{"id":126600,"date":"2018-02-20T23:50:30","date_gmt":"2018-02-20T23:50:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/writemyessayfree.com\/business-model-development-towards-service-management"},"modified":"2017-08-16T06:11:01","modified_gmt":"2017-08-16T06:11:01","slug":"business-model-development-towards-service-management","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/business-model-development-towards-service-management\/","title":{"rendered":"Business Model Development towards Service Management"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"the_content_wrapper\">\n<p>Business Model Development towards Service Management<\/p>\n<p>Available online at www.sciencedirect.com<br \/> 2212-8271 \u00a9 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license<br \/> (http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/).<br \/> Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 8th Product-Service Systems across Life Cycle<br \/> doi: 10.1016\/j.procir.2016.03.228<br \/> ScienceDirect<br \/> Product-Service Systems across Life Cycle<br \/> Business Model Development towards Service Management 4.0<br \/> Mirka Kansa<br \/> *, Anders Ingwalda<br \/> a<br \/> Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linnaeus University, Luckligs plats 1, 35195 V\u00e4xj\u00f6, Sweden<br \/> * Corresponding author. Tel.: +46-470-708488. E-mail address: mirka.kans@lnu.se<br \/> Abstract<br \/> There is an increasing interest to ensure operational and maintenance (O&amp;M) operations from a strategic perspective, and there are<br \/> opportunities for both producing companies and service providers to gain benefits. Research shows that the combined business models<br \/> (products combined with services) have a positive effect on the business. Likewise, it is profitable to think strategically and in long term for<br \/> enterprises offering maintenance services, especially using performance-based models. But for achieving these benefits the view of the business<br \/> has to change. The focus should be on the values created and not in the offers in form of products or services. Moreover, the company needs to<br \/> position itself as an actor not only in the value chain, but in a wider context referred to as the business ecosystem. Making such a shift of focus<br \/> is hard though, and there is a need to understand both the current state of the business as well as the potential future directions.<br \/> The framework presented in this paper is an attempt to meet these needs. The framework describes business model development in four levels.<br \/> From maturity point of view, the four steps could be seen as the logical development of the business model from a narrow technical perspective<br \/> to a holistic product-service perspective. The four levels could also be connected to the industrial development where level four supports<br \/> Industry 4.0. Level four is referred to as Service Management 4.0. In particular, four key concepts reflect the concept of Service Management<br \/> 4.0: the mix of products and services in customer offers, performance-based contracts, partnering and the business ecology concept.<br \/> \u00a9 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.<br \/> Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 8th Product-Service Systems across Life Cycle.<br \/> Keywords: Service management 4.0; Business model development; Integrated product-service models<br \/> 1. Introduction<br \/> The area of business modelling and innovation has gained<br \/> increased attention in the recent year due to success stories of<br \/> companies earning big money by adapting new business<br \/> models [1]. Business models describe the way a company<br \/> creates, delivers and assimilates value [2], and defines how<br \/> business should be conducted, for example in terms of<br \/> strategy, customer relations, market segments and value<br \/> creation mechanisms. It is also important to define the<br \/> company\u2019s role in the value stream chain [3]. Business<br \/> models aimed at combined offerings, i.e. products combined<br \/> with services, have been proved to have a positive effect on<br \/> the operations, see for instance [4]. There are opportunities for<br \/> both producing companies and service providers to gain<br \/> benefits, but the view of the business must change in order to<br \/> achieve the benefits [5]. The change in focus from what to<br \/> offer to what value the offer brings for the customer is<br \/> required, and to adopt a holistic approach on the value<br \/> creation process [6, 7]. In [8] four main aspects are proposed<br \/> as being important for the successful development of<br \/> operations and maintenance (O&amp;M) service models: the mix<br \/> of products and services in customer offers (bundling), the<br \/> need for a holistic view on the value creation process, relevant<br \/> setup and metrics for performance-based business models and<br \/> contracts, and Information and Communications Technology<br \/> (ICT) as an enabler and a prerequisite for business model<br \/> development. The latter connects the contemporary business<br \/> strategies with modern production strategies referred to as<br \/> Industry 4.0. Industry 4.0 implies that other revolutions have<br \/> taken place. The first revolution happened in the 1800-1900\u2019s,<br \/> when production was mechanized. The production was moved<br \/> \u00a9 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license<br \/> (http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/).<br \/> Peer-review under responsibility of the scientifi c committee of the 8th Product-Service Systems across Life Cycle<br \/> 490 Mirka Kans and Anders Ingwald \/ Procedia CIRP 47 ( 2016 ) 489 \u2013 494<br \/> from decentralized units to large factories and a new social<br \/> class, the working class, was born. The second revolution<br \/> occurred in the last century when the production become<br \/> electrified and parts and processes were standardized. The<br \/> digitization of production is usually called the third<br \/> revolution. Industry 4.0 is referred to as the internet revolution<br \/> and is characterized by intelligent factories through cyberphysical<br \/> systems and the internet of things [9]. Cyber-physical<br \/> systems are physical devices with components that are<br \/> integrated in the devices for monitoring and control. These<br \/> cyber-physical systems are connected and communicate with<br \/> each other through internet technology for coordination<br \/> purposes, thus creating flexible, dynamic and smart factories.<br \/> Maintenance 4.0 is a subset of Industry 4.0 in the form of selflearning<br \/> and smart system that predicts failures, makes<br \/> diagnosis and triggers maintenance actions [10].<br \/> Industry 4.0 focuses on delivering advanced technical<br \/> solutions to manufacturing problems and support new<br \/> manufacturing philosophies such as lean production, but in<br \/> order to become successful these technical innovations in<br \/> manufacturing must be connected with the strategic business<br \/> models. Flexibility in manufacturing requires flexibility and<br \/> adaptiveness in the services such as maintenance and logistics<br \/> which can be achieved by applying new business models. In<br \/> this paper a framework for business model development is<br \/> proposed that connects technological development with<br \/> service needs and business modelling, transforming the O &amp;<br \/> M services, especially maintenance, from being a technical<br \/> product into a concept of value creation and business creation:<br \/> Service Management 4.0.<br \/> 2. New industrial maintenance demands and possibilities<br \/> The current technical development in industry regarding<br \/> information handling and digitalization leads to new ways of<br \/> producing goods. The industry demands flexible, safe,<br \/> environmental friendly and available production processes. At<br \/> the same time production processes becomes more automated,<br \/> complex and dynamic. A new environment for production is<br \/> described in [11], which includes automation and very few<br \/> human beings. Intelligence is built into the actual products<br \/> and all things can be identified by RFID-tags and every object<br \/> in the system is traceable. Through this the production<br \/> becomes more flexible and difficult to anticipate both<br \/> regarding when it takes place and where. This new situation<br \/> puts demands on flexibility and automation in the<br \/> maintenance management as well. At the same time, the ICT<br \/> development enables new way of managing maintenance.<br \/> Advancements in technologies such as data acquisition<br \/> technology, data technology, sensor technology, prognosis<br \/> technology gives possibilities to work in new ways with<br \/> maintenance and thereby increase the effectiveness and also<br \/> better adopt it to the needs of the customer. Data and<br \/> information at the right place in the right time are crucial<br \/> factors for the techniques that give these new opportunities in<br \/> maintenance. Data intensive technology also enables the<br \/> development of smarter systems for prognostics to be built<br \/> into machines; see for example [12]. The system described in<br \/> [12] includes distributed diagnostic capability to assess the<br \/> probability of subsystem faults and system faults. The system<br \/> also includes capability to estimate remaining useful life. An<br \/> approach to predictive maintenance of a plant based on timed<br \/> hybrid automata of machines normal behavior is described in<br \/> [13]. This is an example of a learning system. Input from<br \/> sensors are used to let the system learn the machines normal<br \/> behavior, and then compare actual behavior with the expected<br \/> learnt behavior to identify anomalies in the monitored<br \/> equipment. This approach relies on technologies for data<br \/> acquisition and middleware technology.<br \/> Augmented reality (AR) is a way of using information and<br \/> maintenance expertise exactly when and where it is required<br \/> [14, 15]. AR is a way to better utilize human capabilities and<br \/> allows experts to guide and train maintenance technicians on<br \/> distance. This can increase the utility and flexibility of<br \/> maintenance. New technology also allows for combining<br \/> human capabilities with capabilities of intelligent<br \/> maintenance systems; see for example [16] where a human<br \/> machine interface is described. The purpose is to allow<br \/> inclusion of human and context factors in maintenance, and<br \/> thereby improve the planning capabilities of the system.<br \/> 3. Value creation and business model development<br \/> Customer offerings are characterized by factors such as<br \/> scope, time and bundling [17]. The scope describes how many<br \/> different value promoting products or services an offer<br \/> includes. The dimension of time describes the length of the<br \/> relationship between customer and seller, which can be<br \/> anything from a one-time offer to long-term relationships.<br \/> Bundling describes in which way the offer has been put<br \/> together, and what the customer therefore must buy. An<br \/> example of bundled offer is a company producing fork lifts<br \/> offer the customer availability of fork lifts instead of just fork<br \/> lifts, then bundled together are the forklift and required<br \/> service. The density of the offering describes the number of<br \/> opportunities for activities and interaction within a given time<br \/> and \/ or spatial dimension [17]. One aspect is the number of<br \/> activities that have to be performed in order to take part of the<br \/> customer offering and another is how close the offering is in<br \/> time and space. Offerings are assessed by their ability to<br \/> satisfy the needs and expectations of the customer and<br \/> measured in terms of quality. Product quality dimensions are<br \/> for example durability, safety, appearance, accuracy,<br \/> environmental friendliness, maintainability, reliability and<br \/> performance [18]. Common to these dimensions is that they<br \/> are directly linked to the physical product and its<br \/> characteristics. For service the physical aspect is only one of<br \/> several other dimensions. Following service quality<br \/> dimensions are commonly used [19]: reliability (the ability to<br \/> deliver service dependably and accurately), assurance<br \/> (expertise knowledge), tangibles (the physical appearance),<br \/> empathy (consideration and individualization) and<br \/> responsiveness (willingness to help customers and to provide<br \/> prompt service).<br \/> One way to compete on the market is by focusing on the<br \/> company\u2019s internal strengths in form of competencies and<br \/> resources [20]. The inside-out strategy is often technologydriven<br \/> assuming that a market need can be filled through<br \/> Mirka Kans and Anders Ingwald \/ Procedia CIRP 47 ( 2016 ) 489 \u2013 494 491<br \/> technology innovation. The opposite of the inside-out<br \/> perspective is the outside-in perspective, which implies that<br \/> the company focuses on the environment in their development<br \/> of offerings and their actions. In reality, both perspectives are<br \/> interconnected. The relationship between internal efficiency<br \/> and external effectiveness can be explained in terms of<br \/> productivity and customer value [21]. In a customer-driven<br \/> business development strategy the company tries to analyze<br \/> customer needs and then find a solution or product that fits<br \/> this need. In a traditional production-oriented value chain the<br \/> value creation process is mostly linear, in which the operators<br \/> further up the chain refine the product further down the chain.<br \/> It is easy to define who is responsible for which part of the<br \/> value promoting process. In a service-based economy actor<br \/> constellations are more complex and not necessarily linear.<br \/> The relationships between actors in a service economy are<br \/> characterized more by reciprocity [17]. A utility-driven<br \/> business development strategy goes beyond the customer<br \/> focus when understanding the true needs of the value offering,<br \/> for instance in form of the value for the customer\u2019s customer.<br \/> It is not always easy to distinguish which player produces<br \/> what part of the service offering. The value chain includes all<br \/> actors that directly takes part in the linear value creation, but<br \/> the situation is often more complex than so, with outsourcing<br \/> and n-party collaborations which connect players to each<br \/> player in the value creation in a star-like or network pattern,<br \/> see for instance [17]. Companies often interact in complex<br \/> and geographically dispersed pattern changes and shifts over<br \/> time, players come and go, relationships are broken and new<br \/> ones created [22]. To enable looking outside traditional<br \/> frameworks [23] suggests positioning the company in a<br \/> business ecosystem, where development takes place together<br \/> with other actors. In the business ecology, other actors than<br \/> the direct ones representing the value chain are included, such<br \/> as competitors, government agencies, standardisation<br \/> organizations, politicians, and the public. The dynamics<br \/> described in the business ecology concept also includes<br \/> relationships in longer and shorter terms and a focus on the<br \/> full product life cycle. Applying an ecosystem perspective on<br \/> business processes include viewing consumers as co-creators<br \/> of value, focus on network value instead of product value, and<br \/> strategic focus on value networks where actors cooperate in<br \/> complex patterns rather than compete [24].<br \/> 4. A framework for service business model development<br \/> Industrial business modelling has gained increased<br \/> attention due to the new industrial demands described above.<br \/> Especially research on customer offerings that combines<br \/> physical products and services is growing [1, 8]. Value can be<br \/> offered as a physical product, a real or virtual service, or as<br \/> the combination of products and services. The customer<br \/> offering is the result, or output, of a value-system, and can be<br \/> seen as an input for another party (the customer) or other<br \/> (value creation) system [17]. [25] claim that the offer always<br \/> is a combination of a physical product and service to different<br \/> degrees. While the terminology is not fully consistent, most<br \/> researchers agree that the product-service system (PSS) is a<br \/> business model based on the integration of products and<br \/> services applying a systems approach [26]. PSS is<br \/> characterized by customer and life cycle orientation, and long<br \/> term relationships between different parts in the value<br \/> creating process. The transition from the traditional business<br \/> model to the integrated PSS is in [27, 28] described in form of<br \/> three value propositions: product or function orientation, use<br \/> or availability orientation, and result orientation. The<br \/> transition is a journey towards higher complexity and life<br \/> cycle orientation that triggers a number of challenges<br \/> originating from economic, technical and organizational<br \/> uncertainties [28]. These uncertainties are huge barriers for<br \/> the effective transformation; see for instance [29]. A complete<br \/> change of the corporate mindset is needed in order to take<br \/> advantage of the PSS business model. The PSS model is<br \/> extended in [30] and a refined model is suggested which<br \/> distinguish between availability-oriented and use-oriented<br \/> PSS, and the result-oriented PSS is subdivided into the<br \/> categories solution-, effect- and demand-oriented.<br \/> The framework suggested in this paper (see table 1) could<br \/> be seen as the logical development of the service business<br \/> model from a narrow technical perspective to a holistic<br \/> product-service perspective. It addresses the core business<br \/> logic and the fundamentals of the value creating process.<br \/> Without a thorough understanding of the basics, the transition<br \/> to a more advanced business model is hard. Describing the<br \/> underlying business logic and expressing this in a number of<br \/> explicit factors to consider when making the shift will<br \/> increase the understanding of necessary changes and support<br \/> the transformation. In the framework, seven factors derived<br \/> from the description in section 3 have been included. The<br \/> factors quality dimensions, type and density of the offering<br \/> and the business development strategy reflect the company<br \/> view on the value proposition, how this is developed and<br \/> distributed. The other three factors (view on value creation<br \/> and profitability, and the strategic perspective) reflect the<br \/> company core business strategy, and are linked with the value<br \/> offering by the business development strategy.<br \/> The framework applies an eco-systems perspective on<br \/> value creation [22], which is consistent with and extends the<br \/> systems approach in PSS. The value creation process is<br \/> described in four levels, depicting the O&amp;M service needs of<br \/> the industry according to the development stages of Industry<br \/> 4.0. Level one and two are narrow inside-out strategies<br \/> representing the traditional product or function oriented<br \/> business model, level three represents a customer-driven and<br \/> use oriented business model, and level four represents a<br \/> utility-driven and result based model. The levels thus<br \/> correspond fairly well with the three value propositions in<br \/> PSS [28] with one distinction: the treatment of the product<br \/> oriented proposition in two separate steps. This extension has<br \/> been made in order to better support the transition of<br \/> traditional technology-driven companies towards PSS and to<br \/> better understand the value of O&amp;M service. In level one, the<br \/> technical system is treated as a product, and aftersales<br \/> services are not viewed as an important business opportunity.<br \/> In level two, the O&amp;M service is seen as a possibility to<br \/> generate revenue, but the service is offered using the<br \/> traditional product-oriented perspective, thus treated mainly<br \/> as a product.<br \/> 492 Mirka Kans and Anders Ingwald \/ Procedia CIRP 47 ( 2016 ) 489 \u2013 494<br \/> 4.1. The service model development framework<br \/> In this section the four levels are presented and<br \/> exemplified using maintenance and its management as service<br \/> offering. Moreover, prerequisites necessary for achieving the<br \/> different levels are discussed.<br \/> Table 1. Framework for service business model development<br \/> Dimension Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4<br \/> Type of<br \/> offering<br \/> Technology Mainly<br \/> product<br \/> Product and<br \/> service<br \/> Bundled<br \/> offerings<br \/> Density Low High Dynamic<br \/> Quality<br \/> dimensions<br \/> Mainly product Combination of product and<br \/> service<br \/> Business<br \/> development<br \/> strategy<br \/> Technologydriven<br \/> Customerdriven<br \/> Utilitydriven<br \/> Dynamic<br \/> Strategic<br \/> perspective<br \/> Inside-out Outside-in<br \/> View on<br \/> profitability<br \/> Productivity Customer<br \/> satisfaction<br \/> Customer<br \/> satisfaction \/<br \/> relationships<br \/> Relationships<br \/> (more or less<br \/> formal)<br \/> View on<br \/> value<br \/> creation<br \/> The own<br \/> business in<br \/> focus<br \/> Value<br \/> chain<br \/> Value<br \/> star\/network<br \/> Ecology<br \/> Level 1: At level one the manufacturer\u2019s main business<br \/> model is to provide physical products to the market, while the<br \/> responsibility for service, maintenance and disposal is handed<br \/> over to the customer. The business is driven by technical<br \/> competence manifested in the physical product which is sold<br \/> using traditional, low density, channels. The offering is<br \/> promoted and validated using product-based quality<br \/> dimensions, assuming that the product fulfils a market need<br \/> without involving customers in the value creation. Instead,<br \/> value creation is tightly connected to the company\u2019s own<br \/> manufacturing process, and therefore internal efficiency and<br \/> productivity is seen as drivers for reaching profitability.<br \/> Manufacturers who provide aftersales service mainly treat the<br \/> service as a product offering derived from the technical<br \/> competence. From a maintenance point of view, maintenance<br \/> is not in any focus at all. Consequently, the main management<br \/> form considered is run to failure, and the product might not be<br \/> designed considering its maintenance at all. Aftersales<br \/> services are manifested as products necessary for carrying out<br \/> maintenance tasks, such as high quality and robust spare parts,<br \/> or specialized technical competence. The manufacturer could<br \/> earn revenues by supplying original manufacturer spare parts,<br \/> but competes with low cost countries and additive production.<br \/> The product could be designed so it is impossible to change<br \/> spare parts without contacting the original manufacturer.<br \/> Apple for instance uses such a strategy for the Iphone battery.<br \/> Level 2: Another strategy is to include the aftersales<br \/> activities in the business as a way to meet customer<br \/> expectations and needs. The offering is packaged depending<br \/> on the formulated needs of the customer. The density is<br \/> typically high, but still allowing or even requiring the<br \/> customer to participate in the value creation. The value<br \/> creation is seen as a linear process where each part has a<br \/> specific and well delimited role in the total value chain. The<br \/> value chain model is well suited for traditional products, and<br \/> the offering is also characterized by a \u201chands-on\u201d appearance;<br \/> it is easy to describe the scope and content, and the business is<br \/> regulated in measurable terms such as amount, size or<br \/> frequency. A manufacturer on level 2 could for instance sell a<br \/> product together with a fixed maintenance plan that specifies<br \/> preventive maintenance activities to be done in fixed time<br \/> intervals under a predefined time period. The service is thus<br \/> treated mainly as a separate product, and not as an integrated<br \/> part of the system. Even if the customer satisfaction is a<br \/> driving force for reaching profitability the company mainly<br \/> makes savings by focusing on the internal effectiveness and<br \/> efficiency in the planning and execution. Thus the strategic<br \/> perspective is inside-out. The strategy that is adapted is<br \/> mainly preventive, but the service provider has no true<br \/> incentives for optimizing the planned maintenance, because<br \/> there is money to be earned also by selling additional<br \/> maintenance when failures occur. For this purpose, condition<br \/> monitoring can be used as a technique for finding faults when<br \/> on place, as a means to reach efficiency and cost reduction.<br \/> This type of service offer is often referred to as the traditional<br \/> maintenance contract.<br \/> Level 3: The use-oriented model combines products and<br \/> services, and the product is sold together with services in<br \/> order to assure the performance of the physical product. The<br \/> performance can be expressed in different ways depending on<br \/> the type of product: for example, the number of lifts per year,<br \/> certain availability or a certain number of kilometers [26].<br \/> This type of offering is utility-driven, i.e. focuses on the<br \/> explicit as well as the implicit needs of the customer. The<br \/> offering is no longer characterized in first hand by its physical<br \/> appearance, but by the function it provides, so the quality<br \/> dimensions could cover both product and service quality<br \/> dimensions. The density is typically high but the mode differs<br \/> depending on the customer. The number of actors that are<br \/> active in the value creation is also typically high, and the<br \/> relationships are of n-type rather than a linear chain with 1-1-<br \/> relationships between each sub-process. A company that<br \/> offers the product as a function might for instance contract a<br \/> third party service provider for parts of the maintenance work,<br \/> while the customer takes care of daily cleaning and<br \/> lubrication. In this scenario, there are at least three actors that<br \/> together ensure the performance of the product; the producer,<br \/> the service provider, and the customer. Relationships with the<br \/> customer and other key partners become important, and the<br \/> strategic outside-in perspective assures profit through<br \/> satisfying the needs of the customer. At level 3, maintenance<br \/> and is integrated as a part of the function that is offered to the<br \/> customer. Predictive power in form of monitoring and<br \/> diagnosing the condition of the system as well as possibility<br \/> to predict failures becomes important for the manufacturer for<br \/> ensuring the functionality. Systems for condition monitoring<br \/> and analysis can be used for monitoring and control<br \/> functionality and for planning and optimizing maintenance<br \/> actions. Parts of the service, such as fault detection,<br \/> monitoring and diagnosis, could be performed from distance,<br \/> see for example [10].<br \/> Level 4: The fourth level represents a value proposition<br \/> that goes beyond the physical product and the requirements on<br \/> functionality. Instead, the needs of the customer, or even the<br \/> customer\u2019s customer, are in focus. The offering is an<br \/> integrated solution that could be manifested as a \u201cblack box\u201d<br \/> Mirka Kans and Anders Ingwald \/ Procedia CIRP 47 ( 2016 ) 489 \u2013 494 493<br \/> solution, and the outcome is measured in terms of utility, for<br \/> instance productivity of the customer in produced amount per<br \/> hour. The offering requires trust, openness and long term<br \/> relationships between seller and buyer, as both parts take a<br \/> business related risk when entering this kind of contract. The<br \/> process is typically data driven and knowledge intensive. The<br \/> manufacturer has extended opportunities to modify the<br \/> product to fit the aftersales services for increasing its<br \/> knowledge capabilities. A product can for instance be sold<br \/> with built-in intelligence enabling that all aftermarket<br \/> activities will be planned and carried out based on real<br \/> conditions, i.e., based on field data [31]. The density of the<br \/> offering could vary depending on customer needs and<br \/> technological solution, but in general the density could be<br \/> kept high through remote intelligence such as monitoring,<br \/> diagnosis and decision support. While the density in the actual<br \/> value creation is higher other activities require lower density.<br \/> Face-to-face meetings, on-site appearance and personalized<br \/> support are important activities for building up and<br \/> strengthening the relationship between seller and buyer. At<br \/> level 4, maintenance is a fully integrated part of the offering<br \/> and the value it could provide for the customer is in focus.<br \/> The value for the customer is related to how well the supplied<br \/> bundled offer support the customers productivity,<br \/> profitability, etc. and that is what the customer pay for, as<br \/> well as for the additional business related risk the service<br \/> provider takes when assuring the performance. It is therefore<br \/> of highest interest that maintenance is optimized for lowest<br \/> disturbance of the production by applying a proactive<br \/> maintenance strategy. This is enabled by intelligent systems,<br \/> which predicts failures, makes diagnosis and triggers<br \/> maintenance actions, and self-adapting systems, which adjust<br \/> themselves according to true conditions of the system and its<br \/> environment.<br \/> 5. Service Management 4.0<br \/> The necessity of new business models for the successful<br \/> implementation of predictive and proactive maintenance is<br \/> pointed out in [32], especially for reducing problems related<br \/> to high investment costs and risks connected with the new<br \/> technology. For being able to monitor the systems health<br \/> investment in condition monitoring technology is required,<br \/> but the customer might not be willing to share this investment<br \/> cost with the service provider. To overcome the problem<br \/> holistic service packages against a fixed, time-based fee is<br \/> suggested [32]. Service Management 4.0 moves beyond this<br \/> kind of problems. By providing integrated and holistic<br \/> product-service offerings the manufacturer takes large<br \/> business related risks but has also the possibility to take full<br \/> advantage of their technical competence when designing the<br \/> system for optimal operational and maintenance performance.<br \/> The required data capture and intelligence is an integrated part<br \/> of the offering, which reflects a technology-driven business<br \/> development strategy.<br \/> New kind of problems occurs though: being able to deliver<br \/> utility or value for the customer data not only regarding the<br \/> system itself, but also from its surroundings, such as<br \/> environmental data and performance data is required. The<br \/> service provider has to interact with other actors in the<br \/> ecosystem, and especially trust between the provider and the<br \/> customer becomes crucial. Therefore, three key factors, in<br \/> addition to the mix of products and services in customer<br \/> offers, reflect the concept of Service Management 4.0:<br \/> performance-based contracts, partnering and the business<br \/> ecology concept. The offering could be regulated using<br \/> performance-based contracting forms, see for instance [7],<br \/> where alignment of information and social interactions such<br \/> as training and relationship building, are key value drivers<br \/> [33]. This reflects a utility-based business development<br \/> strategy. A common understanding of expectations is also<br \/> important. To be able to actually monitor the delivered service<br \/> impact on the profitability or productivity, openness and<br \/> access to data at the customer company is required, and that in<br \/> its turn is enabled by trust in the supplier-customer relation.<br \/> This implies a cooperative form of collaboration such as<br \/> partnering where all involved actors must gain from this close<br \/> collaboration, see for example [8] and [34].<br \/> The cooperation is not limited to the manufacturer and the<br \/> customer. The manufacturer might need to cooperate with<br \/> suppliers of surrounding systems for reaching the necessary<br \/> information. The condition of a train is for example affected<br \/> by environmental conditions as well as the conditions of the<br \/> rail. Assuring utility for the train owner, the train<br \/> manufacturer thus requires data not only regarding the<br \/> operations and health of the train, but of the rail as well, and<br \/> the weather conditions. The complexity increases if the train<br \/> owner and the operator are separate actors. Moreover, the<br \/> behavior of the business ecology is the driving force in<br \/> creating value offerings, taking into consideration actors<br \/> outside of the traditional customer-seller dyad, see for<br \/> example [35]. This requires good understanding of the<br \/> different actors, and their relative power, comprising the<br \/> ecosystem.<br \/> 6. Conclusions<br \/> Service management 4.0 refers to delivering value to the<br \/> customer, where the physical product and maintenance<br \/> management are fully integrated and followed up based on its<br \/> ability to deliver value for customer. The performance of the<br \/> delivered physical product or the delivered maintenance is, in<br \/> a sense, not important.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Business Model Development towards Service Management Available online at www.sciencedirect.com 2212-8271 \u00a9 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/). Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/business-model-development-towards-service-management\/\" class=\"read-more\">Read More &#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126600","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126600","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=126600"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126600\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126600"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126600"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126600"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}