Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Available ScienceDirect
online atonline
Available www.sciencedirect.com
at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia CIRP 00 (2017)

Procedia 000–000
CIRP 73 (2018) 155–160
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

10th CIRP Conference on Industrial Product-Service Systems, IPS2 2018, 29-31 May 2018, Linköping,
Sweden
28th CIRP Design Conference, May 2018, Nantes, France
A perspective on value co-creation-oriented framework for smart product-
A new methodology to analyze the functional
service system and physical architecture of
existing products for
a
an assembly
a,
oriented product
b,c
family
a
identification
a
Zhiwen Liu , Xinguo Ming *, Wenyan Song , Siqi Qiu , Yuanju Qu
Paul
SchoolStief
a
*, Jean-Yves
of Mechanical Dantan,
Engineering, Shanghai Alain
Jiao Tong Etienne,
Universty, ShanghaiAli Siadat
200240, China
b
School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
c École Nationale Supérieure d’ArtsAnalysis,
Key Laboratory of Complex System et Métiers, Arts et Métiers
Management ParisTech,
and Decision LCFC EA
(Beihang 4495, 4 Rue
University), Augustin
Ministry Fresnel, Metz
of Education, 57078,
Beijing France
100191, China
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-021-34206528; fax: +86-021-34206528. E-mail address: xgming@sjtu.edu.cn
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 3 87 37 54 30; E-mail address: paul.stief@ensam.eu

Abstract
Abstract
Smart product-service system (PSS) has been becoming a fresh style of PSS to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of firm operations in
In
thetoday’s
age ofbusiness
smartness.environment, the trend istowards
Value co-creation taken asmore
an product
attractivevariety
way and customization
to fulfil customer is unbroken.
needs, enhanceDuefirm
to this
coredevelopment, the need
competitiveness, of
lower
agile and reconfigurable
environmental impacts andproduction
generatesystems
positiveemerged
networktoexternalities
cope with various products
of platform and product
business model.families.
Under suchTo design and optimize
circumstances, this production
article has
systems
proposedasawell
valueas co-creation-oriented
to choose the optimal product matches,
framework for smartproduct analysis
PSS. Firstly, themethods
structureare needed.
model for Indeed,
smart PSS,mosttoofsome
the known
extent, methods
can coveraim to
three
analyze
types ofa PSS.
product or one product
Secondly, family onvalue
the hierarchical the physical level.
dimensions Differentthe
transcend product
scope families, however,
of traditional PSS. may differ largely
Furthermore, in terms of opportunities
the co-creation the number and in
nature
smart of
PSS components. This Then
are recognized. fact impedes
the value anco-creation
efficient comparison and choice
process including of appropriate
co-exist, co-design,product family combinations
co-implement and co-evaluate for istheproposed
production
for
system. A new
smart PSS, andmethodology
an illustrativeiscase
proposed to analyze
of smart existing
fridge-service products
system in view
(SFSS) of their functional
is demonstrated. and
Finally, physical
some architecture.
limitations Thework
and future aim isaretostated.
cluster
these
© products
2018 The in new assembly
Authors. Published oriented
by product
Elsevier B.V.families for the optimization of existing assembly lines and the creation of future reconfigurable
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
assembly systems.
Peer-review
Peer-review underBased
under on Datum
responsibility
responsibility of Flow
of the Chain, the
the scientific
scientific physicalof
committee
committee ofstructure
the 10thofCIRP
the 10th the products
CIRP is analyzed.
Conference
Conference on Functional
on Industrial
Industrial subassemblies
Product-Service
Product-Service are identified, and
Systems.
Systems.
a functional analysis is performed. Moreover, a hybrid functional and physical architecture graph (HyFPAG) is the output which depicts the
similarity
Keywords:between product smart
value co-creation; families by providing
product-service design
system; support
structure to value
model; both,dimenions;
production system planners
co-creation and
opportunity; product procss
co-creation designers. An illustrative
example of a nail-clipper is used to explain the proposed methodology. An industrial case study on two product families of steering columns of
thyssenkrupp Presta France is then carried out to give a first industrial evaluation of the proposed approach.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
1. Introduction
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP The Designoffering of smart
Conference 2018.products-services as a type of service
platform (SP) creates no value with single use [8], but SP can
Keywords: Assembly;
With the Design method;
development Family identification
of information and communication enhance efficiency and effectiveness of service system from
technology (ICT), Internet of Things (IoT) and smart the positive network externalities [9]. Sustainable growth and
technology, products have been revolutionized by the use of innovation of smart PSS depend on how to adapt and innovate
microprocessor, sensor, data storage, embedded OS (operating its value propositions. Service (-dominant) logic [10, 11] had
1. Introduction of the product range and characteristics manufactured and/or
system), application software and connectivity [1, 2]. As such, argued that value is co-created through interaction between
assembled in this system. In this context, the main challenge in
smart products equipped with the new functionalities will alter provider and customer, which can produce unique customer
Due to the fast development in the domain of modelling and analysis is now not only to cope with single
the industrial structure and enable the pathbreaking business experience [12]. It is strongly agreed that value co-creation is
communication and an ongoing trend of digitization and products, a limited product range or existing product families,
innovations. However, there is no a guaranteed formula to central to transition and innovation of servitization by more
digitalization, manufacturing enterprises are facing important but also to be able to analyze and to compare products to define
ensure their successfulness within the competitive marketplace. than half of industrial firms (www.hitachivantara.com). The
challenges in today’s market environments: a continuing new product families. It can be observed that classical existing
Given the low-priced smart devices, most of the products will co-creation paradigm is becoming a major innovation strategy
tendency towards reduction of product development times and product families are regrouped in function of clients or features.
become smart soon. By then, smart products will no longer to help firms create more win-win value for their customers.
shortened product lifecycles. In addition, there is an increasing However, assembly oriented product families are hardly to find.
represent any particular differentiations in the market [3]. Just Smart PSS highly relies on digitalization and connectivity
demand of customization, being at the same time in a global On the product family level, products differ mainly in two
as product-service system (PSS) does for customer, smart technologies, but which are not just some add-ons to current
competition with competitors all over the world. This trend, main characteristics: (i) the number of components and (ii) the
services [4] can be combined with smart products to form a PSS. Smart PSS is posing some new challenges for providers.
which is inducing the development from macro to micro type of components (e.g. mechanical, electrical, electronical).
smart PSS, which can integrate smart products and e-services Its value system needs to be clearly defined to find new
markets, results in diminished lot sizes due to augmenting Classical methodologies considering mainly single products
into single solution so as to transcend the business model market opportunity, persistently maintained to reach customer
product varieties (high-volume to low-volume production) [1]. or solitary, already existing product families analyze the
around traditional PSS per se [5-7], e.g., dematerialization. satisfaction, effectively realized to obtain customer loyalty,
To cope with this augmenting variety as well as to be able to product structure on a physical level (components level) which
identify possible optimization potentials in the existing causes difficulties regarding an efficient definition and
2212-8271 © system,
production 2018 The it
Authors. Publishedtobyhave
is important Elsevier B.V.
a precise knowledge comparison of different product families. Addressing this
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 10th CIRP Conference on Industrial Product-Service Systems.

2212-8271©©2017
2212-8271 2018The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier B.V. B.V.
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of scientific
of the the scientific committee
committee of the of theCIRP
28th 10thDesign
CIRP Conference
Conference2018.
on Industrial Product-Service Systems.
10.1016/j.procir.2018.04.021
 156 Zhiwen Liu et al. / Procedia CIRP 73 (2018) 155–160
2 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
and consistently evaluated to hold system sustainability. The
manner of value co-creation-oriented is expected to fulfil
highly personalized customer needs [12]. However, to the best
of our knowledge, it is scarce to research value co-creation-
oriented framework for smart PSS in the current literature.
Therefore, it is necessary to research on the value co-
creation paradigm for smart PSS. On the basis of the review
and analysis of related theories, this paper has presented a
perspective study on value co-creation-oriented framework for
smart PSS, which involves value dimensions in accordance
with the proposed structure model and co-creation process in
line with the identified co-creation opportunities in smart PSS.
2. Related theories
2.1. Smart products and smart services
Generally, smart products are the specializations of hybrid
physical products and descriptions of digital products. Their
capabilities in terms of monitoring, control, optimization and
autonomy can enhance the core competitiveness of firm and
accelerate the transformation of firm [1]. Following goods-
dominant logic rather than service-dominant logic (SDL) [10],
firms can get a series of opportunities unleased by smart
products to seek the game-changing innovations and move up
to a new level of efficiency. However, almost all products will
be smart after 2020 [3]. The smart features of smart products
will no longer indicate any differentiations by then.
Some companies have attempted to wrap valuable services
around their smart products so far. For instance, after-sales
and maintenance services [13]. Perhaps, they will improve
their customer relationships by undertaking various burdens.
However, such services are not satisfying the customer value
and efficiency of provider in the long term. Smart services can
go beyond the services of upkeeps and upgrades around smart
products per se. Compared with the traditional services, smart
services are fundamentally pre-emptive rather than reactive or
even pro-active, and they can handle actual evidences in real
time [4]. Thus, to fulfil personalized customer experience [14,
15] and create entirely new value for customer, it is necessary
to integrate smart products and smart services into an offering.
2.2. Smart product-service system
Product-service system (PSS) is a marketable set of
products and services, which can jointly fulfil customer needs
[16-18], such an integrated solution also can fit the diverse
requirements of customers [19]. From the previous research
work, the importance of PSS implementation has been widely
acknowledged [20, 21], and a few of studies have explained
the successful mechanism and competitiveness of PSS from
strategical and tactical innovations [5], but the study with
respect to smart PSS is still in its infancy.
Valencia et al. [7] were the first to coin the concept of
smart PSS that integrates smart products and e-services into
single solution. They pointed out that the traditional PSS has
two limitations: highly focusing on PSS per se and no ICT or
IoT functionality. Smart PSS should create value through the
interaction and customer experience in its whole life cycle. If
service-oriented manufacturers want to transform from selling
smart products to offering smart PSS for creating the win-win
benefits [21], these tangible smart products and intangible
smart services have to be taken as some elements of service
systems to produce the personalized customer experience.
Otherwise, the business model of manufacturer may deviate
the evolution of smart PSS and fall into goods-dominant logic
due to the productization, which specifies and standardizes the
service of PSS with the advanced smart technologies [22], or
the commoditization, which moves the marketable PSS from
differentiation to homogenization [23], as shown in Fig. 1.
Smart PSS incorporates a community of interactional entities
that contains individuals, organizations as well as customers
[15]. Customization and interaction can promote the formation
of smart product-service platform through value is co-created
by multiple stakeholders and customers. Since the successful
interaction is the fountainhead of co-creative value, service-
oriented firms ought to consider building the service platforms
to effectually facilitate interactions between the providers and
customers for the fulfillment of relevant customer needs.
Fig. 1. Evolution on smart PSS
2.3. Platform business model
Platforms usually are classified into internal platform and
external platform [24]. Platforms can serve as market-makers,
audience-makers or demand-coordinators who make goods or
services generate the indirect network effects across two or
more actors [9]. In the pipeline business model, firms only
deliver the products or services to customers. But service
platform as an engine, with modular structure of tangible and
intangible components, can facilitate the interactions among
actors and integrate their operand and operant resources [15].
These platforms themselves create no value with single use
[8], firms should design their smart products-services as a type
of service platform to enable value co-creation primarily. For
example, Apple-iPhone and Amazon-Kindle are not gadgets,
but rather the service platforms. The evolution of service
encounter and interaction plays a significant role in motivating
customer experience, in which platform strategy will get a
sense of the maturity and scope of firm’s offering [25]. The
provider of smart PSS who has successfully mastered the
platform strategy and opportunity can disclose much more
value-added channels in a business ecosystem. Moreover, in
the context of networked actors, platform can effectively
support the value co-creation paradigm by stabilizing central
power of platform-type organization and complementary roles
of other stakeholders. Therefore, the service platforms have an
immense potential to influence the process of value-formation.
 Zhiwen Liu et al. / Procedia CIRP 73 (2018) 155–160
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
2.4. Value co-creation
Value co-creation is one of the major challenges which PSS
faces [26] and is central to product-service solution [27]. In
traditional business of firm-centric, customers are passively
involved in the process of value creation just as consumers of
value. The manner of value co-creation claims that different
actors and customers should collaborate to produce mutual
and valuable outcomes [12]. The co-creative value of service
system is mainly arisen from the interaction and personalized
customer experience. By and large, value co-creation process
includes the direct and indirect interaction procedures [11] in
life cycle of product-service solution. The co-creation logic is
a driver for the business innovation of organization [28],
alongside which the developed product-service solutions are
prominent to contribute the value for multiple stakeholders.
Fig. 2. Progression of value co-creation
The progression of value co-creation is shown in Fig. 2
from the different locus of products and services. The different
position in the coordinate means different manner and degree
of value co-creation. From value in product to value in
solution and to value in experience, customers gradually play
the role of an active participant or even a peer by breaking
down the barriers between firm and customer market. Thus,
customer value is co-created through interaction between firm
and customer. Recently, some researchers also had begun to
focus on value co-creation for PSS [29, 30]. They have used
the prototype of PSS as an interaction media to strengthen the
customization capabilities. However, few studies have been
conducted in term of value co-creation for smart PSS.
3. Value co-creation framework for smart PSS
Based on the review and analysis of related theories above,
we propose a value co-creation-oriented framework for smart
PSS according to lifecycle management of product-service
offering [31]. The value co-creation process is divided into
four stages: co-exist stakeholders and their requirements, co-
design service functions, co-implement service systems and
co-evaluate the service systems. The following sections will
elaborate the stages of value co-creation process for smart PSS
in terms of the proposed structure model, the identified value
dimensions and the discovered co-creation opportunities.
157
3
3.1. Smart PSS structure model
Services (plural) reflect the special units of output (i.e.,
intangible products), and service (singular) implies a process
of utilizing resources of providers and customers to produce
mutual benefits [10]. Thus, smart PSS is defined as a platform
service ecosystem, in which platform is made up of smart
products and smart services, while multiple service systems
constitute a service ecosystem. The value of whole smart PSS
emerges from the successful service interactions. Typically,
the service providers as generic beneficiaries will receive the
generic resources (e.g., money), whereas the customers or
users as specific beneficiaries will benefit from the realization
of their specific purposes. Meanwhile, the owner of platform
will extract benefits (such as money, cost savings or word of
mouth) since the provisions of locus and interface function.
A proposed structure model for smart PSS is shown in Fig.
3. The platform is divided into multiple layers and sub-layers,
and different protocols. The embedded OS controls and
maintains physical components in the layer of smart devices.
The network layer includes transports of network equipment
and transmission standards. In the layer of data management,
data are collected into storage of smart product to process and
produce the information and knowledge. Smart terminal can
connect and interoperate the service platform with application
programs. The ICTs are taken as the advanced interaction
means in different service systems. Different stakeholders can
connect the platform with their own protocols. The platform
provider can offer platform-related products and services. The
suppliers can provide complementary real-goods or virtual-
services. Then customer or user can gain lots of personalized
service experiences from multiple service systems.
Fig. 3. Structure model for smart PSS
To some extent, the structure model as shown above can
cover three types of PSS business models [18]. Down-side
indicates platform-oriented smart PSS (i.e., product-oriented
PSS), e.g., a smart fridge is taken as a platform equipped with
machinery parts, smart devices, embedded OS, APPs and so
on, the repair services of smart fridge belong to this type. Left-
side and right-side represent use-oriented smart PSS (i.e., use-
oriented PSS), e.g., the service of food shopping online and
provision of digital content. Top-side indicates result-oriented
smart PSS (i.e., result-oriented PSS), e.g., a delicious and
healthy dish is cooked thanks to the straightforward recipe in
 158 Zhiwen Liu et al. / Procedia CIRP 73 (2018) 155–160
4 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
APP software. Therefore, the proposed structure model for
smart PSS can create multiple and optional business models.
Then, the service-oriented organizations can select one or
more suitable types of PSS according to their situations.
3.2. Smart PSS value dimension
Despite there are rather clear value spheres in service logic
theory to help the involved actors or entities understand value
creation and co-creation dynamics [11], the traditional value
dimensions for PSS mostly are defined from the providers’
perspectives. Value of smart PSS is co-created interactively.
Even though the smart products are solely manufactured by
firms, their values come from customer or user touchpoints.
Little attention, however, has been paid for value dimensions
of smart PSS. Hence, we courageously propose to recognize
the value dimensions of smart PSS from its structure model
above. As shown in Fig. 4, there are five value dimensions:
smart products, smart services, data, service and experience.
Additionally, each dimension contains its value factors.
Fig. 4. Value dimensions for smart PSS
The hierarchical value dimensions as shown above can
embody the characteristics of smart PSS value system, in
which some value factors overlap. For instance, ‘Suitability
and Usability’ appear in both smart products dimension and
smart services dimension, and ‘Efficiency’ also is in smart
products and service dimensions. This phenomenon manifests
that smart PSS is a fusional system and eco-efficient solution,
because the same value factor can be realized by the tangible
product-components, the intangible service-components, data-
components or even service process. For example, banking
business can be carried out by clerk service, ATM or PayPal.
Generally, the components of smart products, smart services
and data are taken as operand and operant sources, which are
launched into service systems and interacted with customers.
Thus, the value of smart PSS is co-created naturally. The
experience values are represented by self-gains, certain aims
and transformation performances of customers. For instance,
fresh food stored into smart fridge can sustain healthy body.
3.3. Smart PSS co-creation opportunity
In smart PSS, providers need constantly demonstrate value
to retain customer loyalty and hold system sustainability, but
the sustained value has to be co-created through interaction
between customer and provider. Thus, it is crucial to discover
the value co-creation opportunities in smart PSS.
The first opportunity is how to identify the importance of
stakeholder requirement. Smart PSS is a cross-disciplinary
complex system, in which different stakeholders usually have
different requirements. Their interests may conflict with each
other, because each item of requirement essentially concerns
two or more stakeholders, i.e., value is flowing from provider
to receiver. These requirements of multi-stakeholders will
form into a value flow network, in which the actor-to-actor
collaboration is the basis of smart PSS operation [10]. The
importance weight of each value flow is determined by two or
more associated stakeholders together. If a value flow is very
important in value network of smart PSS, the corresponding
stakeholders will have powerful symbiosis as well.
Second, compared with the physical products, the functions
and their engineering characteristics for smart PSS, depending
strongly on the customers’ experiences, knowledges and skills,
are determined by customers’ perceptions. It is necessary to
ensure that the designed functions for smart PSS can meet
customer needs and usage scenario with as few iterations as
possible. Thus, the second opportunity is that customers ought
to be invited to take part in the design phase of smart PSS.
Third, the conception of interaction is a two-way effect
essentially. An interactive process in smart PSS can be
decomposed into three procedures of customer integration,
service implementation and service recovery. The interactive
service can be produced only while provider and customer
meet or connect, i.e., direct interaction (with customer) or
agent interaction (acting on customer resources). The high-
density direct interactions can give better customer experience,
but may increase service cost, and providers may not gain
their expected returns. Then, how to improve and optimize the
interactive process of smart PSS will be an opportunity.
Fourth, various technologies of online communication are
the reasons for emergence of virtual customer community, in
which the involved customers can engage in dialogues with
the providers and other customers. They get together to chat
online, exchange experiences, post news, give evaluations for
their products and services in the own servicescape. In this
kind of situation, firms can recognize and re-innovate business
value and customer benefits from these discussion contents.
