Content uploaded by Nicola Morelli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nicola Morelli on Apr 05, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Developing new product service systems (PSS): methodologies
and operational tools
Nicola Morelli
*
School of Architecture and Design, Aalborg University, Østera˚ gade 6, Aalborg 9000, Denmark
Accepted 30 January 2006
Abstract
The co-evolution of industrial production and social patterns calls for systemic solutions that can only be provided by partnerships between
companies and other stakeholders, including final users. Such partnerships are defined as Solution Oriented Partnerships (or SOP). Product Ser-
vice Systems (PSS) are the catalyser of such solutions. The capability of PSS to become an attractive solution depends on factors that are com-
monly considered to belong to the design domain. The role of designers is therefore essential to the definition of effective and attractive PSS.
Designers are now urged to find their own methodological approach to the design of PSS. This paper addresses this need by proposing methods
to define a map of the actors involved in PSS, methods to define requirements and structure of a PSS and methods to represent and blueprint
a PSS.
! 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Solution oriented partnership; Product service systems design methodology; Representation of Product service systems
1. Introduction
Industrial production is evolving towards models that
more adequately address an epochal shift from mass con-
sumption to individual behaviours and highl y personalised
needs. Such an evolution is often facilitated by rethinking
the industrial offering, from the production of goods to
the provision of systemic solutions consisting of products
and services.
This shift has widely been recognised in the management
and marketing disciplines, and is now becoming part of the
wider horizon of the design discipline.
The role of designers in this shift is indeed very relevant, as
many systemic solutions are only possible when different ac-
tors (companies, institutions and final users) join their effort
to solve common problems and achieve common goals. Within
the Suspronet network, the partnerships created by the conver-
gence of different stakehol ders for the generation of the
solution have been defined as Solution Orien ted Partnership.
1
The glue of such partnership is attractive design solutions based
on a mix of material and immaterial components, which satisfy
the requirements of each of the stakeholder. Such solutions are
commonly described as Product Service Systems (PSS).
The role of designers in such partnership is therefore criti-
cal, although the definition of specific methodologies to man-
age some critical aspects of the design process of PSS has
rarely been considered in design-related disciplines.
2
* Tel.: þ45 9635 9928; fax þ 45 9813 6107.
E-mail address: nmor@aod.aau.dk
1
The concept of SOP has been widely discussed in several conferences
organised by Suspronet, a network of industries and institutions, focusing on
the design of products and service for a sustainable and competitor growth.
For a clearer understanding of characteristics and potential of SOP see the con-
tribution of Jegou et al. to the most recent Suspronet conference [1].
2
It is worth stressing the difference between a methodology and a method.A
methodology defines an operative paradigm, i.e. a ‘‘toolbox’’ including
several different methods and tools that can be used to solve determined
logical or operational problems [2]. PSSs represent a very wide area of inter-
vention for a designer. The definition of a standard set of methods and tools to
use to design PSSs is therefore impossible. However, designers should
consider creating their own toolbox including methods and tools to be used
in different contexts and for different PSS.
0959-6526/$ - see front matter ! 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.01.023
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Cleaner Production xx (2006) 1e7
www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
+ MODEL
Several contributions from marketing and management dis-
ciplines [3e8] are a good starting point for such a definition;
however, the innovation pote ntial of PSS requires an accurate
design process, which consider product design issues, as well
as communicational, social and economic aspects.
A PSS is a social construction, based on ‘‘attraction forces’’
(such as goals, expected results and problem-solving criteria)
which catalyse the participation of several partners. A PSS
is the result of a value co-production
3
process within such
a partnership. Its effectiveness is based on a shared vision of
possible and desirab le scenarios.
The design activity within this process should therefore fo-
cus on the catalysing factors that generate cohesion, which
means that designers should have tools to:
" Work on the identification of the actors in the network, on
the basis of defined analytical frameworks.
" Work on possible PSS scenarios, verifying use cases, se-
quences of actions and actors’ role; defining the require-
ments for a PSS and the logical and organisational
structure of PSS.
" Work on possible representation and management tools to
represent a PSS in all its components, i.e. physical ele-
ments, logical links and temporal sequences.
The following sections will refer to several research expe-
riences in cooperative research works and in academic curric-
ula, developed by the author in cooperation with different
research and teaching teams.
Tools and methods discussed in this paper are not new; they
are commonly used in other disciplines. The contribution of
this paper, however, consists in the application of such tools
in design exercises developed within cooperative research
projects and in academic curricula,
4
with the aim of verifying
them and generating a methodology for the design process of
a PSS.
2. Identifying the actors network
Industrial products and services are not only a technical en-
tity, but also the result of a socio-technical process. Innovation
process and the trajectory of such a process are strongly influ-
enced by the actors who directly or indirectly participate to
them [11,12]. This means that the design activity should be
based on the convergence between several social and techno-
logical factors, including:
" the technological knowledge embedded in the artefacts
used for the service; and
" the social, technological and cultural frames of the actors
participating in or influencing the development of the
system.
The combination of such a heterogeneous mix of elements
(people þ cultural frames þ technological artefacts) suggests
that the designer has the function of linking technological
artefacts to the attitudes of relevant social groups in order to
accept or reject certain products and technologies.
Technological artefacts and infrastructures often reveal the
strong influence of the socio-technical culture of their
designers/developers. Their cultural frames are intelligible
through the physical and technological characteristics of the
artefacts. This is very relevant to the development of a PSS:
severe limitations to the development of certain characteristics
of PSS emerge when such characteristics are beyond the socio-
technical horizon of the developers of the technological infra-
structure. Such limitations are even more evident when the
PSS is based on high levels of automa tion.
Within the Telecentra project,
5
for instance, the design
team encountered severe limitations in the use of remote
file exchange and sharing, due to the internet settings in
each physical location and to several firewall systems.
The communication system was mainly designed having
in mind several (justified) security issues. At the time of
the development of the project, though, the needs of no-
madic workers to access and communicate through the In-
ternet often transcended such security requirements. This
eventuated in a critical limitation in the design of PSS for
this category of workers.
Relevant social groups, according to Bijker et al. [11] are
not only those groups that actively participate to the develop-
ment of the product-service system, but also those groups and
actors that indirectly participate in such a process or even
those actors that may oppose to the PSS. Such a perspective
helps defining a complex picture of the scenario in which
the PSS is supposed to be developed.
Within the TeleCentra project, for example, the develop-
ment of a neighbourhood centre in a school was strongly
influenced by the needs of school personnel that was not
participating in the project and sometimes was not even
aware of the presence of the centre in the school.
In order to facilitate the analysis of relevant social groups,
Bijker [12] provides a set of refere nce p arameters each group
refers to when shaping innovative solutions (Table 1). Bijker’s
3
The concept of value co-production in service activity has been introduced
by [9,10].
4
This paper mainly refers to the TeleCentra project, coordinated by the au-
thor within the framework of a cooperative research project between RMIT
University and some Australian companies and to some projects developed
as part of the teaching activities on system design at the School of Architecture
and Design at Aalborg University.
5
The TeleCentra project consisted in the design of a PSS for nomadic office
workers, i.e. for people who spend the major part of their working time far
from their office. The project was articulated in three subprojects: the devel-
opment of a neighbourhood centre, the development of a physical office and
the development of a virtual office. While the neighbourhood centre was de-
veloped for a school, the physical office and the virtual office were developed
to the pre-commercial phase with two different companies. The neighbour-
hood centre and the physical office had a test run (for the physical office users
were also required to pay a small fee for accessing the service).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 N. Morelli / Journal of Cleaner Production xx (2006) 1e7
+ MODEL
parameters can be used to generate different profiles of the
possible users of a service.
On the basis of such profiles it is possible to generate inter-
action maps between the actors in the system, such maps may
focus on the layers of interaction (Fig. 1) or on interaction sce-
narios (as in Figs. 2e4 ).
The map in Fig. 1 emphasises direct and indirect relation-
ships between the actors in the system, it also points out the
dependence of the system from infrastructural conditions,
some of which conce rn high decisional levels and cannot be
changed in any way. The design process in this case should
consider such conditions as external to the system and focus
on design solutions that fit in such external conditions.
