is correct. Therefore, the value co-creation model of servi-
tization from the perspective of the value network is conducive to the timely adjustment
of reform direction, grasping the key elements, acquiring information resources, sharing
the risk with each network subject, and further realizing the sustainable development of
value co-creation. Thus, the value co-creation model provides positioning standards and
upgrading paths for manufacturing enterprises, which can then obtain stronger practical
outcomes in the servitization.
According to the needs of the four value co-creation models and their upgrading paths,
manufacturing enterprises need to build or reconstruct their value networks through coop-
erative business networks. This pathway can be roughly divided into two steps: building
and managing the value network of value co-creation. In the first step of establishing a
co-creation network, it is important for enterprises to build awareness about the benefits of
taking part in a co-creation network, especially for the small manufacturing enterprises
which have a very limited understanding of the potential benefits of co-creating with other
enterprises. Manufacturing enterprises need to build sourcing and relational competencies
in this step [63]. In the first step of building a value co-creation network, manufacturing
enterprises should not only focus on the resource level, but also consider the servitization
level of the whole network and the embeddedness of the actors. Therefore, the selection
criteria for such network members should be more composite and more explicit not only
in the value creation, interaction, and actor behavior [64], but also in servitization and
complementary resources. In managing the value network, manufacturing enterprises
should share value propositions for complementary resources contracting, organization of
resource integration, and cultivation of coproduction output [65]. They need to manage
the relationship equity, shared responsibility, and relationship dependence to leverage
resources to achieve better value co-creation [66]. Based on applying social media digital
networks and platforms [67] to facilitate value co-creation [14]. Most manufacturing value
network actors should apply more new technologies including artificial intelligence [68],
virtual reality [69], virtual communities [70], digital twins, and so on [71] to integrate
resources, competencies, and responsibilities to attain new value co-created. Moreover,
manufacturing enterprises should take the open innovation way to encounter the chal-
lenges of sustainability and value co-creation [4], such as sustainable production, green
value innovation [72], and circular co-creation ecosystem construction [73].
In addition, from the value network perspective, the exploration of the upgrading
path of manufacturing enterprises is in the preliminary research stage, and there is still
considerable work to be done. Further research should consider alternative approaches to
identify the value co-creation model, such as the dynamic supply and demand matching
model and the co-creation of value process.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.L.; methodology, G.L. and J.W.; software, J.W.; valida-
tion, G.L., J.W. and N.L.; formal analysis, J.W.; investigation, N.L.; resources, J.W. and N.L.; data
curation, J.W.; writing—original draft preparation, G.L. and J.W.; writing—review and editing, J.W.
and N.L.; supervision, G.L.; project administration, G.L.; funding acquisition, G.L. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Project supported by the Soft Science Research Program of Shaanxi Province, China
(NO.2019KRM162); the Soft Science Research Program of Shaanxi Province, China (No.2020KRM185);
the National Social Science Foundation of China (No.16BGL015).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Questionnaire:
Dear Enterprise Manager/Account Executive:
First of all, we sincerely hope that you can participate in this questionnaire on the
research of value co-creation model between manufacturing enterprises and customers
and suppliers. The purpose of this study is to study the value co-creation model of
manufacturing enterprises based on the two dimensions of the degree of servitization and
complementary resource integration.
When filling in the questionnaire, please select the closest option based on your
experience. We sincerely invite you to take 3–5 min out of your busy schedule to fill in
the following questionnaire. All the survey data are only used for academic research and
will be strictly confidential. The research results only show comprehensive data and never
involve any personal information. We sincerely thank you for your active participation!
Thank you for your cooperation!
Please read the following questions carefully and choose the one that best suits your
enterprise’s situation. The three parties include manufacturers, suppliers and customers.
1. Disagree at all
2. Basically disagree
3. A little disagreement
4. Opinion neutrality
5. A little agreement
6. Basic agreement
Questions:
1. Manufacturing enterprises, suppliers and customers have a complete plan for collabo-
rative R&D service activities [single choice]
2. There is a perfect transportation and warehousing service system among the three
parties [single choice]
3. There is a perfect platform for three parties to exchange demand characteristics and
preference information [single choice]
4. There is a perfect product remote diagnosis and maintenance guidance system among
the three parties [single choice]
5. The three parties are committed to finding and developing more efficient service
activities [single choice]
6. A professional service business department has been set up among the three parties
[single choice]
7. The supply chain response time among the three parties is significantly shortened
[single choice]
8. The proportion of service business performance among the three parties in the total
performance is high [single choice]
9. I think our service degree in the tripartite value creation [single choice]
10. The three parties can bridge the resource gap [single choice]
11. Regular or irregular technical and related personnel exchange meetings have been
established among the three parties [single choice]
12. The three parties have established a negotiation mechanism on key technological
breakthroughs [single choice]
13. A sharing platform for technology and information exchange has been established
among the three parties [single choice]
14. There are plans among the three parties to integrate resources according to develop-
ment needs [single choice]
15. There is an emergency plan for resource integration among the three parties to deal
with external changes [single choice]
16. Achievements of innovation goals among enterprises have been significantly im-
proved [single choice]
17. The rationality of resource allocation among the three parties has been significantly
improved [single choice]
18. I think the degree of our complementary resource integration in the value co creation
of the three parties [single choice]
References
1. Grönroos, C. Service Logic Revisited: Who Creates Value? And Who Co-Creates? Eur. Bus. Rev. 2008, 20, 298–314. [CrossRef]
2. Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2008, 36, 1–10. [CrossRef]
3. Vargo, S.L.; Maglio, P.P.; Akaka, M.A. On Value and Value Co-Creation: A Service Systems and Service Logic Perspective. Eur.
Manag. J. 2008, 26, 145–152. [CrossRef]
4. Almeida, R.P.; Proença, J.F.; Ferreira, F.N.H. Value Co-Creation and Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Mark.
Commun. New Media 2021, 7, 104–125.
5. Kerui, L.; Zhaoquan, J. The Research on the Value Co-Creation Model of Manufacturing Servitization—A Service Ecosystem
Perspective. East China Econ. Manag. 2017, 31, 84–92.
6. Badarinath, R.; Prabhu, V.V. Advances in Internet of Things (Iot) in Manufacturing. In Proceedings of the IFIP International
Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems 2017, Hamburg, Germany, 3–7 September 2017; Springer: Cham,
Germany, 2017.
7. Wang, G.H.; Zhu, X.F. Conflict of Interest and Balancing Mechanism in the Integration of Toubro File under the Perspective of
Value Co-Creation Conflict of Interest and Balancing Mechanism Research. Res. Libr. Sci. 2020, 8, 27–33.
8. Chang, Y.; Ming, X.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, T.; Liao, X.; Cao, S. Servitization and Sustainable Value Creation Strategy for China’s
Manufacturing Industry: A Multiple Case Study in the Belt and Road Initiative. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11334. [CrossRef]
9. Serror, M.; Hack, S.; Henze, M.; Schuba, M.; Wehrle, K. Challenges and Opportunities in Securing the Industrial Internet of Things.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2021, 17, 2985–2996. [CrossRef]
10. Weber, P.; Morar, D.; Lasi, H. Transforming Value Chains into Internet-Based Ecosystems: A Testbed Approach. In Proceedings of
the Paper presented at the 2018 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET)
2018, Honolulu, HI, USA, 19–23 August 2018.
11. Xianli, H. The Revolution of Human Lives in the Era of “Internet Plus”. Ph.D. Thesis, Heilongjiang University, Heilongjiang,
China, 2020.
12. Li, H.; Yang, C. Digital Transformation of Manufacturing Enterprises. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2021, 187, 24–29. [CrossRef]
13. Mele, M.; Giampaolo, C. A New Method for the Design of Knowledge-Based Engineering Systems for Manufacturing. Int. J.
Interact. Des. Manuf. 2021, 15, 417–428. [CrossRef]
14. Sashi, C.M. Digital Communication, Value Co-Creation and Customer Engagement in Business Networks: A Conceptual Matrix
and Propositions. Eur. J. Mark. 2021, 55, 1643–1663. [CrossRef]
15. Jinghua, L.; Lin, L.; Weitao, Y. The Value Co-Creation Mechanism of Servitization: An Explorative Case Study on Value Network
Perspective. Sci. Sci. Manag. S. T. 2017, 38, 85–100.
16. Tianzhu, L.; Xiaoqin, L.; Xiaoxiao, L. Some Theoretical Analysis About the Service of Manufacturing Industry. Forum Sci. Technol.
China 2018, 6, 75–82.
17. Zhaoguo, D.; Qing, J.; Zhong, Z. On Valae Creation of Service Manufacturing Companies. Forum Sci. Technol. China 2013, 5, 91–96.