3.4. Smart PSS co-creation process
According to the structure model for smart PSS, value
dimensions for smart PSS and co-creation opportunities in
smart PSS, a value co-creation-oriented process for smart PSS
is proposed, including four stages: co-exist, co-design, co-
implement and co-evaluate, as shown in Fig. 5. This process is
a closed loop from value flows, to functions and to outcomes,
and incorporating feedback for previous stage.
Fig. 5. Value co-creation stages for smart PSS
 Zhiwen Liu et al. / Procedia CIRP 73 (2018) 155–160
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
Stage 1: Co-exist the value flow of stakeholder
In the process of transition towards value co-creation, some
stakeholders’ benefits can be realized, but other stakeholders
may not be completely satisfied in actor-to-actor value flow
network. It is critical to select these stakeholders who can co-
exist in smart PSS, because stakeholders would not absorbedly
participate in co-creation process unless smart PSS produces
value for them. Then, the first and foremost stage is to
determine the symbiotic stakeholders and their requirements,
rather than focus merely on customer requirements.
Stakeholder value flow network is used to visualize multi-
stakeholder requirements. The score of value flow in smart
PSS is assigned by its provider and receiver, respectively, its
aggregated score indicates the importance weight of value
flow and the symbiotic power of corresponding stakeholder.
Stage 2: Co-design the value proposition
SDL argued that value is co-created with customer rather
than delivered by providers. Co-design as one of co-creation
ways advocates to invite customers involve in design phase of
smart PSS. The aim of co-design is that the designed functions
and their engineering characteristics for the value propositions
of smart PSS can meet customer needs and usage scenarios.
The symbiotic stakeholders and customer can employ QFD
(Quality Function Deployment) tool to respectively design the
functions for the identified stakeholder requirements. Next,
the multiple designed QFDs are compared and merged into a
single QFD, in which the aggregated functions are classified
into same and distinct groups by KJ (i.e., Affinity Diagram)
method. In general, these functions and their engineering
characteristics designed by customer need to be prioritized.
Stage 3: Co-implement the interactive value
The interactive value is co-created by the providers and
customers. ‘Indirect exchange masks the fundamental unit of
exchange’ in SDL indicates that interaction can fall into two
categories: direct interaction and agent interaction. Both forms
can be switched for different and specific goals, direct
interaction can enhance customer’s perceptive value, i.e., good
effectiveness, and agent interaction has more higher efficiency.
If two types of interaction manners are coordinated correctly,
service providers will gain expected returns from smart PSS.
In smart PSS, the co-implementation of service systems can
be visualized by the so-called interactive activity diagram. The
process of co-implementation can be improved and optimized
according to the appraise of effectiveness and efficiency.
Stage 4: Co-evaluate the performance value
More and more individuals and organizations are eager to
utilize performance and outcome information for learning and
development. To improve and innovate smart PSS, customers
and other stakeholders are encouraged to involve in different
activities of evaluating smart PSS. Firms will build Social
Networking Sites (SNSs) as their arenas of co-evaluation.
These evaluation dimensions for smart PSS fall into three
categories: system-related indexes which refer to attributes of
application and service in smart PSS; context-related indexes
which embrace situational properties of customer; human-
related indexes which describe the physical and mental
constitutions, and the emotional status of customer. These
indexes will be placed on the website of smart PSS. Besides,
the addition of other evaluation indexes is encouraged.
159
5
4. Illustrative case
In order to investigate the practical aspects of this proposed
framework, an illustrative case of smart fridge-service system
(SFSS) is conducted in YM company, who is a household
appliance firm and has been transforming strategy toward
service-oriented manufacturing. The produced smart fridge
has become a service platform of family life and has
transcended the scopes of refrigeration and freeze. YM has no
longer just focused on fridge itself or fridge-oriented services
but provides unique family experience through the manner of
value co-creation of SFSS. Some illustrations are shown in Fig.
6 and are described as follows.
Fig. 6. Illustrative case of smart fridge-service system
First, multiple stakeholders involved in the SFSS form a
stakeholder value flow network. According to the assigned
scores of their value flows, stakeholders listed in Fig. 6 are
more powerful and co-exist in this service system. For
instance, one of the important stakeholder requirements is
‘shopping food online’ to purchase food at any time and place.
Second, the lead-customers (i.e., family members) and
symbiotic stakeholders identified from value flow network
have employed QFD tool to design functions for the SFSS.
After comparing and merging these functions of the multiple
QFDs, these obtained functionalities contain operation panel,
exhibition and introduction of food, information of food
suppliers, order generation, food recommendation and so on.
Third, smart fridge is equipped with communication units
to co-implement interoperations. Before releasing food order,
customers can use other smart product (e.g., smart phone) to
remotely access the food inventory in the smart fridge. Via
online to offline (O2O) manner, customers interact with food
supplier. If the intelligent agents cannot solve the troubles
from customers, the service provider is able to give real-time
support by direct interaction on websites or face-to-face.
Fourth, due to the smart sensor and social website in the
SFSS, it is possible to efficiently measure data of human body
and collect information that customers produce in virtual
community. For the co-evaluation of outcomes in the SFSS,
customers can evaluate the services of food prevision, while
the suppliers can evaluate customer’s physical condition to
recommend healthy cooking-recipes.
The illustrative application demonstrates that the manner of
value co-creation can create much larger value space and more
160 Zhiwen Liu et al. / Procedia CIRP 73 (2018) 155–160
6 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
benefits for customers and other stakeholders in the SFSS. In
this connection, customers can save time, reduce expired food
and maintain healthy body. Meanwhile, the food providers and
smart fridge manufacturer can derive their incomes from the
provision and analysis of data and information.
5. Conclusion
This study has some contributions to literatures in theory.
Firstly, a smart PSS structure model is proposed based on
related theories of smart products and smart services, smart
PSS and platform business model. As such, the value
dimensions and factors for smart PSS are recognized, too.
Compared with the traditional PSS, some new value
characteristics are identified, e.g., data value. Secondly,
according to the analysis of related theories of value co-
creation, four major value co-creation opportunities in smart
PSS are discovered. Then, we propose a value co-creation
process for smart PSS, in which there are four stages of co-
exist, co-design, co-implement and co-evaluate. Moreover, to
ensure the proposed value co-creation process is progressive
in practice, an illustrative case of SFSS is demonstrated.
Nevertheless, this developed framework for smart PSS may
still have some deficiencies and biases due to the deductive
and qualitative analysis. For future work, we shall develop
more systematic methods and techniques to perform and
verify its feasibility further. In addition, the actual results from
comparison between before and after deploying this value co-
creation framework will be collected for validation. Last but
not least, in the context of B2B, the application of the value
co-creation framework needs to be carried out with caution.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Shanghai Institute of
Producer Service Development (SIPSD) and Shanghai
Research Centre for industrial Informatics (SRCI2) for the
funding support to this research. The work is also supported
by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 71632008, 71501006) and the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities.
References
[1] Porter ME, Heppelmann JE. How smart, connected products are
transforming companies. Harvard Business Review. 2015;93:96-114.
[2] Liu Z, Ming X, Qu Y, Li X. Process Parameter Optimization of Solder
Paste Deposition for SoC Using Taguchi-Grey and Entropy Approach.
IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging and Manufacturing
Technology. 2018;8:482 - 91.
[3] Cronin MJ. Smart products, smarter services: strategies for embedded
control: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
[4] Allmendinger G, Lombreglia R. Four strategies for the age of smart
services. Harvard business review. 2005;83:131.
[5] Reim W, Parida V, Örtqvist D. Product–Service Systems (PSS) business
models and tactics–a systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner
Production. 2015;97:61-75.