The maps in Figs. 2e4 focus instead on the interaction be-
tween social groups, emphasising each group’s involvement in
the system. This kind of representation can also be used in de-
sign phases, in order to figure out the interaction between dif-
ferent social groups according to different organisational and
social scenarios.
Further specification of interaction maps in the design
phase of PSS may lead to a broad definition of the PSS
blueprint as in the work reported by Jegou et al. on the
HiCS project [1].
3. Envisioning the PSS: scenarios and use cases
The existing tools and methods available to the designers
are very adequate to control a product-focused design process,
where the major part of the factors concurring to the process
can be objectively defined. The design of a PSS, instead, falls
in a different domain. The design process in this case focuses
on systemic aspects and is based on the assumption that its fi-
nal result is co-produced by a network of social actors.
The design discipli ne has no methodologies to operate in
such domains. While the development of the physical features
of a product is based on an exploration of dimensional, aes-
thetical technological and mechanical characteristics of the
product, the service components in PSS introdu ce new vari-
ables. The new variable includes the time dimension, the di-
mension of the interaction between people, and other hidden
dimensions related to cultural mind frames and social habits.
Some tools and methods are available in other disciplines,
which would help managing the complexity of the design
process.
A helpful tool that may support a systemic approach to the
design of PSS is IDEF0 (Integration definition for function
modelling). This tool, mostly used by system engineers, may
help covering areas of the design process characterised by
a complex systemic structure. IDEF0 is a modelling technique
that allows for progressive detailing of the functions and ac-
tions in the system, while keeping the link between each ele-
ment in the system. The system is modelled as a series of
boxes, representing a function of the system. Arrows entering
the left side of the box are inputs. Inputs are transformed or
consumed by the function to produce outputs. Arrows entering
the box on the top are ‘‘controls’’ that specify the conditions
required for the function to produce correct outputs. Arrows
leaving a box on the right side are outputs, i.e. the data or
objects produced by the function. Arrows connected to the
bottom side of the box represent mechanisms, i.e. means
Table 1
Framework of criteria for the analysis and individuation of relevant social groups [5]
Goals The needs each group wants to satisfy in relation to specific activities
Key problems The problems perceived to be relevant in relation to specific activities
Problem-solving strategies The strategies considered admissible and effective in solving the main problems
Requirements to be met by problem-solving
strategies
Admissibility and effectiveness criteria for problem-solving strategies
Current theories Theoretical knowledge supporting the activity of each group in setting goals,
identifying and selecting problems and proposing admissible problem-solving strategies
Tacit knowledge Practice based knowledge upon which each group relies to set goals, identify and select problems
and propose admissible problem-solving strategies
Testing procedures Procedures used to evaluate the effectiveness of each problem-solving strategy
Design methods and criteria Methods and parameters used for proposing technological solutions to emerging needs
Users’ practice Users’ attitudes towards existing solutions to the present needs
Perceived substitution function Products, services or sets of functionalities each group believes to be replaced by the proposed PSS
Exemplary artefacts Products and services that are used as models in developing new solutions. Often deriving
from the perceived substitution function
Fig. 1. Map of interaction in a PSS. Source: TeleCentra project.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
3N. Morelli / Journal of Cleaner Production xx (2006) 1e7
+ MODEL
that support the execution of the function or links between
models or portions of the same model.
Each of those boxes can be decomposed in a hierarchy
of sub-boxes, which can be analysed with the same logic
(Fig. 5).
This tool provides an accurate representation of logical,
time related and physical connections between various phases
and components of the system, with the possibility of recom-
posing the systemic view in any moment, by referring to the
boxes in the highest order of the hierarchy.
Fig. 2. Interaction map for a shared bicycle trailer system, System concept 1. The service is offered by bicycle shops. The map describes the nature of participation
of all the actors in the system. Source: ‘‘My Way’’, project for the 7th-semester ID at Aalborg University.
Fig. 3. ‘‘My Way’’, System concept 2. The service is provided by shopping centres.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 N. Morelli / Journal of Cleaner Production xx (2006) 1e7
+ MODEL
IDEF0 is obviously covering a part of the methodological
problems related to the systemic nature of PSS. This tool is
very adequate in systems with a higher grade of predictability.
A higher grade of subjectivity (e.g. variation of actor’s behav-
iours) and unpredictability (e.g. variation of contextual condi-
tions) may bring about an infinite number of configurations
and situations this technique cannot cover.
IDEF0 has been used and tested in several projects by
industrial design students at Aalborg University. The tool
proved to be very helpful in representing production sys-
tems with limited ranges of users’ choices (e.g. a function
in a hospital, an information service for train travellers),
but too complex to manage, when dealing with PSS charac-
terised by a wide range of possible users choices. (e.g. a toy
library, a car-sharing system).
A more complete methodo logical picture can be outlined
when IDEF0 is used together with other techniques such as
scenarios and use cases. They are used in information tech-
nology to develop the architecture of information systems
[13,14]. The use of such techniques in design discipline
would help eliciting requireme nts for the PSS, but also
would provide a broad picture of the PSS configuration,
which can be eventually defined with other systemic
techniques.
The development of scenarios is based on the actors’ pro-
files and on the possibility that different actors are involved
in different configurations of the PSS. Each scenario is com-
posed by a number of descriptions of events (use cases) that
describe the details of sequence of action for each function in-
cluded in a scenario.
Once d efined through scenarios and use cases, a PSS
needs to be thoroughly explored, in order to understand
all the phases in which the designer’s intervention is
needed.
The requirements emerging from use cases can be accu-
rately analysed and decomposed, in order to work out the na-
ture of the design task, by doing this it is possible to
understand which product and service component are need
for each requirement (Fig. 6).
Fig. 4. ‘‘My Way’’, System concept 3. The service is promoted by the local government.
A0
1
2
3
4
A0
Fig. 5. A schematic representation of the modelling logic used in IDEF0.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
5N. Morelli / Journal of Cleaner Production xx (2006) 1e7
+ MODEL
4. Representing the structure of PSS towards
a blueprinting technique
The graphical representation of a product is an important
component of the design activity and is critical in a context
of industrial production; a product blueprint makes it possible
to reproduce the product according to the designer’s intention.
The design discipline, however, has never developed graphical
tools for PSS to a standard comparable to the blueprinting
techniques in product design.
The relevance of a graphic representation of a PSS is even
clearer when considering the catalysing role of PSS in SOP. In
such a context the communication of characteristics of the
structure of PSS is fundamental for a common understanding
of the nature of the design solution.
The graphical representation of PSS is the topic of an ongo-
ing debate, with several interesting contributions, but no final
solution about the definition of a standard for blueprinting
PSS.
A solid ground for the development of a blueprint of PSS
can be represented by the techniques proposed in the previous
sections, some of which (e.g. IDEF0) are intrinsically based on
graphic notations.
Graphic notations are also used in information technology
to illustrate use cases. The diagrammatic representation used
in information science, however is not sufficient to represent
all the elements involved in the design of a PSS. While infor-
mation science focus es on logical and relational factors, the
design discipline also considers any element that influences
the perceived quality of a PSS, including space, time, move-
ment and physical layout. A more complete graphical descrip-
tion may take into account Shostack’s [7] suggestions for
service blueprinting, which includes indications of what hap-
pen beyond the line of visibility that separates front office
from back office. Further developments of this technical repre-
sentation have been proposed by the author of this paper, as
shown in Fig. 7 [15,16]. The figure includes information about
physical and virtual spaces, front and back office, characteris-
tics of the agents (i.e. whether an action is performed by a per-
son or a machine), space and movement.
Graphical representations based on use cases provide a de-
tailed description of the PSS to be designed and may be com-
pared with technical detailing in product design. A more
comprehensive representation of the PSS, including the defini-
tion of the main components and the interactions among them
can be provided by project plans, as developed in the HiCS
project.
6
5. Conclusions
Although PSS are fundamental for the development of so-
lution oriented partnerships, and consequently for sustainable
solutions, the design discipline has not yet defined an opera-
tional paradigm, i.e. a set of standard tools and methods, to de-
sign and develop PSS. This paper contributes to close this gap
by proposing methods and tools that have been effectively
used in some previous project. However the methodology
emerging from this paper is far from being complete and com-
monly accepted. This is only the very first step to support
a PSS design process within the context of SOP.
The application of those tools may be different from case to
case. The intrinsic complexity of some PSS requires that such
tools to be used with a high degree of flexibility: ‘‘narrative’’
tools, such as scenarios and use cases should be preferred in
the definition phases, whereas more ‘‘technical’’ tools are pref-
erable for defining the structure of PSS. Furthermore different
working groups may prefer narr ative tools or more technical
Fig. 6. ‘‘Trancity’’: graphic representation of requirements for a use case of a car-sharing system.
6
The methodology developed within the HiCS project has been illustrated
by Francois Jegou, Luisa Collina and Ursula Tirshner in different contributions
for the Suspronet network. The methodology is being published as part of the
final outcome of the project.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 N. Morelli / Journal of Cleaner Production xx (2006) 1e7
+ MODEL
methods according to their approach and the characteristics of
the participants to a SOP.
It is worth emphasising, however, that the discussion about
a methodology to design a PSS is still open and is critical for
the development of sustainable solu tions. A comprehensive
and unique methodological approach is probably impossible
in this area, where the margin of uncertainty about contextual
conditions may be very high. New case studies and further ap-
plications and improvements of the proposed methods, how-
ever may contribute to define a clearer methodo logical
approach to the design of PSS.
References
[1] Je
´
gou F, Manzini E, Meroni A. Solution oriented partnerships as models
of network of advanced industrialisation to build value in specific con-
texts. In: SusProNet Conference ‘‘Product Service Systems: Practical
Value’’. Brussels, Delft, The Netherlands: TNO-STB; 2004.
[2] Arbnor I, Bjerke B. Methodology for creating businesses knowledge. 2nd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA/London: Sage; 1997. xxvi, 548 pp.
[3] Ramaswamy R. Design and management of service processes. In: Engi-
neering process improvement series. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley;
1996. xxvii, 424 pp.
[4] Normann R. Service management: strategy and leadership in service
business. 3rd ed. Chichester/New York: Wiley; 2000. 234 pp.
[5] Eiglier P, Langeard P. Marketing consumer services: new insights. Cam-
bridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute; 1977. 128 pp.
[6] Goedkoop MJ, van Halen CJG, te Riele HRM, Rommens PJM. Product
service systems, ecological and economic basics. The Hague, The Neth-
erlands: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment
Communications Directorate; 1999.
[7] Shostack LG. How to design a service. European Journal of Marketing
1982;16(1):49e63.
[8] Shostack LG. Design services that deliver. Harvard Business Review
1984;(84115):133e9.
[9] Normann R, Ramirez R. Designing interactive strategy. From value chain
to value constellation. New York: Wiley; 1998. 159 pp.
[10] Ramirez R. Value co-production: intellectual origins and implications for
practice and research. Strategic Management Journal 1999;20:49e65.
[11] Bijker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch TJ. The social construction of technolog-
ical systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1987. x, 405 pp.
[12] Bijker WE. Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: toward a theory of socio-
technical change, Inside technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press;
1995. x, 380 pp.
[13] Leffingwell D, Widrig D. Managing software requirements: a unified
approach. In: The Addison-Wesley object technology series. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley; 2000. xxix, 491 pp.
[14] Kulak D, Guiney E. Use cases: requirements in context. New York/
Boston/London: ACM Press, Addison-Wesley; 2000. xvi, 329 pp.
[15] Morelli N. Product-service systems: a perspective shift for designers.
A case study: the design of a telecentre. Design Studies 2003;24(1):
73e99.
[16] Morelli N. The design of product/service systems from a designer’s per-
spective. In: Common Ground. London: Staffordshire University Press;
2002.
Nicola Morelli is associate professor at the school of Architecture and Design
at Aalborg University. Here he is focusing on the development of new meth-
odological approaches for the design of systemic solutions. He previously
worked on several research projects on design strategies for sustainability
based on the development of innovative product-service systems. Among
others, a research project funded by the Australian Research Council on the
design of a Product Service System (PSS). The outcomes of this project
have been published in international conferences and journal.
Fig. 7. Service blueprint including indications on actors, movements and environments. Source: TeleCentra project.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
7N. Morelli / Journal of Cleaner Production xx (2006) 1e7
+ MODEL