18. Yanping, Z.; Yating, G.; Jianqiang, L.; Qinghua, F. Manufacturing Enterprise Service Derivative Classification and Value Creation.
Soft Sci. 2017, 31, 103–107.
19. Windahl, C.; Lakemond, N. Developing Integrated Solutions: The Importance of Relationships within the Network. Ind. Mark.
Manag. 2006, 35, 806–818. [CrossRef]
20. Lavie, D. Alliance Portfolios and Firm Performance: A Study of Value Creation and Appropriation in the U.S. Software Industry.
Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 1187–1212. [CrossRef]
21. Xiaoxiao, L. Modes and Evolutions of Manufacturing Servitization—A Value Co-Creation Perspective. Master’s Thesis, University
of Science and Technology Liaoning, Anshan, China, 2018.
22. Na, L. Research on the Mechanism of Co-Creation Value Based on Customer-Dominant Logic. Master’s Thesis, Harbin University
of Science and Technology, Harbin, China, 2020.
23. Jing, L.; Yingyan, C. Study of Value Co-Creation Model for Digital Construction of Cultural Tourism. Ludong Univ. J. Philos. Soc.
Sci. Ed. 2021, 38, 85–90.
24. Lina, W.; Zhang, C.; Zhu, W. Research on Value Co-Creation Model of Servitization in Manufacturing Industry in the Internet
Era—Based on Haier’s Servitization Transformation Practice. Enterp. Econ. 2019, 38, 68–76.
25. Zhang, W.; Yingwu, C.; Huibin, S. Research on the Cooperative Network of the Servitization of Equipment Manufacturing
Industry: Types and Characteristics. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 2015, 32, 55–60.
26. Anderson, J.C.; Håkansson, H.; Johanson, J. Dyadic Business Relationships within a Business Network Context. J. Mark. 1994, 58,
1–15. [CrossRef]
27. Wang, Q. Business Model Innovation Based on the Reconfiguration of Value Network. China Ind. Econ. 2011, 1, 79–88.
28. Feng, C.-L.; Liu, H.-T. Value Co-Creation Model in the Process of Service Transition of Manufacturing Enterprises from the
Network Perspective:Research Based on the Shanxi Blower Case. J. Manag. Case Stud. 2016, 9, 472–484.
29. Hao, X.J.; Yao, S.J.; Tong, S.L. Research on Value Co-Creation Network in Service-Oriented Manufacturing Model. Sci. Technol.
Prog. Policy 2015, 32, 60–66.
30. Xie, X.M.; Wang, H.W. The Mode and Mechanism of Value Co-Creation of Open Innovation Ecosystem. Stud. Sci. Sci. 2020, 38,
912–924.
31. Cheng, Q.; Yixuan, Z. The Impact of Value Co-Creation Model of Open Innovation Ecosystem on Value Co-Creation Effect : Based
on the Model of Cross Level Regulation Effect. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 2021, 38, 87–96.
32. Wang, L.; Juxiang, L.; Qiong, L. The Value Co-Creating Model and the Coordination Mechanism Research of Science and
Technology Service Industry Innovation Ecosystem. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 2017, 34, 69–74.
33. Ma, Y.; Shiming, L.; Jingming, P. Value Co-Creation Model for Industrial Iot. J. Manag. World 2020, 36, 211–222.
34. Yao, J. Research on the Value Co-Creation Behavior and Models of “Internet+” Enterprise Innovation Ecosystem; Hangzhou Dianzi
University: Hangzhou, China, 2020.
35. Zhang, J.; Yong, H. Impact of Service-Dominant Logic Orientation and Resource Interaction Upon Value Co-Creation. Sci. Res.
Manag. 2014, 35, 115–122.
36. Jean, G. The Characterization of Goods and Services: An Alternative Approach. Rev. Income Wealth 2000, 46, 369–387.
37. Jason, P.; Hartley, J.; Banks, J.; Burgess, J.; Cobcroft, R.; Cunningham, S.; Montgomery, L. Consumer Co-Creation and Situated
Creativity. Ind. Innov. 2008, 15, 459–474.
38. Charlotta, W.; Lakemond, N. Integrated Solutions from a Service-Centered Perspective: Applicability and Limitations in the
Capital Goods Industry. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2010, 39, 1278–1290.
39. Sally, H.; Winklhofer, H.; Temerak, M.S. Customers as Resource Integrators. J. Serv. Res. 2012, 15, 247–261.
40. Jian, F. Measuring Servitization of Chinese Manufacturing and Research of Its Influencing Factors. Master’s Thesis, Nanjing
University, Nanjing, China, 2015.
41. Xin, W. Study on the Influence Factors of Servitization Strategy of Manufacturing Enterprise. Master’s Thesis, Xi’an University of
Technology, Xi’an, China, 2014.
42. Bill, M.; Marcus, A. Embedded Ties and the Acquisition of Competitive Capabilities. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 1033–1055.
43. Yan, S. Impact of Resources Complementarily on Effects of Synergy Innovation. Master’s Thesis, Central South University,
Changsha, China, 2013.
44. Xu, H.; Yuqin, L. Complementary Resources and Technology Sharing on Corporate R&D Alliances an Empirical Study on the
Impact of Cooperation Performance. J. Commer. Econ. 2015, 24, 107–109.
45. Xu, E.; Kai, X. A Study of the Impact of Resource Complementarity on Opportunism and Strategic Alliance Performance.
J. Manag. World 2012, 1, 93–100.
46. Su, X.; Chunlan, M.; Zheng, Z. Value Co-Creation Mechanism of Service-Oriented Manufacturing and Realization Path—Based
on Service Ecosystem Perspective. Macroeconomics 2021, 1, 96–104.
47. Hu, B.; Lili, W. Innovation of Enterprise Organizational Structure in Iot Environment. J. Manag. World 2020, 36, 202–210.
48. Wei, Y.; Sihong, W.; Xiaoping, R.; Jinru, C.; Suliang, L. Research on Performance Evaluation of Application Effect of Innovative
Resource-Sharing Platform: A Scientific Instrument Manufacturing Industry Demonstration. Sci. Technol. Manag. Res. 2021, 41,
40–45.
49. Zhao, Y.; Qiuying, W.; Jianqiang, L.; Shuxian, L. Overview of Manufacturing Enterprise Service Transition from the Perspective
on Platform. J. Ind. Technol. Econ. 2018, 37, 120–127.
50. Junhu, R.; Hu, X.; Huo, X.; Shi, Y.; Chan, F.T.S.; Wang, X.; Manogaran, G.; Mastorakis, G.; Mavromoustakis, C.X.; Zhao, X. An
Iot-Based E-Business Model of Intelligent Vegetable Greenhouses and Its Key Operations Management Issues. Neural Comput.
Appl. 2020, 32, 15341–15356.
51. Ruyue, L. Research on the Influence of Information Technology-Business Strategic Alignment on Servitization in Manufacturing
Enterprises. Ph.D. Thesis, Shandong University, Shandong, China, 2020.
52. Song, X.; Zhang, X.; Feng, L.; Yang, W. Disruption Risks in Supply Chain Management: A Literature Review Based on Bibliometric
Analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 3508–3526.
53. Natalia, R.; Villaseñor, N.; Yagüe, M.J. Value Co-Creation between Consumers and Distributors: The Moderating Effect of
Relationship Characteristics. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2021, 49, 1067–1088.
54. Monika, S. Measuring and Managing Value Co-Creation Process: Overview of Existing Theoretical Models. Soc. Technol. 2013, 3,
115–129.
55. Esko, H. The Characteristics of Sustainability-Oriented Value Co-Creation in the Finnish Commercial Inland Fishery. Master’s
Thesis, Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland, 2021.
56. Darja, M.; Schubert, I.; Burger, P.; Fritz, M.M.C. Exploring Modes of Sustainable Value Co-Creation in Renewable Energy
Communities. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 330, 129917.
57. Agyapong, S.C.; Okorie, C. Value Co-Creation on Technology-Enabled Platforms for Business Model Responsiveness and Position
Enhancement in Global Value Chains. Strateg. Change 2022, 31, 9–18.
58. Victor, S.; Goyal, P.; Jebarajakirthy, C. Value Co-Creation: A Review of Literature and Future Research Agenda. J. Bus. Ind. Mark.
2022, 37, 612–618.
59. Bernadette, B.; Miller, K.; McAdam, R.; Maalaoui, A. Business Model Innovation within Spos: Exploring the Antecedents and
Mechanisms Facilitating Multi-Level Value Co-Creation within a Value-Network. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 141, 475–494.
60. Tamer, M.; Dahalin, Z.; Baharom, F. Towards a User Value Co-Creation Model for Agile Web Development Approach. Sci. Int.
2013, 25, 1137–1143.
61. Mont Oksana, K. Clarifying the Concept of Product–Service System. J. Clean. Prod. 2002, 10, 237–245. [CrossRef]
62. Qiang, L.A.; Found, P. Towards Sustainability: Pss, Digital Technology and Value Co-Creation. Procedia Cirp 2017, 64, 79–84.
63. R, E.T.; Garmann-Johnsen, N.F.; Olsen, D.H. Co-Creation in Networks of Smes: A Conceptual Model of the Co-Creation Process.
Procedia Comput. Sci. 2021, 181, 360–366.
64. Andrei, B.; da Silva, A.A.; da Silva, B.P.; Werner, S.M. Criteria for Selecting Actors for the Value Co-Creation in Startups. J. Bus.
Ind. Mark. 2022, 37, 2332–2343.
65. Marcelo, R.; Serrano, M.V. Value Co-Creation Process and Measurement in 4.0 Smes: An Exploratory Research in a B2b Marketing
Innovation Context. Adm. Sci. 2021, 11, 1–20.
66. Samir, G.; Zhou, J.; Feng, S.; Nyadzayo, M.W. The Effect of Equity on Value Co-Creation in Business Relationships. J. Bus. Ind.
Mark. 2021, 37, 385–401.
67. Jiamian, T.; Vanderstraeten, J.; Matthyssens, P.; Shen, L. Developing and Leveraging Platforms in a Traditional Industry: An
Orchestration and Co-Creation Perspective. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 92, 14–33.
68. Li, G.; Li, G.; Tsai, F.; Gao, C.; Zhu, M.; Qu, X. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence Stimuli on Customer Engagement and Value
Co-Creation: The Moderating Role of Customer Ability Readiness. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2022.
69. Marcelo, R.; Leszczyński, G.; Velasquez-Serrano, M. Sustainable Value Co-Production and Co-Creation in Virtual Reality: An
Exploratory Research on Business-to-Business Interactions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7754.
70. Rodríguez-López, N. Understanding Value Co-Creation in Virtual Communities: The Key Role of Complementarities and
Trade-Offs. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 103487. [CrossRef]
71. Shaun, W.; Stoll, O.; Meierhofer, J.; Züst, S. Digital Twin Providing New Opportunities for Value Co-Creation through Supporting
Decision-Making. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3750.
72. Beatrice, R.; Magnani, G. Value Co-Creation in Circular Entrepreneurship: An Exploratory Study on Born Circular Smes. J. Bus.
Res. 2022, 147, 189–207.
73. Huo, L.; Shao, Y.; Wang, S.; Yan, W. Identifying the Role of Alignment in Developing Innovation Ecosystem: Value Co-Creation
between the Focal Firm and Supplier. Manag. Decis. 2022, 60, 2092–2125. [CrossRef]
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.

Out 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Out 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 16008. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316008 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

co-creation, believing that the servitization of manufacturing should focus on “value”.

2.2. Value Co-Creation Model from the Perspective of Value Network

intermediaries, technology purchase model, technology innovation model, technology

3. Building a Matrix of Value Co-Creation Models

3.1. Degree of Servitization

service innovation [8]. Combining the sustainability characteristics of servitization, the

3.2. Degree of Resource Integration

Figure 1. Classification of value co-creation models for manufacturing enterprises.

4.2. Leading Model of Servitization

4.3. Leading Model of Resource Integration

4.4. Double-High Model

5.1. Measurement Scale Design

Table 1. Measurement of servitization degree.

Table 2. Measurement scale for complementary resources.

5.2. Data Collection

5.2.2. Reliability and Validity Tests

Table 3. Cronbach’s reliability analysis.

Correction Term Total The alpha Coefficient of Cronbach‘s

Table 4. KMO and Bartlett’s test.

KMO Value 0.927

5.3. Empirical Methodology

5.3.2. Related Concepts of Rough Sets

Definition 1. A decision table S = (U, A, V, f ) is a knowledge representation system, where U is

Definition 2. The distinguishing function is denoted by ∆∗ , which is a Boolean function that

∆∗ = ∏ ∑ a∗ (x, y). (1)

Definition 5. In the information system S = (U, C, D, V, f ), for ∀ X ∈ U and the equivalence

5.3.3. The Rough Set Analysis Process

5.3.3. The Rough Set Analysis Process

5.4.2. Proving of Rules

6. Value Co-Creation Model Upgrade Path

6.1. Single-Servitization Upgrade Path

6.1. Single-Servitization Upgrade Path

6.2. Single-Resource-Integration Upgrade Path

resources through information sharing, material planning, e-procurement, cooperative

7. Conclusions and Implications

With the development of information technology and the deepening of servitization

You might also like