Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An evaluation scheme for product–service system models: development of evaluation criteria and case studies

  • Empirical article
  • Published:
Service Business Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A product–service system (PSS) integrates products and services to fulfill customer needs and create sustainability. PSS evaluation requires the use of diverse criteria because PSSs are complex systems with multiple stakeholders and perspectives. This paper proposes an evaluation scheme for PSS models that consists of a set of 94 evaluation criteria and an evaluation procedure. The proposed set of criteria encompasses both provider and customer perspectives, all of the 3P (profitability, planet, and people) values and various PSS lifecycle phases, whereas existing studies only partially cover these aspects of PSS. The proposed set serves as an evaluation criterion repository, and users can easily identify the criteria relevant to the evaluation targets. Using the proposed set is more efficient than starting from scratch. The proposed evaluation scheme can be used either to compare different PSS models or to evaluate a single model. Case studies show that the proposed scheme can sufficiently evaluate both existing and newly launched PSS models as well as models under development. The proposed scheme is expected to serve as an efficient and effective aid for practitioners in PSS development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aurich JC, Fuchs C, Wagenknecht C (2006) Life cycle oriented design of technical product–service systems. J Clean Prod 14(7):1480–1494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baines TS, Lightfoot HW, Evans S, Neely A, Greenough R, Peppard J, Roy R, Shehab E, Braganza A, Tiwari A, Alcock JR, Angus JP, Bastl M, Cousens A, Irving P, Johnson M, Kingston J, Lockett H, Martinez J, Michele P, Tranfield D, Walton IM, Wilson H (2007) State-of-the-art in product–service systems. Proc Inst Mech Eng B 221:1543–1552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoît C, Norris GA, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg A, Bos U, Prakash S, Ugaya C, Beck T (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):156–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettencourt L (2010) Service innovation: how to go from customer needs to breakthrough services. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bikfalvi A, Lay G, Maloca S, Waser BR (2013) Servitization and networking: large-scale survey findings on product-related services. Serv Bus 7(1):61–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang HH, Hung CJ, Wong KH, Lee CH (2013) Using the balanced scorecard on supply chain integration performance—a case study of service businesses. Serv Bus 7(4):539–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6):429–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finne M, Brax S, Holmström J (2013) Reversed servitization paths: a case analysis of two manufacturers. Serv Bus 7(4):513–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvin DA (1984) What does ‘product quality’ really mean? MIT Sloan Manag Rev 26:25–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Gescheider GA (1997) Psychophysics: the fundamentals. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Geum Y, Park Y (2011) Designing the sustainable product–service integration: a product–service blueprint approach. J Clean Prod 19(14):1601–1614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giirzenich D, Mathur J, Bansal NK, Wagner HJ (1999) Cumulative energy demand for selected renewable energy technologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(3):143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (2011) Sustainability reporting guidelines. Version 3.1. Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/g3.1-guidelines-incl-technical-protocol.pdf

  • Goedkoop M, van Halen C, te Riele H, Rommers P (1999) Product service-systems, ecological and economic basics. Report for Dutch Ministries of Environment (VROM) and Economic Affairs (EZ). http://teclim.ufba.br/jsf/indicadores/holan%20Product%20Service%20Systems%20main%20report.pdf

  • Guinée J (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanssen OJ (1999) Sustainable product systems–experiences based on case projects in sustainable product development. J Clean Prod 7(1):27–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hara T, Arai T, Shimomura Y, Sakao T (2009) Service CAD system to integrate product and human activity for total value. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 1(4):262–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser JR, Clausing D (1988) The house of quality. Harvard Bus Rev 66(3):63–73

    Google Scholar 

  • He Y, Sun H, Lai KK, Chen Y (2014) Organizational empowerment and service strategy in manufacturing. Published online at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11628-014-0233-2 Serv Bus

  • Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):16–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huisman J, Stevels LM (2006) Eco-efficiency of take-back and recycling, a comprehensive approach. IEEE Trans Electron Packag Manuf 29(2):83–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (1998) ISO 14041: environmental management-life cycle assessment-goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. ISO (International Organization for Standardization)

  • Kang MJ, Wimmer R (2008) Product service systems as systemic cures for obese consumption and production. J Clean Prod 16(11):1146–1152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang C, Hong YS, Kim KJ, Park K (2011) A relation-based model for analyzing ecosystems of products, services and stakeholders. J Korean Inst Ind Eng 37(1):41–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney R, Raiffa H (1993) Decision with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kim S, Yoon B (2012) Developing a process of concept generation for new product–service systems: a QFD and TRIZ-based approach. Serv Bus 6(3):323–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim KJ, Lim CH, Lee DH, Lee J, Hong YS, Park K (2012) A concept generation support system for product–service system development. Serv Sci 4(4):349–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi H (2005) Strategic evolution of eco-products: a product life cycle planning methodology. Res Eng Des 16(1–2):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krucken L, Meroni A (2006) Building stakeholder networks to develop and deliver product–service-systems: practical experiences on elaborating pro-active materials for communication. J Clean Prod 14(17):1502–1508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labuschagne C, Brent AC, van Erck RPG (2003) Assessing the sustainability performances of industries. J Clean Prod 13(4):373–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Geum Y, Lee H, Park Y (2012) Dynamic and multidimensional measurement of product–service system (PSS) sustainability: a triple bottom line (TBL)-based system dynamics approach. J Clean Prod 32:173–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim CH, Kim KJ (2014) Information Service Blueprint: a service blueprinting framework for information-intensive services. Serv Sci 6(4):296–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim CH, Kim KJ, Hong YS, Park K (2012) PSS Board: a structured tool for product–service system process visualization. J Clean Prod 37:42–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu X, Tanaka M, Matsui Y (2009) Economic evaluation of optional recycling processes for waste electronic home appliances. J Clean Prod 17(1):53–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mont O (2002) Clarifying the concept of product–service system. J Clean Prod 10(3):237–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morelli N (2006) Developing new product service systems (PSS): methodologies and operational tools. J Clean Prod 14(17):1495–1501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neter J, Kutner M, Wasserman W, Nachtsheim C (1996) Applied linear statistical models, 4th edn. Irwin, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Omann A (2007) Multicriteria tool for evaluating the impacts of product service systems on sustainable development: an application in Austrian companies. Sustainable Europe Research Institute. http://seri.at/en/economy/2009/08/19/a-multicriteria-tool-for-evaluating-the-impacts-of-product-service-systems-on-sustainable-development-%E2%80%93-an-application-in-austrian-companies/

  • Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry L (1985) A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. J Mark 49:41–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parent J, Curcuzzella C, Reveret JP (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):164–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park PJ, Tahara K (2008) Quantifying producer and consumer-based eco-efficiencies for the identification of key ecodesign issues. J Clean Prod 16(1):95–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park H, Yoon J (2015) A chance discovery-based approach for new product–service system (PSS) concepts. Serv Bus 9(1):115–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park PJ, Tahara K, Inaba A (2005) Product quality-based eco-efficiency applied to digital cameras. J Environ Manage 83(2):158–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pecas P, Ribeiro I, Folgado R, Henriques E (2009) A life cycle engineering model for technology selection: a case study on plastic injection moulds for low production volumes. J Clean Prod 17(9):846–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugh S (1996) Creating innovative products using total design. Addison Wesley Longman, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinartz W, Ulaga W (2008) How to sell services more profitably. Harv Bus Rev 86(5):91–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Rese M, Karger M, Strotmann M (2009) The dynamics of industrial product service systems (IPS2): using the net present value approach and real options approach to improve life-cycle management. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 1(4):279–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothenberg S (2007) Sustainability through servicizing. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 48(2):83–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimomura Y, Hara T, Arai T (2008) A service evaluation method using mathematical methodologies. CIRP Ann 57(1):437–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone-Romero EF, Stone DL, Grewal D (1997) Development of a multidimensional measure of perceived product quality. J Qual Manag 2(1):87–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasaki T, Hashimoto S, Moriguchi Y (2006) A quantitative method to evaluate the level of material use in lease/reuse systems of electrical and electronic equipment. J Clean Prod 14(17):1519–1528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tukker A (2004) Eight types of product–service system: eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet. Bus Strat Environ 13(4):246–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tukker A, Tischner U (2006) Product–services as a research field: past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. J Clean Prod 14(17):1152–1156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN (2007) Indicators of sustainable development: guidelines and methodologies. New York. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/guidelines.pdf

  • van Halen C, Vezzoli C, Wimmer R (2005) Methodology for product service system innovation: how to develop clean, clever and competitive strategies in companies. Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, Assen

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogtlander JG, Bijma A, Brezet HC (2002) Communicating the eco-efficiency of products and services by means of the eco-costs/value model. J Clean Prod 10(1):57–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Lai JY, Hsiao LC (2014) Value network analysis for complex service systems: a case study on Taiwan’s mobile application services. Published online at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11628-014-0237-y Serv Bus

  • Williams A (2007) Product service systems in the automobile industry: contribution to system innovation? J Clean Prod 15(11–12):1093–1103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang X, Moore P, Pu J, Wong C (2008) A practical methodology for realizing product service systems for consumer products. Comput Ind Eng 56(1):224–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon B, Kim S, Rhee J (2012) An evaluation method for designing a new product–service system. Expert Syst Appl 39(3):3100–3108

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through a grant funded by the Korean Government (MEST) (Grant 2010-0027527) and by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) through a grant funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (Grant NRF-2014R1A2A2A03003387). The authors sincerely thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their helpful and insightful comments and suggestions that have resulted in a much improved version of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology, San 31, Hyoja-dong, Nam-gu, Pohang, Gyung-buk, 790-784, Republic of Korea

    Kwang-Jae Kim, Chie-Hyeon Lim & Jun-Yeon Heo

  2. Department of Applied Systems, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 426-791, Republic of Korea

    Dong-Hee Lee

  3. Division of Industrial Engineering, Seoul National University, 599 Gwanagno, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 151-742, Republic of Korea

    Yoo-Suk Hong

  4. Korea University Business School (KUBS), Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 136-701, Republic of Korea

    Kwangtae Park

Authors
  1. Kwang-Jae Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chie-Hyeon Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jun-Yeon Heo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dong-Hee Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yoo-Suk Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kwangtae Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kwang-Jae Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, KJ., Lim, CH., Heo, JY. et al. An evaluation scheme for product–service system models: development of evaluation criteria and case studies. Serv Bus 10, 507–530 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-015-0280-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-015-0280-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation