Toward Servitized Research: An Integrated Approach for Sustainable Product-Service Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for an enjoyable read. Your paper is well written and easy to read. It contains some “catchy” ideas, like the MLTMA research approach and the suggestion to “servitize” servitization research. I kind of like the idea of framing the consulting work done by researchers as a “servitization” of research. I’m not 100% convinced that its a conceptually correct use of the term, but it sure is catchy. Terminology aside, the dissemination of knowledge from academia to practitioners should be facilitated and your approach contributes to that. Furthermore, your suggestion of adopting mixed-methods and/or action research in servitization, is not sufficiently discussed in the current literature. With my comments, I would like to offer suggestions for improving the paper. I hope you find them helpful and wish you good luck with your research!

Overall:

1) My main concern is the lack of connection to sustainability. The title promises an “integrated approach for sustainable product-service innovation”, the abstract a focus on “when firms achieve sustainable service growth”. In the paper however, this focus is not maintained, sustainability is barely mentioned after the introduction. Given that the aim of the special issue is to gain insight into “... how PSI can provide environmentally friendly operations mechanisms that are specifically tailored to meet sustainability challenges in manufacturing contexts”, the paper in its current form does not contribute to this aim.

How and when servitization can contribute to sustainable development, and how research can be designed to examine the impact of servitization on sustainability are interesting and relevant research questions, that could be addressed in your proposed approach. That would also contribute to the originality of your paper, which brings me to my 2. point.

2) My second concern is the originality of the paper. While I agree with the need to consider multiple levels in servitization research, to ground argumentation in theory, and to adopt corresponding methodological approaches, all these issues have been voiced before in several publications (e.g. Rabetino et al., 2018; Fliess & Lexutt, 2019; Raddats et al., 2019; Lexutt, 2020). It might not be mainstream in servitization research, yet, but it’s not groundbreaking news, either.

What is more original and has not been voiced as often, are the opportunities of mixed-method and action research for moving the field forward, which you discuss in your paper.

I think that the contribution and originality of the paper would be greater, if you would 1) actually maintain the promised focus on sustainability and tailor your proposed research approach to the specific challenges of researching the impact of servitization on (or interplay of servitization with, to not assume a linear relationship) sustainable development; 2) focus your argumentation more on mixed-method and action research as possible solution to the known issues of multiple levels, theoretical foundations and methodological fit of concepts and methods, as well as its suitability for considering the additional layer of sustainability.

Introduction:

3) You use the term service growth in the introduction as the outcome of interest in your paper. I would suggest giving a brief definition of how you conceptualize it (e.g. revenue from services, number of services offered, ...). If you decide to refocus your paper on sustainability, here or in Section 2 you would need to discuss the relationship between servitization, sustainability and service growth.

Section 2:

4) Unfortunately, I don’t see much new in this section. It should be made clear why there is a need for another review article – particularly since you yourself argue that the field is already dominated by conceptual and qualitative studies. This can be done e.g. by adopting a different perspective and making a connection that is less commonly discussed or has been overlooked, as is the relationship between servitization and sustainability. Why are all these issues that you mention a problem, not just for servitization research as a whole (as is already known), but for sustainable PSI research in particular?

5) Particularly regarding the macro-level, the physical environment and therefore environmental sustainability is a very obvious connection.

6) This is addressed in the limitations section, but I think that the importance of customers, partners and the eco-system should be addressed here or in Section 3.

Section 3:  

7) The “T” of your MLTMA approach is missing in Section 3. In section 2, the limited use of theories and lack of theoretical foundation in servitization research is criticized. How does your approach facilitate theorization and/or a stronger theoretical foundation? What is your critique of the theories most commonly used in servitization research (e.g. RBV, Contingency Theory), in light of your proposed research approach? Which theoretical approaches do you propose as more suitable to capture multiple levels? How do these connect to your mixed-method / action research approach? If you would address these questions and provide recommendations for theoretical approaches suitable to resolve the issues raised in section 2, it would add significantly to the contribution of this paper.

8) Methodologically, my understanding is you’re suggesting using a quantitative approach to complement the findings of a qualitative study in the same project, possibly in the same firm(s). In principle you’re proposing a mixed-methods approach. In the “Data Analysis” you propose to aggregate qualitative and quantitative data and findings from different studies. Could you elaborate on the methodological implications of such an approach, and suitable methods for analyzing such data gathered from different sources, possibly using different scales etc.? You also mention a configurational approach a couple of times, how does that fit in with your mixed-method/action research approach? All this could be discussed in section 3.4 and would significantly increase the contribution of the study.

9) In figure 1 and the subsequent discussion, you claim that in qualitative research the process, content and context of servitization can (should?) be examined, while in quantitative research the different levels can be considered. I don’t think the distinction is this clear-cut. E.g., qualitative research can also consider different levels (micro- and meso for example). The argument for this distinction should be strengthened. Furthermore, there is overlap in the “context” dimension and the macro-level. This should be at least addressed. Finally, the relevance of studying process, content and context of servitization should ideally be introduced in section 2.

