CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 2 (2010) 136–143

How to design and offer services successfully

J.C. Aurich *, C. Mannweiler, E. Schweitzer

Institute for Manufacturing Technology and Production Systems, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Available online 1 May 2010

Keywords:

Product-service systems

Service engineering

A B S T R A C T

The growing demand for innovative services forces traditional product-oriented companies to perceive

the potentials and strategic importance of services. Innovative services enable these companies to

ensure their market positions and to achieve economical success. Due to this, it becomes necessary to

systemize service design, development and management processes as well as to tightly integrate

products and services. In this paper, methods and important fields of action regarding the

systematization of services – service engineering (SE) – as well as the integration of products and

services – industrial product-service systems (PSS) – are presented.

� 2010 CIRP.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /c i rp j

1. Introduction

Within the globalization and the merging of the internationalmarkets, the competitive environment for companies has beenchanged. Markets that used to be sluggish have transformedthemselves and new players have come onto the market, whichenhance a dynamic market behavior. Considering the causes forthe increasing competition, the following factors apply inparticular [1]:

� Increased deregulation.� Entry of new competitors.� Increasing market saturation.� Strategic overcapacity.

Due to these aspects, companies are necessarily forced toenhance their competitive position [2]. Concerning pure servicecompanies (e.g. banks or public administrations) they have to beable to react on changed market requirements by adapting currentservices or develop new ones. The same applies to producingcompanies, which up to now focus on pure physical products. Theyhave to offer physical products with added services, sinceinnovative services are developing into a key unique selling pointfor production companies to set themselves apart from theircompetitors [1,3]. Because of the necessity for innovative services,service as well as production companies have to put their focus onservices and service oriented products to keep up and/or increase

* Corresponding author at: Lehrstuhl fuer Fertigungstechnik und Betriebsorga-

nisation (FBK), Technische Universitat Kaiserslautern, Postfach 3049, 67653

Kaiserslautern, Germany. Tel.: +49 631 205 2617; fax: +49 631 205 3238.

E-mail address: aurich@cpk.uni-kl.de (J.C. Aurich).

1755-5817/$ – see front matter � 2010 CIRP.

doi:10.1016/j.cirpj.2010.03.002

their competitiveness on the market. This development results inan extension of the service sector and could also be emphasized bythe following trends:

� Customer orientation through the product development.� Service oriented products.� Service share of the total value creation rises [4].

2. Services

2.1. Definition of service

In the research community, the definitions of service representa wide range and up to now there is no generally accepteddefinition available. Finally the definitions can be divided into thefollowing categories: enumerative, negative, institutional andconstitutive definitions [3,5–7]. From a scientific point of view theconstitutive definition is the most suitable. It defines service basedon specific constitutive attributes [3,6]. Researchers definedifferent main characteristics concerning these attributes ofservices.

In American literature there are four main characteristics thatspecify services. These characteristics are:

� Intangibility: Services are predominantly performances of actionsrather than objects that can be perceived using any of thephysical senses.� Heterogeneity: Service products quality is subject to variability

because services are delivered by people to people.� Simultaneity of production and consumption: Service products are

typically produced and consumed at the same time-consump-tion cannot be separated from the means of production.

Fig. 1. Differences between products and services (according to Ref. [21]).

J.C. Aurich et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 2 (2010) 136–143 137

� Perishability: Services must be consumed as they are provided. Ingeneral, they cannot be saved, stored, returned or carriedforward for later use or sale [6,8,9].

Authors in British literature also base their definitions on thejust mentioned characteristics, but they also introduce relationsbetween them. So they specify at least intangibility/immateriality

and the integration of customer as the two main characteristics [6].Thereby, perishability could be derived from intangibility/imma-teriality and simultaneity and heterogeneity could be derived fromthe integration of customer. German authors also considerimmateriality and integration of external factors as the main servicecharacteristics. Based thereon, every other characteristic can bederived [3,6,9–11]. Depending on the kind of service, externalfactors can be human resources as well as objects – usually aphysical product – of the customer. Fig. 1 exemplarily shows othercharacteristics for services and shows the typical differencesbetween products and services.

Further on, services can be described in a phase-oriented pointof view. Thereby, three dimensions can be distinguished [6]:

� Potential dimension: Describes the willingness and capability ofthe service provider to deliver the demand service. Thereforematerial as well as human and information resources have to beallocated.� Process dimension: Services are considered as processes between

providing and demanding units. The service itself is performedon or with these demanding units, and therefore the externalfactors are integrated in the process.� Result dimension: The result of the service has certain physical

and non-physical impacts for the external factors [1,3,11,12].

Avlonities et al. also characterize the three dimensions asvariables of a ‘‘new service development’’. The service realizationcan be considered as a transformation process where the potential

dimension represents the ‘‘who’’-component, the process dimen-

sions the ‘‘how’’-component and the result dimension the ‘‘what’’-component of this transformation (Fig. 2) [13].

Some authors (e.g. [1,14,15]) extend the three dimensions witha fourth one, the so-called market dimension. The considerationbehind this was that modern development processes must alwaysbe guided by market requirements to offer services that meet thecustomers’ needs. Furthermore, because of the integration ofexternal factors into the service realization processes, an orienta-tion towards the customer is necessary. The market dimension isconsidered as a spanning dimension, which covers the three others[1,11,14,15].

Fig. 2. Service transformation process [11].

2.2. Service production

The life cycle of service consists of the service design and theservice realization phases. This life cycle is also called serviceproduction [16,17]. Thereby, the realization process follows thedesign process [16,18,19] and the design process occurs before theinteraction with the customer [20]. The service design comprisesthe planning and conception of the service itself, as well as thepreparation of service realization [9,19,20].

The service planning pertains to the identification, definitionand selection of services ideas [19]. During the service conception,the different components of the service idea are determined indetail. At least within the preparation of service realization theneeded resources, e.g. qualification of service technicians, areprepared [19]. Hence, the result of the service design is thewillingness and capability of the service provider to deliverservices that customers demand. As mentioned above, the servicerealization phase follows the service design phase.

Within the service realization, certain activities (process

dimension) were carried out on or with the external factors bythe service provider using certain resources (potential dimension).The aim of the activities is to generate the demanded result (result

dimension). The elemental characteristic of service realization isthe interaction with the customer [20]. During this interaction thecustomer perceives next to the result also the potential –preparation of external factors – and process dimension – beinginvolved in the realization [22,23].

2.3. Potentials of service

The importance of the service sector has grown over the lastyears. Therefore, the competitive environment for service as wellas production companies has changed. Up to now, competitiveadvantages basically resulted from emphasizing cost, image orquality advantages. Because of the worldwide adjustment ofservice and product quality, the companies are no longer able toraise their profile simply by the ‘‘old’’ way [1,3]. Servicecompanies are forced to offer new and continuously improvedservices in the marketplace, whereas production companies areforced to offer product accompanying services to remain onestep ahead of their competitors and at the same time to meet thecustomers’ needs [1]. Hence, innovative services provide thecompanies with a means for differentiating their products fromsimilar rival products as well as for flexibly individualizing andenhancing them according to the demands resulting from thegeographical or cultural backgrounds of their customers. Thus,new market potentials and higher profit margins becomepossible as well as a higher customer loyalty and customerfeedback are feasible [24].

Today, companies provide many different services, mostlygrown by time or developed ad hoc. This behavior leads to amultitude of service offers and thus often to an inefficient servicedesign and realization. Depending on this issue, today’s servicemanagement weaknesses can be described as follows:

� Advantages because of positive correlation between physicalproducts and services are not fully realized, because of thesequential development of both.� Service offerings often do not meet the customers’ requirements

and therefore lead to a lower use for them and a lowerwillingness to pay for services.� A low degree of industrialization, e.g. lack of standardization,

rationalization and automation, of accompanying services low-ers competitiveness.� A lack of standardization prevents a global marketing in a value

creation network with a continuous level of service quality.

Fig. 3. Structuring of SE [5]. Fig. 4. Specific model types [34].

J.C. Aurich et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 2 (2010) 136–143138

To avoid these problems, a systematical customer-orientedservice development process is necessary that enables companiesto develop services, which meet the quality and efficiency requiredby the market.

3. Service engineering

3.1. Definition

Concerning the design and development of services, in the1970s and 1980s of the last century terms like ‘‘service design’’ and‘‘service development’’ appeared in Anglo-American literature[25]. These elementary contributions are mainly marketing drivenand focused on the integration of customer, e.g. the customercontact approach by Chase [26,27]. Further methodically works onservice are realized, e.g. by Shostack [28] as well as by researches ofthe MIT (Boston), who worked on holistic development approachesfor services.

In Germany there a methodically discussions on service startedjust since the 1990s and the term ‘‘service engineering’’ was coined[26,27,29]. So, service engineering (SE) represents a youngdiscipline, whose significance in academic and practical workgrows continuously. The SE approach tries to adapt, e.g. traditionalengineering approaches to the service sector [30]. Therefore, it ischaracterized through an interdisciplinary integration of expertisein the use of constructive methods from engineering, business,computers science, etc. [31]. SE can thus be defined as thesystematic development and design of services using suitablemodels, methods and tools [32] as well as the management ofservice development process (Fig. 3) [5].

Summarizing, SE aims at intensifying, improving and automa-tizing a whole framework for service design and development aswell as service realization [33].

3.2. Service engineering models

Models for SE define a service development process bydetermining process steps. Thus, as a first step they build up a

Fig. 5. Models for SE (acc

basis for developing a continuous service quality [11]. Modelscomprise a detailed documentation concerning process steps,structures and responsibilities and support the planning andcontrol of service development projects [26]. Aiming at structuringdevelopment processes and reducing complexity, there are threespecific model types (Fig. 4) available:

� Linear or phase models.� Iterative models.� Prototyping models.

The three model types can be characterized as follows:

� The linear or phase model is characterized by a sequential seriesof steps. Each step has to be finished and thereby provides theinput for the next step. Beyond this, the results of the steps aresuited as milestones. Because of the sequential structure, thismodel should only be used for services with a low complexitydegree.� The iterative model has a high flexibility and therefore it is

suitable for complex services. In each step there is the possibilityto return to a former step. Hence, a stable process, which offers ahigh service complexity and quality, is reached.� The prototyping model develops a service within a short time to

market. This is the major advantage comparing the time tomarket to the other models. Afterwards the inherent weakness ofthis solution is corrected through a continuous redesign. Ingeneral the service complexity is low [19,34].

Fig. 5 shows the principles and success criteria for SE models.Famous models are based on a specific view concerning the

service development, e.g. quality of service or integration ofcustomer. There are many contributions of different authors andthe following three models are exemplarily characterized:

� Edvardsson and Olsson’s model is focused on the service quality,which is dominated by the perception of the customer. Thereby,the integration of the customer is a crucial factor for service

ording to Ref. [19]).

Fig. 6. Methods and their application during the service development (according to

Ref. [25]).

J.C. Aurich et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 2 (2010) 136–143 139

success. Further on, the in-house demands and wishes, especiallythe employees’ ones, affect the quality. They also see their modelas a reference model, which is individual created in each case,because of the integration of customer during service realization.� Ramaswamy focuses on the importance of the customer and his

demanded requirements. He wants to define quantitativeattributes for services to define relations to the demandedrequirements. Thereby, the main design characteristics for theservice offerings can be derived.� Jaschinski addresses new service developments as well as

optimization throughout reengineering of existing services.Thereby, the main focus also lies on the quality of servicesand the continuous improvement of services [34,35].

3.3. Service engineering methods

For executing these different steps, when developing services ina precise and efficient way, different methods are available.Thereby, methods can be understood as specific instructions orguidelines that determine actions leading to an aim [11]. Amongothers, choosing methods for service design and realizationdepends on the situation of the company, the complexity ofservice and the experience of using the methods by the employees[5].

In literature there is only a small number of specific methodssupporting service design and realization. Most of them derivefrom engineering, business and computer science [9]. Some ofthese methods can partially be adapted and some have to bemodified to be used in the service sector. Further on, there aremethods especially conceived for the service sector, e.g. serviceblueprinting [5,9,36].

In different phases of the service production, different methodscan be used, e.g. supporting service quality or service productivity.For example, customer surveys or feedback reports of servicetechnicians are used to identify customer requirements duringservice planning. In addition, morphological boxes help to generatenew service ideas [11,36]. Quality oriented methods, such asQuality Function Deployment (QFD) or Failure Mode and EffectAnalyses (FMEA), allow translating requirements into serviceobjects and aim at analyzing potential failures in the complexsystem. Therewith services could be offered in an adequate quality.Later on, for the preparation of service realization, methodsdescribing the operative processes of the service supply, e.g.service blueprinting, are necessary [36,37]. Fig. 6 shows somemethods and their application during the service development aswell as the unused potentials as a result of a survey includingcompanies that provide services as core or add-on products. Thesecompanies belong to different business sectors and vary incompany size [25].

3.4. Service engineering tools

For supporting the application of methods, especially duringdevelopment processes, different (software-) tools are used. Toolsare means that help using methods in a concrete manner on adetailed level [9]. Tools provide functionalities, which support thedevelopment process in an efficient way [11]. In practice, above allproject management-, modeling- and simulation-tools, such asoffice- or groupware-software, are applied. Up to now, there are nostandard tools for developing services available [11].

The previous sections describe approaches for a systematicservice production throughout different models, methods andtools. Although there are many research activities concerning SE,there is still a lack of general strategic and operational instrumentssupporting the service engineering in an appropriate manner [25].To meet the changed competitiveness, adequate service offerings

are needed. These services must provide a high service quality aswell as high service productivity and therefore, instruments for animproved service design and realization are necessary.

Focusing on traditional product-oriented companies, theirindustrial customers expect to be provided with completesolutions, consisting of both physical products and non-physicalservices. For offering these solutions, the existing engineeringapproaches must be extended and new approached must begenerated [38]. These approaches have to consider design andrealization phases that do not separate products and services, buttreat the two elements ‘‘simultaneously’’ within an integratedmanner [39]. Hence, concerning the increasing significance ofservices as well as the structures of traditional product-orientedcompanies, they have to take the chance to develop servicessystematically and therewith increase profit margins and thecustomers’ use.

4. Product-service systems

Because of the changed market environment and therefore thenecessity to enhance competitive position and to offer compre-hensive solutions, companies have to establish new business fieldsor extend their existing ones. In order to promote the arisingchallenges, a product-service system (PSS) provides a promisingstarting point. The idea of PSS originates in Europe, especially theNetherlands and Scandinavia, in the late 1990s [40]. The major goalof PSS was to reduce consumption through alternative schemes ofproduct use as well as to increase overall resource productivity anddematerialization [37]. Thus, the policy aimed at sustainableeconomic growth in combination with reduced pressure on theenvironment [41]. The first generally accepted definition of PSSwas given in 1990 by Goedkoop et al. [41]. Since then, mostcontributors have broadly adapted this definition. A PSS is mostlyconsidered as a ‘‘Product(s) and service(s) combined in a system todeliver required user functionality in a way that reduces theimpact on the environment.’’ Usually, it is seen as a competitiveproposition [42]. Therefore, a PSS offers the opportunity to

J.C. Aurich et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 2 (2010) 136–143140

decouple economic success from material consumption and hencereduce the environmental impact of economic activity [40].Although, the significance of PSS has steadily grown in theresearch communities over the last years, up to now there is nowgeneral accepted definition available. Baines et al. summarized themost popular definitions of PSS in their paper and tried to derive adefinition. Thereby, a PSS can be understood as an integratedproduct and service offering, that delivers value in use [40].

According to the capital goods industry, PSS are made up of acomplex product core dynamically enhanced along its life cycle byservices [43]. Thereby, the products are the physical or tangiblecomponents that provide the technical functions to the customer,while the non-physical or intangible service components ensure orenhance, respectively, the availability of these functions [39].

To provide the customer with a comprehensive service support,service offerings can be distinguished in the following servicetypes:

� Technical services (e.g. maintenance) aim at enhancing thephysical product core.� Qualifying services (e.g. operator trainings) aim at improving the

qualification of the operator.� Process-oriented services (e.g. application improvement) aim at

improving the production processes of the customer.� Logistical, information-providing and financial services (e.g.

spare part supply, product information and leasing) aim atsupporting the customer’s company [44].

Concerning the increasing service significance, the changedcustomer demands and therewith the challenges capital goodcompanies have to face, specific methodologies and tools that canprovide the companies with a business wide guide for theimplementation of PSS are necessary [42]. In the researchcommunity two main approaches for PSS-solutions have beenemphasized over the last years. On the one hand, the focus is laidon specific business models for PSS and on the other hand on models,methods and tools for life cycle-oriented design and realization of

PSS.

4.1. Business models for PSS

For using the potentials of services by offering PSS, newbusiness models have to be developed and provided to customersof the capital good industry. These customers mainly change theircore competences from, e.g. manufacturing products to justdeveloping and distributing products, so that they are expectedto be provided with specific PSS-business models [46]. Businessmodels are simplified descriptions of the mechanisms, which

Fig. 7. Morphological box: characteristics of b

companies use to create value. It consists of three maincomponents:

� Value proposition: Defines, which benefit the customer or anotherpartner of the company achieve within the cooperation.� Architecture of value creation: Defines, which benefit the

company provides. Thereby involved internal and external unitsand necessary transformation process are described.� Benefit model: Defines the mix of benefit sources and kinds of

benefit.

Further on, because of the interaction of internal, i.e. companyunits, and external, i.e. customer or other partners, coordinationand communication mechanisms need to be considered bybusiness models [47].

Concerning business models for PSS, a wide range of coopera-tion between customer and PSS-provider and therefore a widerange of business models arise. For this reason innovative andflexible business models, which describe the design of thecustomer–provider relation as well as their bonds and theirsettlements are needed [48]. Three main categories of PSS-business models can be distinguished:

� Function-/product-oriented model: Selling the product in atraditional manner, while additional services are included (e.g.maintenance, repair).� Use-/availability-oriented model: Selling the use or availability of a

product that is not owned by the customer (e.g. leasing, sharing).� Result-oriented model: Selling a result or capability instead of a

product (e.g. selling parts instead of the facility for manufactur-ing them) [40,48,49].

These models can be subdivided into several individualbusiness models, where the models differentiate throughout thefollowing criteria:

� Ownership of the product (in this case of the manufacturingfacility).� Operational personnel, maintenance personnel.� Location of the manufacturing facility, payment method.� Delivery of raw materials and supplies [33].

Fig. 7 presents a morphological box that shows the attributes ofthe model characteristics [45].

As described above, it becomes clear, that the success of acompany is founded in its business model, which needs to be re-designed to align strategic and operational objectives in order tooffer the PSS [50]. Therefore the traditional business model with its

usiness models (according to Ref. [45]).

Fig. 8. Company’s point of view of product life cycle (according to Ref. [60]).

J.C. Aurich et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 2 (2010) 136–143 141

four sub-models, based on the approach of Muller-Stewens andLechner, has to be extended by a fifth sub-model [51]. So, the fivesub-models are:

� Value proposition model defines which products and services areoffered to which customers and how a differentiation over thecompetitors can be achieved.� Marketing model is closely related to the definition of services to

be rendered. It provides activities to identify and address themarket requirements.� Benefit model specifies what is sold and which services are put

down to the customer’s account. An important aspect within thissub-model is price policy and the pricing itself.� Production model describes, in which way the products and

services are generated by the own or an external company.Therefore, it is essential to examine the creation of valuethroughout the enterprise as a whole.� Service delivery model links the PSS-provider’s value proposition

model to the customer’s production model and therewith closesthe gap between the two different parties involved in a PSS offer[50].

Nevertheless, a successful PSS-business model, which achievesa high benefit for both – customers and companies – has toconsider all five sub-models and their relations [50].

Further on, business models are customer individual solutionsand therefore have to be checked in each case on their suitability.Moreover as mentioned above, new business models need astrategic and operational adjustment for both internal and externalprocesses [46].

Summarizing, the PSS-business models allow companies tocreate new sources of added value and competitiveness, since theyfulfill customers’ needs in an integrated and customized way.Hence, they allow customer to concentrate on core activities, theybuild unique relationships with customers, they enhance custo-mers’ loyalty and they can probably innovate faster since theyfollow their customer needs better [49].

Nevertheless, in the future there is still a need of methods,concepts and tools for life cycle-oriented business models that gobeyond the use phase and are able to support a high benefit for allparties involved in Ref. [52].

4.2. Towards PSS life cycle management

The increasing global competition and the necessity to offer newbetter value by combining products and services within PSS, resultsin internal and external complexity of companies structures andprocesses. Thereby, a successful offering and realization of PSSextends the companies’ involvement and responsibility of productsthroughout their entire life cycle, although the product is alreadywith the customer. This means that companies have to shift theirfocus from designing and selling products only, to support andaccompany their usage and end-of-life [53,54]. So, they have to takecare about life cycle phases that are usually outside the traditional

Fig. 9. Life cycle phase-oriented and spann

buyer–seller relationship, such as take back, recovery of productsand materials, reuse and refurbishment as well as remanufacturing[55]. Contrary to other business models, the life cycle management(LCM) of PSS focuses on the design and realization of required userfunctionalities over the whole product life cycle.

LCM can be defined as a business approach for managing andoptimizing a company’s products throughout its life cycle,including a consistent set of models, methods and IT-tools formanaging product data, engineering processes and requirementsalong the life cycle [56,57].

Therewith, LCM enables the manufacturer to overcome theinterfaces between the different life cycle phases design,manufacturing, usage and end-of-life [58]. It optimizes theinteractions of product design, manufacturing and life cycleactivities. With LCM the manufacturers aim at supporting thecustomer in using the physical product in an effective, economicand resource-saving way [59].

Concerning the life cycle of a PSS from the company’s point ofview, it starts with the design phase, followed by the realizationphase. It ends with the remanufacturing or end-of-life phase(Fig. 8) [60]. In order to maximize product performance as well asto promote the implementation of PSS in practice, LCM can betaken as a promising starting point.

4.3. Product-oriented LCM

Current product-oriented LCM concepts distinguish betweenlife cycle phase-oriented and spanning methods (Fig. 9). Their mainideas and deficits can be summarized as follows [59].

4.3.1. Life cycle phase-oriented methods

� Life cycle engineering (LCE) comprises a multitude of function-and target-oriented rules and methods for life cycle-orientedproduct planning and design. Service planning and design areusually not considered therein.� Life time management (LTM) aims at enhancing the life cycle

performance of products by means of services. In absence ofsystematic life cycle-oriented service planning and design, LTMfrequently remains focused on single life cycle events (e.g.product failures).

ing methods (according to Ref. [60]).

J.C. Aurich et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 2 (2010) 136–143142

� Product cycle management (PCM) is targeted on closed loopsystems for material and information flow. Insufficient contactbetween manufacturers and their industrial customers, resultingfrom discontinuous LTM hampers the establishment of PCM.

4.3.2. Life cycle spanning methods

� Life cycle information and knowledge management tools providepowerful means for consistent product data and informationmanagement. However, information gathered during the prod-uct servicing is only seldom included therein.� For evaluating the overall economic and ecologic effects of

products, life cycle costing (LCC) and life cycle assessment (LCA)can be applied. Though they can also be used for assessingspecific product benefits of individual customers, the necessarylife cycle information is often not gathered systematically or notavailable.

Life cycle-oriented process management aims at standardiz-ing and controlling the interfaces between the product planning,design and realization processes, carried out along the life cycle[58]. This does usually not include either service design orrealization processes [43].

4.4. PSS oriented LCM

In the research community some proposals of a framework forLCM in the context of PSS already exists. Following approaches arepresented and described exemplarily.

Known as the Braunschweig Framework of Total Life CycleManagement, a systematic and life cycle-oriented framework for alife cycle phases comprehensive point of view on products and thecorresponding processes was established [54]. In a comparableway, Aurich et al. present in its paper a concept for PSS-LCM thatconsiders customer-oriented planning, integrated PSS-develop-ment, knowledge based PSS control and life cycle-oriented processmanagement. With this concept companies are able to shift from atraditional product manufacturer to a ‘‘full-service-provider’’. Forthis, suitable methods and tools for each life cycle phase wereestablished [43].

Further on, approaches aiming at specific life cycle phases arealready available. For example, Lindahl et al. present a methodo-logical approach for creating integrated product and serviceofferings within the so-called integrated products and serviceengineering (IPSE) during the planning and development phase.The aim with IPSE is, to generate and optimize offerings with acombination of products and services that satisfy an identifiedcustomer need, and at the same time increase the competitivenessof suppliers. Although IPSE provides methods for the productionphase, it also incorporates the use and end-of-life treatment phase[61]. Aurich et al. presents an approach for a continuousimprovement of PSS during the PSS-realization. Therein, thedesign of the organizational and operational structure of thecreation network as well as the continuous product and customerfeedback are described [62]. The approach of Sadek providesdesigner with means to generate customer-oriented PSS-solutionsin the early phase of PSS-development. Therein a heterogenousmodelling of the physical and non-physical PSS-components bythe use of a function, object and process-oriented view is possible[35].

Similar to the PSS-business model topic within the means ofPSS-LCM there is still a lot of research work to do. One of the mainand partly most difficult goals is to extend the existing approacheswith service aspects. Thereby the narrow perspective of someapproaches, e.g. an ecological perspective, can be enhanced to amore comprehensive one. Beyond this, the integration of means for

PSS-LCM approaches with already existing organizational solutionhas to be forced. Further on, different life cycle phase-oriented andspanning methods must be analyzed and evaluated concerningtheir complement possibilities.

5. Conclusions and outlook

The presented paper shows that the success and competiveness,especially in capital goods industry, today mainly depends on theoffered services. Hence, services provide the companies on the onehand with means for differentiating their products from technicalsimilar rival products and on the other hand with means forindividualizing their products concerning the different demands oftheir customers. Therewith higher profit margins become possible.

For offering services in a competitive way a systematicengineering, similar to the engineering of physical products, isnecessary. This paper presented the approach of service engineer-ing (SE) and its different models, methods and tools. Further on, theapproach of product-service systems (PSS) is described, becausecustomers of the capital goods industry expect to be provided withcomplete solutions, consisting of both physical products and non-physical services. For offering PSS the companies have to fulfill achange, which could be realized in to different ways: developingspecific business models or offering life cycle-oriented PSS.Therefore, the two different ways are described in this paper.

Just now, in difficult economic times, services offer companiesthe possibility to new business areas and perhaps help them toabsorb turnover or even lower the losses. Another importantaspect in today’s political and global economic discussions is theenvironmental impact of industries and their products. Byconsidering the beginning of the PSS approach and its aims – toreduce consumption through alternative schemes of product useas well as to increase overall productivity and dematerialization –PSS offer the opportunity to lower the pollution and damage of theenvironment in a significant way. So, future research activitieshave to consider these ecological aspects and should concentrateon developing eco- or green-PSS.

References

[1] Fahnrich, K.-P., Meiren, T., 2007, Service Engineering: State of the Art andFuture Trends, in Spath D, Fahnrich K-PAdvances in Services Innovations.Springer, Berlin, pp. pp.3–16.

[2] Ahlert, D., Evanschitzky, H., 2003, Dienstleistungsnetzwerke, Springer, Berlin.[3] Scheer, A.-W., Grieble, O., Klein, R., 2003, Modellbasiertes Dienstleistungs-

management, in Bullinger H-JScheer A-WService Engineering. Springer, Berlin,pp. pp.19–49.

[4] Ernst, G., 1998, Dienstleistung als Leitsektor in einer zukunftsfahigen, huma-nen Gesellschaft, Information Management & Consulting, 13:7–10.

[5] Fahnrich, K.-P., Opitz, M., 2003, Service Engineering: Entwicklungspfad undBild einer jungen Disziplin, in Bullinger H-JScheer A-WService Engineering.Springer, Berlin, pp. pp.83–115.

[6] Lasshof, B., 2005, Produktivitat von Dienstleistungen, Dissertation, FernUni-versitat Hagen.

[7] Nuttgens, M., Heckmann, M., Luzius, M.J., 1998, Service Engineering Rahmen-konzept, Information Management & Consulting, 13:14–19.

[8] Kundu, S., McKay, A., de Pennington, A., Moss, N., Chapman, N., 2007, Implica-tions for Engineering Information Systems Design in the Product-ServiceParadigm, in Takata S, Umeda Y, (Eds.) Advances in Life Cycle Engineeringfor Sustainable Manufacturing Businesses. Springer, London, pp. pp.165–171.

[9] Gill, C., 2004, Architektur fur das Service Engineering zur Entwicklung vontechnischen Dienstleistungen, in Luczak H, Eversheim W, (Eds.) SchriftenreiheRationalisierung und Humanisierung. Shaker, Aachen.

[10] Jaschinski, C., 1998, Qualitatsorientiertes Redesign von Dienstleistungen, inLuczak H, Eversheim W, (Eds.) Schriftenreihe Rationalisierung und Humani-sierung. Shaker, Aachen.

[11] Bullinger, H.-J., Schreiner, P., 2003, Service Engineering: Ein Rahmenkonzeptfur die systematische Entwicklung von Dienstleistungen, in Bullinger H-JScheer A-WService Engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp. pp.51–82.

[12] van Husen, C., 2007, Anforderungsanalyse fur produktbegleitende Dienstle-istungen, Dissertation, Universitat Stuttgart.

[13] Avlonitis, G.J., Papastathopoulou, P.G., Gounaris, S.P., 2001, An Empirically-based Typology of Product Innovativeness for New Financial Services: Success

J.C. Aurich et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 2 (2010) 136–143 143

and Failure Scenarios, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18:324–342.

[14] Helm, S., 2001, Unsicherheitsaspekte integrativer Leistungserstellung, inBruhn M, Stauss B, (Eds.) Dienstleistungsmanagement Jahrbuch. Gabler, Wies-baden, pp. pp.67–89.

[15] Meyer, A., Blumelhuber, C., 1994, Interdependenzen zwischen Absatz undProduktion in Dienstleistungsunternehmen und ihre Auswirkungen auf kon-zeptionelle Fragen des Absatzmarketing, in Corsten H, Hilke W, (Eds.) Diens-tleistungsproduktion. Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. pp.5–42.

[16] Sontow, K., 2000, Fruhe Phasen des Service Engineering—Dienstleistungspla-nung in Unternehmen des Maschinen—und Anlagenbaus, Dissertation, Aachen.

[17] Roy, K.-P., 1997, Beitrag zum Aufbau eines systematischen Qualitatsmanage-ments in Dienstleistungsunternehmen auf der Basis von Qualitatskreisen,Dissertation, Aachen.

[18] Liestmann, V., et al, 2002, in Luczak H, Eversheim W, (Eds.) Dienstleistung-sentwicklung durch Service Engineering—Von der Idee zum Produkt. FIR+-IAW-Praxis Edition, Aachen.

[19] Luczak, H., 2000, Service Engineering—Der systematische Weg von der Ideezum Leistungsangebot, TCW-report, Munchen.

[20] Ramaswamy, R., 1996, Design and Management of Service Processes—KeepingCustomers for Life, Addison Wesley, Reading.

[21] Lehmann, A.P., 1995, Dienstleistungsmanagement Strategien und Ansatz-punkte zur Schaffung von Servicequalitat, Schaffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart.

[22] Reckenfelderbaumer, M., Busse, D., 2005, Kundenmitwirkung bei der Entwick-lung von industriellen Dienstleistungen—Eine Phasenbezogene Analyse, inBullinger H-JScheer A-WService Engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp. pp.145–170.

[23] Gronroos, C., Ojasalo, K., 2004, Service Productivity—Towards a Conceptuali-zation of the Transformation of Inputs into Economic Results in Services,Journal of Business Research, 57:414–423.

[24] Aurich, J.C., Fuchs, C., Wagenknecht, C., 2006, Modular Design of TechnicalProduct-Service Systems, Life Cycle Engineering and Sustainable Develop-ment, Springer, Berlin. pp. 303–320.

[25] Fahnrich, K.P., Meiren, T., Barth, T., Hertweck, A., Baumeister, M., Demuß, L.,Gaiser, B., Zerr, K., 1999, Service Engineering–Ergebnisse einer empirischenStudie zum Stand der Dienstleistungsentwicklung in Deutschland, FraunhoferIRB-Verlag, Stuttgart.

[26] Bullinger, H.-J., Meiren, T., 1998, Service Engineering—Entwicklung undGestaltung von Dienstleistungen, in Bruhn M, Meffert H, (Eds.) HandbuchDienstleistungsmanagement. Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. pp.149–175.

[27] Chase, R.B., 1981, The Customer Contact Approach to Services: TheoreticalBases and Practical Extensions, Operations Research, 29:698–706.

[28] Shostack, G.L., 1998, Designing Services that Deliver, Journal of Service Mar-keting, 3:133–139.

[29] Bullinger, H.-J., 1995, Dienstleistungsmarkte im Wandel. Herausforderungenund Perspektiven, in Bullinger H-JDienstleistungen der Zukunft. Markte,Unternehmen und Infrastrukturen im Wandel. Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp.pp.45–95.

[30] Schwengels, C., 2003, Kostenorientierte Entwicklung von Dienstleistungen, inBullinger H-JScheer A-WService Engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp. pp.507–529.

[31] Spath, D., Ganz, W., Meiren, T., Bienzeisler, B., 2008, Service Engineering: ATransdisciplinary Approach in Service Research, in Stauss B, Engelmann K,Kremer A, Luhn A, (Eds.) Service Science—Fundamentals, Challenges andFuture Developments. Springer, Berlin, pp. pp.41–53.

[32] DIN, 1998, Fachbericht 75, Service Engineering—EntwicklungsbegleitendeNormung (EBN) fur Dienstleistungen, Beuth, Berlin.

[33] Arai, T., Shimomura, Y., 2007, Service CAD System to Support Servicification ofManufactures, in Takata S, Umeda Y, (Eds.) Advances in Life Cycle Engineeringfor Sustainable Manufacturing Businesses. Springer, London, pp. pp.143–148.

[34] Schneider, K., Wagner, D., Behrens, H., 2003, Vorgehensmodell zum ServiceEngineering, in Bullinger H-JScheer A-WService Engineering. Springer, Berlin,pp. pp.117–141.

[35] Sadek, T., 2008, Ein modellorientierter Ansatz zur Konzeptentwicklung indus-trieller Produkt-Service Systeme, Dissertation, Ruhr-Universitat Bochum.

[36] Eversheim, W., Kuster, J., Liestmann, V., 2003, Anwendungspotenziale Inge-nieurswissenschaftlicher Methoden fur das Service Engineering, in BullingerH-JScheer A-WService Engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp. pp.417–441.

[37] Mont, O.K., 2000, Product-Service System, Swedish Environmental ProtectionAgency, Stockholm.

[38] Spath, D., Demuß, L.L., 2003, Entwicklung hybrider Produkte—GestaltungMaterieller und Immaterieller Leistungsbundel, in Bullinger H-JScheer A-WService Engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp. pp.467–506.

[39] Maussang, N., Zwolinski, P., Brissaud, D., 2008, Evaluation of Product-ServiceSystems During Early Design Phase, in Mitsuishi M, Ueda K, Kimura F, (Eds.)

Manufacturing Systems and Technologies for the New Frontier. Springer,London, pp. pp.547–552.

[40] Baines, T.S., et al, 2007, State-of-the-art in Product-Service Systems, Journal ofEngineering Manufacture, 221:1543–1552.

[41] Goedkoop, M.J., et al, 1999, Product Service Systems—Ecological and EconomicBasics, The Hague, PWC.

[42] Baines, T.S., Lightfoot, H., Evans, S., 2007, Product-Service-System Revisited, in:Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Manufacturing Research(Leicester), pp.296–300.

[43] Aurich, J.C., Schweitzer, E., Fuchs, C., 2007, Life Cycle Management of IndustrialProduct-Service Systems, in Takata S, Umeda Y, (Eds.) Advances in Life CycleEngineering for Sustainable Manufacturing Businesses. Springer, London, pp.pp.171–176.

[44] Aurich, J.C., Schweitzer, E., Fuchs, C., 2007, Life Cycle Oriented Planning ofIndustrial Product-Service Systems, in: Proceedings of the 5th InternationalConference on Manufacturing Research (Leicester), pp.270–274.

[45] Lay, G., Meier, H., Schramm, J., Werding, A., 2003, Betreiben statt Verkaufen,Industrie Management, 19:9–19.

[46] Meier, H., 2004, Service im globalen Umfeld—Innovative Ansatze einerZukunftsorientierten Dienstleistungsgestaltung, in Meier H, (Ed.) Dienstleis-tungsorientierte Geschaftsmodelle im Maschinen—und Anlagenbau. Springer,Berlin, pp. pp.3–19.

[47] Rentmeister, J., Klein, S., 2003, Geschaftsmodelle—ein Modebegriff auf derWaagschale, Zeitschrift fur Betriebswirtschaft, Erganzungsheft, 1:17–30.

[48] Meier, H., Kortmann, D., 2007, Leadership—From Technology to Use, in TakataS, Umeda Y, (Eds.) Advances in Life Cycle Engineering for SustainableManufacturing Businesses. Springer, London, pp. pp.159–163.

[49] Tukker, A., 2004, Eight Types of Product-Service System: Eight Ways toSustainability? Business Strategy and the Environment, 13:246–260.

[50] Schuh, G., Klotzbach, C., Gaus, F., 2008, Service Provision as a Sub-model ofModern Business Models for Tool and Die Companies, in Kaebernick H, (Ed.)Applying Life Cycle Knowledge to Engineering Solutions. pp.570–574. Sydney.

[51] Muller-Stewens, G., Lechner, C., 2005, Strategisches Management Schaeffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart.

[52] Meier, H., Kaiser, U., Kring, R., 2008, Service as Enabler for Lifecycle-OrientedBusiness Models, in Kaebernick H, (Ed.) Applying Life Cycle Knowledge toEngineering Solutions. pp.564–569. Sydney.

[53] Meier, H., Sadek, K., 2008, Industrial Product-Service-System—IntegratedDevelopment of Products and Services, in Kaebernick H, (Ed.) Applying LifeCycle Knowledge to Engineering Solutions. pp.559–563. Sydney.

[54] Herrmann, C., Bergmann, L., Thiede, S., Halubek, P., 2007, Total Life CycleManagement—An Integrated Approach Towards Sustainability, in Althaus HJ,(Ed.) in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Man-agement.

[55] Guelere Filho, A., Pigosso, D.C.A., Rozenfeld, H., 2008, A Proposal of a Frame-work for Product Life-Cycle Management (PLM) in the Context of Product-Service Systems (PSS), in Kaebernick H, (Ed.) Applying Life Cycle Knowledge toEngineering Solutions. pp.524–527. Sydney.

[56] Abramovici, M., Neubach, M., Schulze, M., Spura, C., 2009, Metadata ReferenceModel for IPS2 Lifecycle Management, in Roy R, Shehab E, (Eds.) IndustrialProduct-Service Systems. Cranfield University Press, Cranfield , pp. pp.268–772.

[57] Guelere Filho, A., Pigosso, D.C.A., Ometto, A.R., Rozenfeld, H., 2009, Remanu-facturing on a Framework for Integrated Technology and Product-SystemLifecycle Management (ITPSLM), in Roy R, Shehab E, (Eds.) Industrial Prod-uct-Service Systems. Cranfield University Press, Cranfield, pp. pp.273–279.

[58] Herrmann, C., Mansour, M., Mateika, M., 2005, Strategic and Operational LifeCycle Management—Concept, Methods and Tools, in: Proceedings of the 12thInternational CIPR LCE Seminar (Grenoble), .

[59] Westkamper, E., Alting, L., Arndt, G.G., 2000, Life Cycle Management andAssessment: Approaches and Visions Towards Sustainable Manufacturing,Annals of the CIRP, 49:501–522.

[60] Fuchs, C., 2007, Life Cycle Management investiver Produkt-Service Systeme—Konzept zur lebenszyklusorientierten Gestaltung und Realisierung, Disserta-tion, TU Kaiserslautern.

[61] Lindahl, M., Sundin, E., Sakao, T., Shimomura, Y., 2008, Integrated Product andService Engineering Versus Design for Environment—A Comparison and Eval-uation of Advantages and Disadvantages, in Mitsuishi M, Ueda K, Kimura F,(Eds.) Manufacturing Systems and Technologies for the New Frontier. Spring-er, London, pp. pp.137–142.

[62] Aurich, J.C., Schweitzer, E., Mannweiler, C., 2009, Continuous Improvement ofIndustrial Product-Service Systems, in Roy R, Shehab E, (Eds.) IndustrialProduct-Service Systems. Cranfield University Press, Cranfield, pp. pp.16–23.