5 Discussion and conclusions 69
5.5 Suggestions for future research
The goal of the thesis was to present a concept that could be used to understand the elements of the SCPSS and its impact on PLM, business models and ecosystems which it did achieve. However, these are high-level concepts and need to be tested out in practise.
Future research should continue to verify these concepts presented in this thesis, and especially the unified SCPSS concept should be verified across different industries and manufacturing companies. Each of the individual concepts should be defined to the next levels and the results should be used to validate the concept and unified concept. Each area should continue with research questions that also integrates the models further together. The sustainability elements that the SCPSS creates in a business ecosystem should be investigated to define what are the element that improve economic, environmental and social sustainability and value in the ecosystems.
The business model research should continue to deepen the understanding how the business models behave, evolve and adapt in an ecosystem over time when disruptions
5.5 Suggestions for future research 83
are caused by external factors or changes in strategic goals. The second area that should be further researched is the dependency of the business model elements that must be aligned between the different ecosystem actors for the ecosystem to operate in the most efficient way. The SCPSS changes the inner setup of the business model and the value proposition that must be understood at deeper level and the changes should be added to be the SCPSS driven Business Models. The behaviour of the business model over time and how this is impacted by the SCPSS that require flexibility to change areas that has a proposed concept, but a detailed research activity into this area is needed to uncover the areas that break the concept. The real-time simulation capability is one of the elements in the SCPSS and the possibilities to apply this to business model research and development should investigated and this simulation should investigate the possibilities to use artificial intelligence.
The 9 elements of the SCPSS should be defined in more detail and the integrations between these elements. The role of the Source System Element to operate as the gateway to create system of system concept create bigger SCPSS-of-SCPSS is an interesting opportunity that is not clear at the moment. Currently, it provides external data to the SCPSS, but the SCPSS could transmit data to these domains. The role of the physical PSS and PSS Cloud to house artificial intelligence should be clarified further and the role and independence of the physical elements to operate should be understood further in the context of the operations and service life, for example, can system independently decide and call for a service. The Digital Twin and the Digital Thread elements are still high-level concepts and their role and scope in the SCPSS needs to be further clarified and how the Digital Twin and Thread can autonomously collect data and take decision to modify the behaviour of the system or release a new digital capability. This role of real-time simulations and machine learning to optimise the behaviour or the Physical PSS and the PSS Cloud need further clarification. Also, the limitations of current machine learning should be further studied in the context of the Digital Twin using multibody simulation where the simulation is run faster than real-time, and AI can make the decision to modify the behaviour or capabilities of the different elements of the SCPSS. The modification of the behaviour can be the change of process or mission parameters done independently or approved by the user.
The PLM concept proposed should be detailed at its elemental level to understand how the information is structured and managed over the lifecycle. The role of PLM to manage complete SCPSS is faces multiple challenges on the way haw the different data objects are defined and how they are managed independently and with one another. If the Digital Twin and the Digital Thread are to use both simulation models, machine learning and AI as it develops, the definition of these objects is critical to understand. Currently the reuse of these structures is cumbersome, and they require a definition and lifecycle management model. A limitation in implementing this SCPSS driven PLM model is the support of the existing business IS systems where to needs are scattered over several systems where the capability to support the different SCPSS data is unclear. In addition, the traditional manufacturing processes and structures are focused on supporting the physical product
5 Discussion and conclusions 84
and how it managed the other domains is fragmented. The same situation also exists in the sales phases how the SCPSS is sold.
The focus has been on the how the Manufacturer views the SCPSS and the ecosystem that should also be aligned to the customer and user views of the SCPSS. The viewpoint should be studied to understand how the customer and user see the SCPSS. Is it a
“physical system” or is it a service that they are using that impacts the busines model and the value proportion of the SCPSS?
References
Aarikka-Stenroos, L. & Ritala, P., 2017. Network management in the era of
ecosystems: Systematic review and management framework. Industrial Marketing Management, Volume 67, pp. 23-36.
Almqvuist, E., Cleghorn, J., Sherer L., 2018. The B2B Elements of Value, How to measure and deliver what busienss customer want. Harvard Busienss Review, March-April, pp. 74-81.
Baines, T. et al., 2007. State-of-the-art in product service-systems, Journal Engineering Manufacture, 221 (Part B), pp. 1-8.
Balslev, H., 2010. A Guide to Reference Desginations, Preparation of TAG Numbers, Letter Codes. Modulirization and Interfaces between Systems. 1 ed.
Charlottenlund: Danish Standards Foundation.
Basirati, M., Weking, J., Hermes, S., Böhm, M., Kremar, H., 2019. IoT as PSS Enabler: Exploring Opportunities for Conceptualization and Implementation., Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1-14.
Bayazit, N., 2004. Investigating desgin: A review of forty years of design research.
Design Issue, Volume 1, pp. 16-29.
Biege, S., Lay, G. & Buschak, D., 2012. Mapping service processes in manufacturing companies: Industrial service blueprintin. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 32(8), pp. 932-957.
Bieger, T. & Reinhold, S., 2011. Das Werbasierte Geschäftsmodel: Ein aktualisienter Structurierungssansatz. In: T. Bieger & C. Krys, eds. Innovative Geschäftsmodelle.
Berlin: Springer, pp. 14-70.
Bilello, P., 2017. The Digital Twin Has Landed Mevea Seminar. 2017 Mevea Conference, Helsinki, CIM Data, pp. 1-31.
Björkdahl, J., 2009. Technology cross-fertilisationand the business model: the case of intgrating ICTs in mecanhnical engineering products, Res Policy 38, pp. 1468-1477.
Brandstotter, M. ym., 2003. IT on demand – towards an environmental conscious service system for Vienna (AT). Third International Symposium on
Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing – EcoDesign’03, pp. 799-802.
Cagdas, V. & Stubkjaer, E., 2011. Design research for cadastral systems. Computers, Environment, and Urbad Systems, 35(1), pp. 77-87.
Carlson, C.R. & Wilmot, W.W., 2006. Innovation: The five disciplines for creating what customers want, SRI International, Crown Business, pp. 1-346.
Chavali, A., Wheless, J. & Jackson, L., 2017. The Digital Thread imperative: A global survey of communications, media and high tech, and A&D company senior executives in North America, Europe and Asia Pacific, Accentrure Consulting, pp.
1-5.
Chesbrough, H., 2010. Business Model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, Volume 43, pp. 354-363.
Christensen, C. M., Bartman, T. & van Bever, D., 2016. The hard truth about Business Model innovation. MITSloan Management Review, 58(1), pp. 30-40.
de Jalon, G. & Bayo, E., 1994. Kinematic and Dynamic Simulation of Multibody Systems: The Real Time Challenge, Springer-Verlag, pp. 346.
Department of Defense Chief Information Officer, October 2011. Configuration Management Plan for The DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) and DoDAF Meta Model (DM2). Version 1.0.3 ed. s.l.:Department of Defence (DoD).
Donoghue, I., Hannola, L. & Mikkola, A., 2018. The Benefits and Impact of Digital Twins in Product Development Phase of PLM, Springer, pp. 1-6.
Donoghue, I., Hannola, L. & Mikkola, A., 2019. The value of digital Twins and IoT based services in creating lifecycle value in B2B manufacturing companies.
PICMET.
Donoghue, I., Hannola, L. & Saaksvuori, A., 2021. The Role of the Digital Twins to Increase Digitally Extended Product-Service-Systems. In: Creating Value with Sustainable Production on Real-time Simulation, Macmillan.
Dresch, A., Lacerda Pachero, D., Valle Antures. A. J., 2015. Design Science Research, A Method for Science and Technology Advancement. New York:
Sringer Intranational Publishing.
EIA, 2019. Configuration Management Standard , SAE International, pp. 1-72.
https://doi.org/10.4271/EIA649C.
El Sawy, O. & Pereira, F., 2013. Business Modelling in the Dynamic Digital Space – An Ecosystem Approach. Volume Foundation, CIGREF.
Fourgeau, E., Gomez, E. & Hagege, M., 2016. Managing the Embedded Systems Development Process with Product LifeCycle Management, Springer International Publishing Switzerland, pp. 147-158.
Frow, P. et al., 2014. Value proposition: A service ecosystems perspective. Marketing Theory, 14(3), pp. 327-351.
Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K. & Csik, M., 2014. The Business Models Navigator - 55 Business models that will revolutionise your business. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Goedkoop, M., van Halen, C., te Riele, H. & Rommens, P., 1999. Product Service-Systems, ecological and economic basics, Dutch Ministries of Environment.
Gould, L. S., 2018. What are Digital Twins and Digital Threads?. Automotive Design
& Production, February, pp. 1-5.
Graca, P. & Camarinha-Matos, L., 2017. Performance indicators for collaborative business ecosystems – Literature review and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 116, pp. 237-255.
Grieves, M., 2006. Product Lifecycle Management: Driving the Next Generation of Lean Thinking,. New York(New York): McGraw-Hill.
Grieves, M., 2019. Virtually Intelligent Product Systems: Digital and Physical Twins.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. 256, pp. 175-200.
Grönroos, C., 1997. Value-driven relationship marketing: From products to resources and competencies. Journal of Marketing Management, 13(5), pp. 407-419.
Gupta, S., Meissonier, R., Drave, V. A. & Roubaud, D., 2020. Examining the impact of cloud ERP on sustainable performance: A dynamic capability view.
International Journal of Information Management, 51(102028), pp. 1-13.
Hevner, A., 2007. A Three cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19 (2), pp. 87-92.
Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J. & Ram, S., 2004. Design science research in
information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly, March , 28(1), pp. 75-105.
Hirsjärvi, S. & Hurme, H., 2004. Theme interview - the theory and pratice of theme interview. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.
Horváth, L., 2017. New Method for Enhanced Driving of Entity Generation in RFLP Structured Product Model. 201712th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA). pp. 541-546.
Kim, J., 2016. The platform business model and business ecosystem: quality management and revenue structures. European Planning Studies, 24 (12), pp.
2113-2132.
Kiritsis, D., Nguyen, V. & Stark, J., 2008. How closed-loop PLM improves Knowledge Management over the complete product lifecycle and enables the factory of the future. International Journal of Product Lifecyle Management, 3(1), pp. 55-77.
Kohtamäki, P., Baines, T., Rabetino, R. & Digdeli, A., 2018. Practices and Tools for Servitisation - Managing Service Transition. Cham: Palmgrave Macmillan.
Kosch, T. & Windsperger, J., 2017. Seeing through the network: Competitive advantage in the digital economy. Journal of Organization Design, 6(6), pp. 1-30.
Leiva, C., 2016. Demystifying the Digital Thread and Digital Twin concepts. Industry Week, 1 August, pp. 1 - 3.
Markides, C. & Sosa, L., 2013. Pioneering and first mover advantage: The
importance of Business Models. Long Range Planning, Volume 46, pp. 325-334.
Massa, L., Tucci, C. & Afuah, A., 2017. A Critical Assessment of Business Model Research. Academy of Management Annals, Volume 11, pp. 73–104.
Michelini, L. & Fiorentino, D., 2012. New business model for creating shared value.
Social Responsibility Journal, 8(4), pp. 561 – 577.
Mikkola, A. et al., 2014. LUT Research Platform on Sustainable Product Processes Through Community-Based Real-Time Simulation, Lappeenranta.
Mont, O., 2006. PSS – a review of achievements and refining the research agenda..
Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(17).
Moore, J., 2013. Shared purpose: A thousand business ecosystems, a worldwide connected community, and the future. [Online]
Available at: https://www.arm.com/files/pdf/Shared_Purpose.pdf
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., Allen, A., 2005. The entrepreneurs’ business model:
toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research, Volume 58, pp. 726 - 735.
NASA, 2007. NASA System Engineering Handbook. Washington(D.C.): NASA Headquarters.
Nasiri, M., Rantala, T., Saunila, M., Ukka, J., Rantanen, H., 2018. Transition towards Sustainable Solutions: Product, Service, Technology, and Business Model.
Sustainability, 10(358), pp. 1-18.
Osterwalder, A. & Pigneur, Y., 2010. Business Model Generation – A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Osterwalder, A., 2004. The Business Models Ontology - A Proposition in Desing Science Approach, Lausanne: University de l'University de Lausanne.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G. & Smith, A., 2014. Value Proposition Design. Hoboken(New Jersey): John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Patton, M., Q.,; 2015, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, Fourth Edition, Sage Publication Inc., California.
Papinniemi, J., Fritz, J., Hannola, L., Denger, A., Lampela, H. 2014. Lifecycle-Based Requirements of Product-Service System in Customer-Centric Manufacturing. s.l., IFIP International Federation for Information Processesing, p. 435–444.
Papinniemi, P., Hannola, L., Maletz, M., 2014. Challenges in integrating requirements management with PLM. International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52(No. 15), p. 4412–4423.
Peltola, T., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Viana, E. & Mäkinen, S., 2016. Value capture in business ecosystems for municipal solid waste management: Comparison between two local environments. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 137, pp. 1270-1279.
Polaine, A., Lovlie, L. & Reason, B., 2013. Service Design – From Insight to Implementation, Rosenfeld, Brooklyn, New York.
Porter, M. & Heppelmann, J., 2014. How Smart, Connected Products are transforming competition. Harvards Business Review, November, pp. 64-88.
Porter, M. & Heppelmann, J., 2015. How Smart, Connected Products are transforming companies. Harvard Business Review, October, pp. 97-114.
Porter, M. & Kramer, M., 2011. Creating Shared Value. Harvard Busienss Review, 89(1/2), pp. 62-67.
Pynnönen, M., Ritala, P. & Hallikas, J., 2011. The new meaning of customer value: a systemic perspective. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(2), pp. 51-57.
Rong, K., Yong, L., Yongjiang, S. & Jiang, Y., 2013. Linking business ecosystem lifecycle with platform strategy: a triple view of technology, application and organisation. International Journal of Technology Management (IJTM), 62(1), pp.
75 - 94.
Roy, R., 2000. Sustainable Product-Service Systems. Futures, Volume 32, pp. 289-299.
Rysman, M., 2009. The economics of two-sided markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3), pp. 125-143.
Saldana, J., 2016, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Sage Publications Inc., London.
Schulte, S., 2007. Customer centric PLM - Integrating customers’ feedback into product data and lifecycle processes. PLM: Assessing the industrial relevance, pp.
31-42.
Siller, H. et al., 2008. Modeling workflow activities for collaborative process planning with product lifecycle management tools. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 19(6), pp. 689-700.
Stark, J., 2006. Product Lifecycle Management – 21st Century Paradigm for Product Realisations, Springer-Verlag London Limited.
Stark, J., 2018.. Product Lifecycle Management: The Executive Summary. Springer International Publishing AG.
Sun, J., Wu, S. & Yang, K., 2018. An ecosystemic framework for business sustainability. Business Horizons, Volume 61, pp. 59-72.
Sääksvuori, A., 2011. PLM Vision 2016 and Beyond, Helsinki: Sirrus Publishing.
Tas, J. & Weinelt, B., March 2017. Digital Transformation Initiative: Unlocking B2B Platform Value, Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Teece, D., 2010, Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation, Long Range Planning, Vol.43, pp. 172 – 194, Elsevier Ltd.
Terzi, S. et al., 2010. Product lifecycle management – from its history to its new role.
International Journal Product Lifecycle Management, 4(4), pp. 360-389.
Tiwana, A., 2010. Platform Evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information System Research, 21(4), pp. 675-687.
Tomovic, C., Ncube, L., Walton, A. & Grieves, M., 2010. Development of Product Lifecycle Management metrics: Measuring the impact of PLM. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 19(3/4), pp. 167-179.
Tukker, A. & Tischner, U., 2006. Product-services as a research field: past, present and future. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 14, pp. 1552-1556.
Tukker, A., 2004. Eight Types if Product-Service Systems: Eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SysProNet. Business Strategy and the Environment, Volume 13, pp. 246–260.
Ulaga, W. & Chacour, S., 2001. Measuring customer-perceived value in business markets. Industrial Marketing Management, Volume 30, pp. 525-540.
Valkokari, K. et al., 2014. Ecosystems and swarm intelligence of networks. Agenda for future networked business. VTT Publications 152.
van Aken, J., 2004. Management research based on the paradigm of design sciences:
The quest for firld-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies , 41(2), pp. 219-246.
van Aken, J., 2005. Management researchas a design science: Articulating the research products of mode 2 knowledge production management. British Journeal of Management, 16(1), pp. 19-36.
Van Ostaeyen, J., Van Horebrook, A., Pinetelon, L. & Duflou, J., 2013. A refined typology of producteservice systems based on functional hierarchy modeling.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, pp. 261-276.
Werani, T., Freiseisen, B. & Martinek-Kuchinka, P., 2016. How should successful business models be configured? Results from an empirical study in business-to-business markets and implications for change of business-to-business models. Journal of Business Economy, Volume 86, p. 579 – 609.
Woodruff, R., 1997. Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage.
Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), pp. 139-153.
Xin, Y., Ojanen, V. & Huiskonen, J., 2017. Empirical studies on Product-Service Systems – A systematic literature review. Procedia CIRP, Volume 64 (2017), pp.
399-404.
Zeithaml, V., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), pp. 2-22.
Zott, C. & Amit, R., 2010. Business Model design: An activity system perspective.
Long Range Plan, Volume 43, pp. 216-226.
Publication I
Donoghue, I., Hannola, L., and Papinniemi, J.
Product Lifecycle Management framework for business transformation Reprinted with permission from
LogForum Scientific Journal of Logistics Vol. 14 (3), pp. 293 - 303, 2018
© 2018, DEStech Publications, Inc.
Copyright: Wyższa Szkoła Logistyki, Poznań, Polska
Citation: Donoghue I.D.M., Lea T. Hannola L.T., Papinniemi J.J., 2018. Product lifecycle management framework for business transformation. LogForum 14 (3), 293-303, http://dx.doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2018.264
Received: 02.11.17, Accepted: 10.03.2018, on-line: 28.06.2018.
LogForum
> Scientific Journal of Logistics <
http://www.logforum.net p-ISSN 1895-2038
2018, 14 (3), 293-303
http://dx.doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2018.264
e-ISSN 1734-459X ORIGINAL PAPER
PRODUCT LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION
Ilkka D.M. Donoghue, Lea T. Hannola, Jorma J. Papinniemi
School of Business and Management, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland
ABSTRACT. Background: The role of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) in business change varies in scope and impact. PLM initiatives range from Information System (IS) change to strategic business transformation, and capabilities to implement PLM successfully are unclear. The paper identifies a PLM framework for transition and related variables.
Understanding these variables influence successful PLM transformation.
Methods: The methods used in this paper include a literature review on existing frameworks available for PLM initiatives. This paper is based on a PLM case study done between 2011 – 2015, when the company’s strategy transformed it from an engineering company to a product and service company.
Results: The results show that strategy-driven PLM transformation impacting a company on many levels, and PLM focusing on IS-driven process harmonisation fails due to limited knowledge of the business models, products and services.
Conclusions: The conclusions are that PLM is at the core of business transformation and cross-functional impacting products, services and customers.
Key words: product lifecycle management, product management, enterprise architecture, business model, business strategy.
A part of this study was presented as oral presentation at the "24th International Conference on Production Research (ICPR 2017)" in Poznan, Poland from July 30 to August 3, 20017.
INTRODUCTION
PLM is a key initiative for many companies, but the methods used and results obtained from PLM initiatives are conflicting.
The promised value of PLM initiatives is not always realized or even evident after PLM implementation. Due to the rapid pace of digitalization and the emerging service economy, PLM is under pressure to deliver on its promise and go even further in the future [Sääksvuori 2016].
This paper focuses on research and models that can be applied to the manufacturing industry, where the character of the business is
complex solution deliveries that require deep technology and engineering capabilities. This low-volume, high-mix solution is typical for many European manufacturing companies. The challenges that these engineering technology companies face when implementing PLM are dependent on the product, service and PLM maturity level. The business characteristics are often project-driven Engineering, Procurement and Construct (EPC) solution deliveries. This paper looks at how the case company applied and implemented PLM to transform to a product-service company.
For a PLM transformation to succeed, it is important to understand the different areas that must be taken into consideration before and during the PLM initiative. Existing PLM
,
Donoghue I.D.M., Lea T. Hannola L.T., Papinniemi J.J., 2018. Product lifecycle management framework for business transformation. LogForum 14 (3), 293-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2018.264
294 research is reviewed in the context of the case company’s industry logic and PLM implementation requirements. The approaches that are of interest are those that can be used or applied to an engineering technology company that is transforming to a product-service driven company. The literature review answers the following questions:
− what PLM maturity models exist that can be used to understand the current state and
− what PLM maturity models exist that can be used to understand the current state and