10) 3.2.1 and 3.2.2: under “the firm”, also the firm’s environment is discussed, while “the individual” gets its own section in 3.2.2. To emphasize your argument for multiple levels, the macro-level (i.e. the environment) should get its own section and be discussed in greater detail.

11) 3.2.1 the contribution of listing exemplary firm level measures does not become quite clear. These aspects are not particularly new and have been previously discussed in the literature. They are also not unique for your proposed mixed-methods / action research approach, but are relevant to all quantitative research interested in these variables. It would be more interesting and novel to discuss the methodological aspects of combining qualitative with quantitative data in a mixed-methods approach for servitization.

12) Tables 1 and 2: the question often doesn’t match the statements, or the statements are missing. e.g. under capabilities “Rate the following statements” and then a list of capabilities, without the actual statements. It would be more valuable to provide a list of possible operationalizations for the constructs in these tables, with their respective references and studies that have used them.

13) Figure 2 and 3.4: It does not become quite clear why your proposed approach is particularly suitable to capture the multiple levels depicted in figure 2. I think the argument why your mixed-method / action-research approach is particularly suitable to solving the problems discussed in section 2 should be refined and strengthened. What can be done with this approach that other approaches are lacking? What is the unique value/strength of following your approach as opposed to others?

I hope you find these comments helpful and I wish you all the best for your research!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

REVIEW FOR SUSTAINABILITY

Manuscript: Sustainability-1290240

Manuscript title: Toward servitized research: An integrated approach for sustain-2 able product-service innovation

 

Thank you for the opportunity to revise the manuscript Sustainability-1290240 titled “Toward servitized research: An integrated approach for sustain-2 able product-service innovation”. Building on a solid analysis of existing literature on product-service innovation (PSI), the authors review the strong points and main shortcomings of servitization research and propose an integrated research agenda that researchers can adopt in order to further consolidate the PSI literature. The topic addressed in the paper is very interesting and of great relevance for scholars and policy makers. In my view the paper adds value to the literature; however, I observe a number of minor issues related to the introduction, theory, and the implications of the study that should be all addressed before considering the paper suitable for publication within Sustainability.

I will make a number of suggestions which I hope are useful to the authors in improving the manuscript. When I refer to page numbers, I am using those on top of the pages and lines refer to those along the right margin as assigned by the Editor when the paper was emailed to me.

 

A PERSONAL REFLECTION ON THE STUDY

As I was going through the paper I increasingly valued the its strong points as well as its weaknesses. In my comments I emphasize two aspects that the authors should address to further improve both the flow of the argument line and the intended contribution of the paper.

But, before to get into my specific comments, let us for a moment to think what is your narrative trying to tell us about product-service innovation (PSI) research and your proposed research approach.

- First, you argue that most research on PSI heavily focuses on firm-level phenomena. Fair enough! This idea is consistent with recent literature reviews on PSI cited in your paper. But, arguments in the introduction and in section 2.1 fall short in describing the full evolution of PSI literature. Concretely, the authors ignore recent efforts analyzing, at the territorial level, the economic repercussions of the interactions between manufacturers and service businesses. This literature focused on territorial servitization provides relevant insights on the macro-level benefits of servitization-led systems in developed and developing economies.  I believe the paper can improve significantly by presenting the contributions of the emerging research strand of territorial servitization. I elaborate more on this issue below (see my comment 1).

- Second, your theory speaks more about the disadvantages of studying PSI systems using qualitative approaches. I agree with you in that theory building needs much more than qualitative-led research. However, in my view there are also advantages of qualitative analyzes, which I emphasize below (see my comment 2).

 

Overall, the paper analyzes an interesting topic with high academic potential, so I encourage you to address the points highlighted in my review.

 

MAJOR ISSUES

1) Streamlining the theory: The value of territorial servitization research

Through sections 1 and 2 the authors show how PSI literature has adopted a micro-level approach in which studies have primarily analyzed business-level phenomena. This argument line is correct and consistent with recent literature reviews on PSI (e.g., Rabetino et al. (2018) in Intl. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.).  The literature review of the paper includes a large stock of relevant papers. However, the authors ignore recent developments in the emerging stream of territorial servitization. Research on territorial servitization analyzes how, at the territorial level, the interactions between manufacturers and service providers produce important economic benefits at the territorial level. In this sense, your theory can significantly improve by adding to the paper (section 2.1) the core hypotheses and main findings reported by studies on this research stream. Relevant studies dealing with territorial servitization includes, among others: Lafuente, Vaillant and Vendrell (2017 and 2019), and papers included in the special issue on territorial servitization published in Regional Studies in 2019 (vol. 53, issue 3).

