scieee Science in your language
[en] (orig)
Procedia CIRP 64 ( 2017 ) 175 – 180
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
2212-8271 © 2017 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 9th CIRP IPSS Conference: Circular Perspectives on Product/Service-Systems.
doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.050
ScienceDirect
The 9th CIRP IPSS Conference: Circular Perspectives on Product/Service-Systems
Maturity model and action recommendation: a PSS capability self-
assessment tool for companies
Konrad Exnera,b*, Raphael Zimpfera, Rainer Starka,b
aTechnische Universität Berlin, Pascalstraße 8-9, 10587 Berlin, Germany
bFraunhofer Institute for Production Systems and Design Technology, Pascalstraße 8-9, 10587 Berlin, Germany
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-30-39006247; fax: +49-30-39006246. E-mail address: konrad.exner@tu-berlin.de
Abstract
The main idea in Product-Service Systems (PSS) research is to provide solutions instead of products or services. Nevertheless, PSS comprise a
broad variety of characteristics from product-oriented services, to use-oriented services and result-oriented services [1]. In industrial practice all
of these dimension as well as intermediate stages are evidently realized. Additionally, trending topics like smart services, which can be described
as the exploitation strategy from Industrie 4.0 [2], also known as cyber-physical systems and Internet of Things, accelerate the interest in PSS.
However, many companies’ in particular small and medium-sized enterprises just started realizing the potential and necessity to establish service
thinking in order to stay competitive. These companies face considerable challenges regarding the transformation from an Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM) towards an Original Solution Provider (OSP) [3]. In a first step, companies need to assess their current situation and develop
a strategy based on the desired target situation. For this reason, the authors developed a model combined with a self-assessment method which
enables a basic analysis of the companies’ situation including action recommendations. The research results as well as the evaluation with a
company are presented in this paper.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 9th CIRP IPSS Conference: Circular Perspectives on Product/Service-Sys-
tems.
Keywords: Product-Service Systems; maturity model; self-assessment
1. Introduction
Mont described PSS as a trend with a high sustainable po-
tential. Besides effects on sustainability PSS also account for
innovation, customer integration and competitive capacity. [4]
Since then, PSS researchers created method and tools to support
the development of integrated products and services and trans-
ferred them into industrial practice. Nevertheless, without re-
search driven projects many companies tend to focus classical
product-centered development approaches and add additional
services [5, 6]. In this perspective, it has to be stated that the
full potential of PSS can only be utilized by integrated ap-
proaches, thus profound changes for the company have to be
considered [3]. These changes result in several challenges
which need to be addressed. Foremost, the company’s culture
and organizational structure have to be reconsidered in order to
strengthen the voice of the customer and increase the skills and
importance of service development [3]. Additionally, several
specific challenges will occur due to change in in the revenue
structure and the integrated development, such as pricing, own-
ership, risk, responsibility, longevity, reimbursement,
knowledge, experience, costing [7, 8]. However, discussions
with industrial partners in projects, seminars and conferences
indicated another need of several companies. Many managers
are interested in initializing PSS projects or pilots, but do not
have the knowledge to start an analysis of the as-is and to-be
situation as well as the first roadmap. Existing research ap-
proaches (cf. chapter 3) seem to be too generic or not applicable
without a consultant. For this reason, the authors developed an
elaborated maturity model in combination with an easy to apply
questionnaire in order to enable a self-assessment of the com-
pany. Additionally, generic guidelines have been developed,
© 2017 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 scientifi c committee of the 9th CIRP IPSS Conference: Circular Perspectives on Product/Service-Systems.
176 Konrad Exner et al. / Procedia CIRP 64 ( 2017 ) 175 – 180
which provide basic instruction regarding the transformation
from one stage to another. In this paper, the research results in-
cluding the evaluation with an industrial partner will be dis-
cussed. In a first step the authors describe the research approach
and the research questions (cf. chapter 2). Afterwards the au-
thors give a short overview of the state of the art in the research
field in chapter 3. In the following chapter 4 the method includ-
ing the maturity model, the questionnaire and the guideline will
be illustrated before the findings of the evaluation are described
in chapter 5. Finally, the authors give a short conclusion and an
overview for future research needs regarding the addressed
topic in chapter 6.
2. Research approach and research questions
The research approach is based on the Design Research
Methodology (DRM) [9] including an iterative development
with two prescriptive and two descriptive studies (cf. Figure 1).
The scope of this contribution comprises the first three steps of
the research approach, marked green in Figure 1. The last two
steps, marked blue in Figure 1, are not part of this contribution
and will be discussed in chapter 6.
Fig. 1. Research approach.
In a first step the research questions (RQ) have to be defined
in order to clarify the research objectives.
x [RQ1] Which specific maturity levels and criteria can be de-
scribed regarding PSS?
x [RQ2] How can these maturity levels be determined?
x [RQ3] Which instructions can be formulated to support the
transformation from one level to another?
Complementary, the state of the art in relevant research
fields have been analyzed (cf. chapter 3). Based on these results
a method has been developed (cf. chapter 4) and evaluated (cf.
chapter 5). Therefore, the research question will be answered in
the following chapters.
3. State of the art
Maturity models have been developed in the 1970s in order
to describe leadership categories [10]. Since then, these models
evolved to describe typologies in various disciplines in order
define certain degrees of maturity. For instance, in development
processes the degree of maturity comprises the “increasing con-
cretization” from e.g. laboratory specimen to a pilot-run prod-
uct [11]. In PSS research maturity models mostly describe the
existing manifestation of PSS between completely product cen-
tered and pure service oriented solutions. The following Table
1 introduces a section of existing models which have been ana-
lyzed and utilized regarding the development of the model (cf.
chapter 4).
Table 1. Overview of PSS maturity models.
Model
Dimension
Description
The model of Tukker[1] de-
scribes various customer
needs, which are based on
different combinations of
tangible products and intan-
gible services
Three main
maturity lev-
els, which
consist of
eight specific
PSS types
Intangibility of the per-
formance result, prod-
uct-oriented, use-ori-
ented, result-oriented
The model of Berkovich
[12] comprises PSS embed-
ded in the interaction with
customers during the plan-
ning progress as well as the
intangibility of the perfor-
mance results
Four differ-
ent maturity
levels, which
restrict the
PSS in his
definition.
Interaction with the cus-
tomers during the plan-
ning progress, intangibil-
ity of the performance
result
The model of Burianek et al.
[13] describes seven charac-
teristics, which define the
complexity of the PSS and
the coherent performance re-
sult
Every combi-
nation of the
seven charac-
teristics cre-
ates a new
maturity
level
Customer benefit, range
of services, heterogene-
ity, Technical integra-
tion, individualization,
temporal dynamics, inte-
gration in the value crea-
tion of the customer
Model of Beyer [14] and
Becker [15] shows the grad-
ual integration of intangible
services from added services
to a combined system of tan-
gible products and intangi-
ble services
Three main
maturity lev-
els, which
consist of
five specific
PSS types
Product-oriented, use-
oriented, result-oriented,
interaction with the cus-
tomer, intangibility of
the performance result
Model of Gaiardelli et al.
[16] combines Tukkers main
levels with the inherent in-
teraction of customer and
provider as well as the holis-
tic process
30 different
maturity lev-
els
Product-oriented, use-
oriented, result-oriented,
focus on the product or
process, transaction-
based versus relation-
ship-based
Model of Rapaccini et al.
[17] defines five maturity
levels from initial stage to
an optimized new service
development (NSD)
Four dimen-
sions with 9
elements
The models is based on a
NSD process and focus-
ses organizational, re-
sources, stakeholders
and management aspects
Model of Karni and Kaner
[18] defines a PSS maturity
model based on general ma-
turity levels
Three dimen-
sions with 38
factors
The model focusses cus-
tomer-facing, life cycle
and offer
Tukker [1] classified three main groups in his model, which
are further divided into eight sub categories. The model is
widely known and accepted and demonstrates the importance
of new revenue models. Nevertheless, the interaction with the
customer is missing. The model of Berkovich [12] introduces a
new characterization, which defines PSS in a different way. It
involves the interaction with the customer during the planning
progress. Likewise, it emphasizes the intangibility of the per-
formance results. These two dimensions create four different
maturity levels, which are known as mass-market product,
177
Konrad Exner et al. / Procedia CIRP 64 ( 2017 ) 175 – 180
mass-market service, customized product and customized ser-
vice. The PSS is embedded between these four limitations. Ad-
ditionally, a smooth transition between these different groups is
described. The model of Burianek [13] introduces further char-
acterizations, which can define a PSS. Every factor has two pos-
sibilities to choose from. According to the selection of the seven
characterizations, different PSS types can be defined. These
factors are known as customer benefit, range of services, heter-
ogeneity, technical integration, individualization, temporal dy-
namics and integration in the value creation of the customer.
The model of Becker [15] and Beyer [14] shows the gradual
integration of an intangible service. The more intangible ser-
vices are included, the more interaction occurs between cus-
tomers and companies. The role of the customer is focused as a
key factor in this model. The model of Gaiardelli et al. [16]
evolves the model of Tukker regarding the relationship between
customer and provider. The characteristics of the 30 maturity
levels comprise inter alia: level of customization, relationship-
intensity, risk, product owner, product user and product deci-
sion maker. The model of Rapaccini et al. [17] emphasizes
roles, skills and methods as well as different management per-
spectives. The criteria are elaborated in detail, however a
guided assessment in crucial for a successful implementation of
the model. Model of Karni and Kaner [18] describes in detail
the importance of the customer view and the customer specific
offer as well as a processual lifecycle perspective. However, a
practical implementation and other stakeholder are not inte-
grated. In each model diverse important characteristics have
been provided. The level of intangibility is an important factor.
Furthermore, the interaction between customer and provider
can be highlighted is the core aspect in defining a PSS. This
aspect covers more than the intensity of the interaction, thus in-
cluding the integration of the customer in the companies’ lifecy-
cle. An important commonality is the missing application de-
scription and guidelines. A new model which includes the re-
sults of this analysis is introduced in chapter 4, which is desig-
nated as Product-Service-Change.
4. Product-Service-Change
The Product-Service-Change (PSC) comprises a model (cf.
chapter 4.1) to describe the different levels, the method regard-
ing the procedure for self-assessment as well as the action rec-
ommendation (cf. chapter 4.2).
4.1. PSC model
The PSC model consists of five reflected (product and ser-
vice perspective) stages which lead to nine main stages. Stage
1 describes a pure product provider whereas stage 9 defines a
pure service provider. The main objective for both sides is stage
5, which describes a company with the ability to provide a flex-
ible combination of services and products based on the individ-
ual customer needs. Nevertheless, companies can have differ-
ent goals, for instance only focusing on use-oriented PSS. This
is not a contradiction to this model and will be explained in
chapter 4.3. The stages can be subdivided into different levels
in a matrix into 19 numbers (cf. Figure 2).The visualization em-
phasizes the integration as the core aspect of the underlying
principle. Nevertheless, further characteristics are inherent.
The criteria for each stage can be divided into three categories.
Firstly, the product overview defines the customer integration
in the product design process, the type of production and the
portfolio share of the product. Secondly, the service overview
defines the customer integration in the service design process,
the service type and the portfolio share of the service. Thirdly,
the system overview defines the strategy, the technical integra-
tion (compatibility), the customer loyalty and ownership.
Fig. 2. PSC model.
178 Konrad Exner et al. / Procedia CIRP 64 ( 2017 ) 175 – 180
The defining criteria can be specified as follows:
x Design process: 1. design (planning, development), 2. reali-
zation (production, service (selling, after sales), 3. end of
life (cf. Figure 5)
x Type of production / service: mass production / service, se-
ries production / service, individual manufacturing / service
x Portfolio share: 0 – 100 %
x Strategy: product- or service oriented, use oriented or result
oriented
x Customer loyalty: three-step scale from very good to poor
x Ownership: customer or provider
x PSS compatibility: three-step scale from strong to weak
It has to be stated that the criteria have been designed for a
first self-assessment. Therefore, fundamental and easy to dif-
ferentiate specifications have been chosen.
4.2. PSC method
The Product-Service-Change (PSC) method is based on a
basic change formula with five qualitative variables: benefit if
the change occurs, status quo, desired future status, roadmap
and company culture. The final procedure of the method is il-
lustrated in Figure 3. In a first step the customer integration re-
garding the product (1a) and service (1b) design processes is
analyzed. As a result the priority towards product or service
centered thinking can be assessed (2a). Additionally, the com-
parability, customer loyalty and strategy are based on product
/service integration (1a, 1b) and on product / service priority
(2a). In the third step the usage of the product (3a) and service
(3b) solutions is analyzed. The complete product and service
analysis results in the as-is maturity level of the company. It has
to be stated, that more than one maturity level can result from
the analysis. In step five the company can choose the to-be ma-
turity level according to the PSC model (cf. Figure 2). In com-
bination with the PSS analysis the action recommendations can
be derived.
Fig. 3. PSC method.
For each analyzing step a set of questions has been defined
in order to extract the needed information. The criteria and one
example of the questions from the questionnaire are shown in
Table 2:
Table 2. Assessment criteria and excerpt of the questionnaire.
Step
Exemplary question
Product
integra-
tion analy-
sis
Is customer integration
planned and realized for the
product design phase?
Service
integra-
tion analy-
sis
Does the first customer con-
tact occur on the sale of the
service?
Product
usage
analysis
With which manufacturing
processes are the products
produced?
Service
usage
analysis
Are the services identical
for each client?
Regarding the assessment one simplifying assumption has to
be considered. If a company provides several products and ser-
vices, the most advanced level (e.g. highest customer integra-
tion) will be chosen.
4.3. PSC action recommendation
As a first research result four generic action recommenda-
tions have been defined in order to enable a holistic evaluation
of the research approach. Therefore, the transitions between the
main stages have been defined (cf. Figure 4). Eventually, the
company should be able to choose a specific level of the model
as the desired to-be situation in order to receive a specific ac-
tion recommendation.
Fig. 4. Four steps of action recommendation.
The action recommendations are based on the core factors:
company culture, product / service integration and simultane-
ous engineering. The generic recommendations are presented
in the following section. In step one the systematic change in
the companies’ culture is considerable important due to the es-
tablishment of a new revenue stream. Employees have to be
integrated in the change process and PSS have to be introduced.
Therefore, a systematic change process across horizontal and
vertical changes has to be conducted according to established
Change Management (e.g. Kotter [19] and Streich [20]) ap-
proaches. Additionally, a new division which has to develop
services has to be vertically integrated in the company. There-
fore, existing knowledge and abilities have to be exploited.
Simultaneous engineering is not advisable in the first step due
to a pure product support of the services. In step two the in-
tended integration of product and service development need to
be emphasized. This transformation is the most important fac-
tor to become an OSP and induces further changes in the em-
ployees (division thinking) mindset. Therefore, the horizontal
179
Konrad Exner et al. / Procedia CIRP 64 ( 2017 ) 175 – 180
integration in order to strengthen the service aspect has to be
focused. Additionally, the sales structure needs to be adapted
regarding the marketing of the new integrated solutions. The
development streams should be aligned, but simultaneous en-
gineering is not mandatory. In step three the companies’ culture
should support an equivalent significance of products and ser-
vices. This objective needs to be constantly supported. In order
to enable an integrated PSS the customer has to be actively in-
tegrated in the design process. Additionally, a simultaneous de-
velopment of product and service department has to be enabled.
Therefore, processes need to be aligned and equivalently
adapted. In step four, the cultural change should be completed
and consistently introduced to new employees. The integration
of product and service development has to be supported with
specific PSS design methods and tools. Therefore, the interde-
pendent development of service and product components will
be fulfilled. Regarding the simultaneous engineering approach
two possibilities can be pursued. Either a strong capability to
manage the diverse development streams can enable a suffi-
cient integrated development or a merging of all design pro-
cesses and divisions would facilitate a high alignment.
5. Findings
The method has been applied and evaluated in a case study
with a machinery and plant manufacturer. The company has
approx. 6.900 employees and is a supplier for pharmacy, auto-
motive, airlines and diverse other branches. The results of the
case study (cf. chapter 5.1) and the evaluation (cf. chapter 5.2)
are presented in this chapter.
5.1. Results of a case study
A pre-study [21] has been conducted in order to assess the
model and the method. The main objective has been to verify
the consistency and applicability of the research results. The
procedure can be described as follows: a) completion of the
questionnaire by the company, b) analysis of the results by the
research team, c) conjoint discussion of the as-is and to-be sit-
uation and compiling of the specific action recommendation.
The analysis of the questionnaire indicated a difference of
the customer integration regarding the product design and the
service design process of the company, see Figure 5:
Fig. 5. Four steps of action recommendation.
The visualization expresses clearly, that the customer inte-
gration regarding the product design process is conducted much
earlier (design phase), thus can be considered as very good. In
comparison, the customer integration for services occurs not
until the after sales phase. In conclusion, the priority is clearly
inclined towards the product design. Furthermore, the compa-
rability can be determined as weak due to the considerable dif-
ference of the customer integration regarding products and ser-
vices. The next analyses determine the type of production (se-
ries production, individual manufacturing) and services (mass
service, series services). Based on these results the as-is ma-
turity level could be assessed as product oriented after sales
(level 3, no. 5). Therefore, the maturity level is allocated to
stage 2 of the model (cf. Figure 2). In a next step the results of
the analysis including maturity level and detailed description of
all criteria have been provided to the company. For instance,
the compatibility has been assessed as weak, whereas the cus-
tomer integration regarding the product design is very good. In
a next step the action recommendation has been conducted.
Therefore, the transformation towards an integrated PSS pro-
vider has been specified as the to-be situation (cf. Figure 4). The
action recommendation comprises three core factors (cf. chap-
ter 4.3), however, in the next section only one factor is de-
scribed exemplarily. On the one hand service thinking and ser-
vice design should be strengthened within the company and, on
the other hand, take up a more important part in the company’s
portfolio. Therefore, the existing service department should be
enlarged and qualified regarding the development of service
and eventually PSS (horizontal integration). For instance, the
sales department requires new knowledge, skills and a changing
mindset regarding the convincing selling of new integrated so-
lutions. Eventually, the services do not only support the prod-
ucts and increase the revenue, but can be sold independently
and finally only conjointly as a solution. In order to enable the
integrated development service and product design departments
need to align their processes and build up synergies. Further-
more, barriers between both disciplines have to be overcome,
thus, communication is a crucial key factor for a successful co-
operation. Moreover, the vice of the customer has to be
strengthened in order to develop customer centered solutions
which fulfill specific customer needs. In order to enable a
greater flexibility regarding design and functionality of the so-
lution the customer integration for the product and service de-
sign process has to be intensified in early design phases. These
changes for the realization of more customized solutions de-
mand new structures and communication channels within the
company and to their customers. As a side effect the compara-
bility will improved. Further action recommendation regarding
the companies’ culture and simultaneous engineering has been
provided to the company.
5.2. Evaluation
The evaluation has been conducted with a senior top man-
ager of the company. The evaluation results can be summarized
as follows. The developed questionnaire which derives all nec-
essary information regarding the analysis is very well struc-
tured. The question can be easily and spontaneously answered.
The question are understandable, but could be formulated more
clearly. Additionally, the action recommendation should be de-
scribed in more detail. The final results of the evaluation are:
x Revision of the questions in order clarify the meaning
x Elaboration of the criteria and the description of the action
recommendation
180 Konrad Exner et al. / Procedia CIRP 64 ( 2017 ) 175 – 180
x Transmission of the recommendation action to all 19 num-
bers of the PSC model (cf. Figure 2)
x A cost benefit assessment is missing if the strategic devel-
opment towards a new stage according to the PSC model is
advisable
The identified aspects will iteratively revise the method.
Therefore, a further evaluation will be conducted before ad-
dressing the prescriptive study II of the research approach (cf.
Figure 1).
6. Summary and outlook
This contribution gives an overview of existing maturity
models. Based on the analysis of a section of these models a
new model and method with a set of criteria has been proposed.
In the first iteration the method including a questionnaire has
been successfully tested and evaluated. However, from a re-
search perspective the criteria seem to be not elaborate enough.
For instance, different levels of maturity can be assigned to a
given company, which is contradicting the definition of a ma-
turity model by itself. Therefore, the model in this form can be
seen as a typology model. However, the final objective is the
development of a maturity model. Therefore, the criteria will be
emphasized in further studies. The results are promising and es-
sential changes could be identified. In a next step the prescrip-
tive study I and descriptive study I (cf. Figure 1) will be reiter-
ated before proceeding with the next research steps. Therefore,
research questions 1-3 could be satisfactorily answered. Never-
theless, a few open issued need be addressed in the next cycle
such as elaborating the action recommendation. Furthermore,
the evaluation partner asked for a cost-benefit analysis support-
ing the action recommendation. The authors clearly state that
this as out of scope for the self-assessment tool, due to high
complexity of the criteria involved. Nevertheless, the addressed
issue is valid and will be integrated in the overall action recom-
mendation. Eventually, the questionnaire will be further devel-
oped to an online self-assessment tool, which allows a broad
evaluation of this research. Furthermore, companies will be
provided with an unique easy to use tool, which supports the
first independent steps (self-assessment and action recommen-
dation) in order to become an OSP. The main objective will be
to increase the awareness regarding PSS for all kinds of com-
panies. However, the development of a specific and detailed
roadmap is indispensable and should be developed with PSS
experts due to the various explicit challenges occurring on the
road to become an OSP.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the case
company for participating in the evaluation and providing val-
uable feedback to the method.
References
[1] Tukker A. Eight types of product-service system: eight ways to
sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet. In: Business Strategy and
the Environment 2004;13(4):246-260.
[2] Arbeitskreis Smart Service Welt / acatech. Smart Service Welt –
Recommendations for the Strategic Initiative Web-based Services for
Businesses. Final Report. Berlin; 2015
[3] Schnürmacher C, Hayka H, Stark R. Providing Product-Service-Systems
- The Long Way from a Product OEM towards an Original Solution
Provider (OSP). In Brissaud D, Boucher X, editors. 7th Industrial
Product-Service Systems Conference; 2015. p. 233-238.
[4] Mont O. Clarifying the concept of product–service system. In: Journal of
Cleaner Production 2002; 10(3): 237-245.
[5] Burger T, Schultz C. Testen neuer Dienstleistungen: Ergebnisse einer
empirischen Breitenerhebung bei Anbietern technischer Dienstleistungen
(en: Testing of new services. Results of a empirical large scale survey).
Stuttgart: Fraunhofer Verlag; 2014.
[6] Müller P. Integrated engineering of products and services. Layer-based
development methodology for product-service systems. Stuttgart:
Fraunhofer Verlag; 2014.
[7] Di Francisco KC, Barquet APB, Rozenfeld H. Challenges for PSS
Implementation: Identification and Classification. In: Meier H, editor.
Product-service integration for sustainable solutions. Proceedings of the
5th CIRP International Conference on Industrial Product-Service
Systems. Berlin: Springer; 2013. p. 275–285.
[8] Exner K., Schnürmacher C., Stark R. Proactive maintenance as success
factor for use-oriented Product-Service Systems. Procedia CIRP IPSS
2017, in review.
[9] Blessing LT, Chakrabarti A. DRM, a Design Research Methodology.
London: Springer Verlag; 2009.
[10] Hersey P, Blanchard KH. Life cycle theory of leadership.In: Training
and Development Journal 1969;23(5):26–34.
[11] Verein Deutscher Ingenieure.VDI 2206: Design methodology for
mechatronic systems. Berlin: Beuth Verlag; 2004.
[12] Berkovich M. Requirements Engineering for IT-enabled Product Service
Systems. München: Technische Universität München; 2012.
[13] Burianek F, Ihl C, Bonnemeier S, Reichwald R. Typologisierung
hybrider Produkte: ein Ansatz basierend auf der Komplexität der
Leistungserbringung (en: Typology of hybrid products: an approach
based of the complexity of the service provision). München: Technische
Universität München; 2007.
[14] Beyer M. Servicediversifikation in Industrieunternehmen.
Kompetenztheoretische Untersuchung der Determinanten nachhaltiger
Wettbewerbsvorteile (en: Service diversification in industrial companies.
Competence theory analysis ofdeterminants of sustainable competitive
advantages). Wiesbaden: Dt. Univ.-Verl.; 2007.
[15] Becker J, Knackstedt R, Pöppelbuß J. Vergleich von Reifegradmodellen
für die hybride Wertschöpfung und Entwicklungsperspektiven (en:
Comparison of maturity models for hybrid added value and development
perspectives). In: Böhmann T, Leimeister JM, editors. Integration von
Produkt & Dienstleistung. Hybride Wertschöpfung. Norderstedt: Books
on Demand;. 2010. p. 109-121.
[16] Gaiardelli P, Resta B, Martinez V, Pinto R, Albores P. A classification
model for product-service offerings. In: Journal of Cleaner Production
2014;66:507–519.
[17] Rapaccini M, Saccani N, Pezzotta G, Burger T, Ganz W. Service
development in product-service systems: a maturity model. In: The
Service Industries Journal 2013;33(3-4):300-319.
[18] Karni R, Kaner M. A review of maturity models and their application to
PSS: Towards a PSS maturity model. Berlin: Springer; 2013. P. 393-398.
[19] Kotter JP. Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press;
1996.
[20] Streich RK. Fit for Leadership. Entwicklungsfelder zur
Führungspersönlichkeit (en: development areas for leadership
personalities). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler; 2013.
[21] Schnell R, Hill P, Esser E. Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung.
München: Oldenbourg; 2008.