[6] Song W, Sakao T. A customization-oriented framework for design of
sustainable product/service system. Journal of Cleaner Production.
2017;140:1672-85.
[7] Valencia A, Mugge R, Schoormans JP, Schifferstein HN. The Design of
Smart Product-Service Systems (PSSs): An Exploration of Design
Characteristics. International Journal of Design. 2015;9.
[8] Nishino N, Wang S, Tsuji N, Kageyama K, Ueda K. Categorization and
mechanism of platform-type product-service systems in manufacturing.
CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology. 2012;61:391-4.
[9] Evans DS. Some empirical aspects of multi-sided platform industries.
Review of Network Economics. 2003;2.
[10] Vargo SL, Lusch RF. Institutions and axioms: an extension and update
of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
2016;44:5-23.
[11] Grönroos C, Voima P. Critical service logic: making sense of value
creation and co-creation. Journal of the academy of marketing science.
2013;41:133-50.
[12] Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V. Co-creation experiences: The next
practice in value creation. Journal of interactive marketing. 2004;18:5-14.
[13] Lee J, Kao H-A. Dominant Innovation Design for Smart Products-
Service Systems (PSS): Strategies and Case Studies. Global Conference
(SRII), 2014 Annual SRII: IEEE; 2014. p. 305-10.
[14] Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V. Co-creating unique value with customers.
Strategy & leadership. 2004;32:4-9.
[15] Lusch RF, Nambisan S. Service innovation: A service-dominant logic
perspective. Mis Quarterly. 2015;39.
[16] Song W. Requirement management for product-service systems: Status
review and future trends. Computers in Industry. 2017;85:11-22.
[17] Boehm M, Thomas O. Looking beyond the rim of one's teacup: a
multidisciplinary literature review of Product-Service Systems in
Information Systems, Business Management, and Engineering & Design.
Journal of Cleaner Production. 2013;51:245-60.
[18] Tukker A. Eight types of product–service system: eight ways to
sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet. Business strategy and the
environment. 2004;13:246-60.
[19] Song W, Cao J. A rough DEMATEL-based approach for evaluating
interaction between requirements of product-service system. Computers
& Industrial Engineering. 2017.
[20] Sakao T, Song W, Matschewsky J. Creating service modules for
customising product/service systems by extending DSM. CIRP Annals-
Manufacturing Technology. 2017.
[21] Baines T, W. Lightfoot H. Servitization of the manufacturing firm:
Exploring the operations practices and technologies that deliver
advanced services. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management. 2013;34:2-35.
[22] Jaakkola E. Unraveling the practices of “productization” in professional
service firms. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 2011;27:221-30.
[23] Pine BJ, Gilmore JH. The experience economy: Harvard Business Press;
2011.
[24] Gawer A, Cusumano MA. Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation.
Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2014;31:417-33.
[25] Eloranta V, Turunen T. Platforms in service-driven manufacturing:
Leveraging complexity by connecting, sharing, and integrating.
Industrial Marketing Management. 2016;55:178-86.
[26] Vasantha GVA, Roy R, Lelah A, Brissaud D. A review of product–
service systems design methodologies. Journal of Engineering Design.
2012;23:635-59.
[27] Sjödin DR, Parida V, Wincent J. Value co-creation process of integrated
product-services: Effect of role ambiguities and relational coping
strategies. Industrial Marketing Management. 2016;56:108-19.
[28] Alves H, Fernandes C, Raposo M. Value co-creation: Concept and
contexts of application and study. Journal of Business Research.
2016;69:1626-33.
[29] Zine PU, Kulkarni MS, Chawla R, Ray AK. A framework for value co-
creation through customization and personalization in the context of
machine tool PSS. Procedia CIRP. 2014;16:32-7.
[30] Boukhris A, Fritzsche A, Möslein K. Co-creation in the early stage of
product-service system development. Procedia CIRP. 2017;63:27-32.
[31] Wiesner S, Freitag M, Westphal I, Thoben K-D. Interactions between
service and product lifecycle management. Procedia CIRP. 2015;30:36-
41.