In my view, the inclusion of the territorial servitization frame to your theory would help to produce what I believe would be a much more organized and updated literature that would contribute to fertilize the debate on the importance of analyzing PSI systems at different levels (the academic implications of this analysis are clear).

 

References:

Lafuente, E., Vaillant, Y., Vendrell-Herrero, F. (2019). Territorial servitization and the manufacturing renaissance in knowledge-based economies. Regional Studies, 53(3), 313-319.

Lafuente, E., Vaillant, Y., Vendrell-Herrero, F. (2017). Territorial servitization: Exploring the virtuous circle connecting knowledge-intensive services and new manufacturing businesses. International Journal of Production Economics, 192, 19-28.

 

The special issue on territorial servitization published in Regional Studies can be found at: https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cres20/53/3

 

2) About the methods used to study PSI

In sections 1 and 2 the authors list the disadvantages of studying PSI systems using qualitative approaches, that is, partial and potentially biased results, and limited capacity to build theory.

I mostly agree with the authors’ view: A) theory building needs much more than qualitative research, and B) quantitative-led studies would contribute to consolidate the theoretical apparatus supporting PSI research.

Nevertheless, in my view important lessons can be learnt from qualitative studies. For example, qualitative analyzes offer the possibility to better grasp the micro-foundations of the studied phenomenon (in this case, PSI systems). A similar conclusion can be drawn from studies analyzing PSI systems using fuzzy set models (see, e.g., Bustinza et al., 2019 and Lafuente et al., 2018).

Instead of disregarding qualitative research (this is my impression from my own reading of your work), I suggest weighing the pros and cons of existing work on PSI (qualitative viz.-à-viz. quantitative work) so that your conclusions in section 2.2 acknowledge both the value and limitations of qualitative studies (be they based on case studies or fuzzy set models).

Additionally, I suggest highlighting in section 2.2 that qualitative work on PSI mostly analyzes large corporations in developed settings. The study of PSI systems both in small and medium-sized businesses and in developing geographies has been largely sidelined in existing research and constitutes a clear future research avenue (among others, the studies by Araya-Pizarro (2020) and Lafuente et al. (2018) are welcome exceptions).

 

References:

Araya-Pizarro, S., Rojas-Escobar, L., Ruiz-Vega, E. (2020). Importance of packaging in wine preferences: findings in a Chilean wine zone. TEC Empresarial, 14(3), 2-15.

Bustinza, O., Lafuente, E., Rabetino, R. Vaillant, Y., Vendrell-Herrero, F. (2019). Make-or-buy configurational approaches in product-service ecosystems and performance. Journal of Business Research, 104, 393-401.

Lafuente, E., Vaillant, Y., Leiva, J.C. (2018). Sustainable and Traditional Product Innovation without Scale and Experience, but only for KIBS! Sustainability, 10(4), 1169.

 

I hope that my comments are useful to the authors in revising and improving the manuscript.

Good luck with your research!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for your detailed response. The implemented changes have significantly improved the paper, the connection to sustainability is now clear throughout the paper, the focus on and contribution of the MLMA (I agree with dropping the T) approach is clearer and the tables in section 3 are improved.

I do however have one more concern:

1) Section 2.2, p 5, lines 377 – 386: while I appreciate the inclusion of fsQCA (btw., there is a “comparative” missing in line 378) studies (Lafuente et al., Bustinza et al. ) in this section, they seem to be perceived as a type of qualitative, descriptive case study research, as indicated by the discussion starting in line 386 and the conclusions on page 6, lines 433-442. This is not quite correct. As a case-based, set-theoretic methodology, fsQCA doesn’t fall neatly into the qualitative-quantitative dichotomy. It is qualitative, in the sense that the focus is on individual cases rather than variables; as well as quantitative, in the sense that Boolean algebra is used to calculate sub-set and super-set relations, including parameters of fit that indicate the consistency of the calculated relations. This means that the shortcomings of traditional case study research, that you discuss in this section and are used as an argument for your proposed research approach, do not quite apply to fsQCA. Rather, being a configurational approach, fsQCA is another way to methodologically solve some of the issues that you address as well. As you briefly discuss a configurational approach toward the end of section 3.4, discussing this aspect there would be more appropriate, e.g page 16, line 992, after the Gebauer et al. reference, or in the discussion.

Furthermore, I noticed some small things that need fixing:

2) Page 6., line 452: shouldn’t it be “Multi-Level, Mixed Method and Actionable”, as in the abstract? In any case there’s a comma missing between Multi-Level and Method.

3) Page 9, Paragraph titled “Environment” redundant, since you added section 3.2.2, please delete.

4) Proofread still needed, there are some small mistakes, e.g. page 8, line 534 a word is missing.

I hope this helps and wish you all the best for your research!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

From my own review of the revised version of the paper, I noticed that the authors have addressed all the points raised in my review.

In my view, the paper has significantly improved as a result of the review process. Congratulations for the good job!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx