Incorporation of Product/Service System Concept in R&D for Complex Products and Systems

  • Amir Taabodi
  • Tomohiko Sakao
  • Mattias Lindahl


In the field of complex products and systems (CoPS), a provider faces a constant challenge in choosing the most suitable R&D projects and not only to fulfil customer value but also to improve provider value. This chapter presents a method to deal with this challenge using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) as a framework and a design method for the product/service system concept. In the proposed method, customer value and provider value are used as two drivers for R&D project selection. Based on an empirical result, this chapter describes how the proposed procedure systematically supports the company’s R&D project selection.


Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) Product/service system (PSS) R&D project prioritisation 



The authors would like to express special gratitude to the employees of the anonymous company for their active cooperation in the application presented in Sect. 5.


  1. 1.
    Tukker A, Tischner U (2006) New business for Old Europe. Greenleaf Publishing, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sakao T, Lindahl M (2009) Introduction to product/service-system design. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vasantha GVA, Roy R, Lelah A, Brissaud D (2012) A review of product–service systems design methodologies. J Eng Des 23:635–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hobday M (1998) Product complexity, innovation and industrial organisation. Res Policy 26(6):689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sakao T, Birkhofer H, Panshef V, Dörsam E (2009) An effective and efficient method to design services: empirical study for services by an investment-machine manufacturer. Int J Internet Manuf Serv 2:95–110Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oliva R, Kallenberg R (2003) Managing the transition from products to services. Int J Serv Ind Manag 14:160–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghasemzadeh F, Archer NP (2000) Project portfolio selection through decision support. Decis Support Syst 29:73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henriksen AD, Traynor AJ (1999) A practical R&D project-selection scoring tool. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 46:158–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Setijono D, Dahlgaard JJ (2007) Customer value as a key performance indicator (KPI) and a key improvement indicator (KII). Meas Bus Excel 11(2):44–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eggert A, Ulaga W (2002) Customer-perceived value: a substitute for satisfaction in business markets? J Bus Ind Mark 17:107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Windahl C, Andersson P, Berggren C, Nehler C (2004) Manufacturing firms and integrated solutions: characteristics and implications. Eur J Innov Manag 7:218–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alonso-Rasgado T, Thompson G, Elfstrom B (2004) The design of functional (total care) products. J Eng Des 15:515–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aurich JC, Fuchs C, Wagenknecht C (2006) Life cycle oriented design of technical product-service systems. J Clean Prod 14:1480–1494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geum Y, Lee S, Kang D, Park Y (2011) Technology roadmapping for technology-based product–service integration: a case study. J Eng Technol Manag 28(3):128–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olausson D, Magnusson T, Lakemond N (2009) Preserving the link between R&D and manufacturing: exploring challenges related to vertical integration and product/process newness. J Purch Supply Manag 15(2):79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Olausson D, Berggren C (2012) Managing asymmetries in information flows and interaction between R&D, manufacturing, and service in complex product development. R&D Manag 42(4):342–357Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Song XM, Neeley SM, Zhao Y (1996) Managing R&D-marketing integration in the new product development process. Ind Mark Manag 25(6):545–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davies A, Brady T, Hobday M (2007) Organizing for solutions: systems seller vs. systems integrator. Ind Mark Manag 36(2):183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Windahl C, Lakemond N (2010) Integrated solutions from a service-centered perspective: applicability and limitations in the capital goods industry. Ind Mark Manag 39:1278–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kohtamäki M, Partanen J, Möller K (2013) Making a profit with R&D services: the critical role of relational capital. Ind Mark Manag 42(1):71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Verbano C, Nosella A (2010) Addressing R&D investment decisions: a cross analysis of R&D project selection methods. Eur J Innov Manag 13(3):355–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saaty L (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, USAMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liberatore MJ (1987) An extension of the analytic hierarchy process for industrial R&D project selection and resource allocation. IEEE Trans Eng Manag EM-34(1):12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Suh C-K, Suh E-H, Baek K-C (1994) Prioritizing telecommunications technologies for long-range R D planning to the year 2006. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 41(3):264–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Akao Y (1990) Quality function deployment. Productivity Press, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Arai T, Shimomura Y (2004) Proposal of service CAD system: a tool for service engineering. Ann CIRP 53:397–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garver MS (2003) Best practices in identifying customer-driven improvement opportunities. Ind Mark Manag 32:455–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gerdsri N, Kocaoglu DF (2007) Applying the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to build a strategic framework for technology roadmapping. Math Comput Model 46(7–8):1071–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management and EngineeringLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations