The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Structuring servitization-related research
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to organize and connect past research from different servitization-related scholarly communities. Design/methodology/approach: This study reviews more than 1,000 articles by combining author co-citation and qualitative content analyses. Findings: The structure and boundaries of the field are mapped, and the characteristics of the three identified servitization-related communities are assessed qualitatively. These three communities are product-service systems, solution business, and service science. The findings demonstrate that a narrow range of theories and qualitative methods dominate in existing research. Originality/value: Through the lens of the sociology of science, this review critically evaluates servitization-related research and offers a list of themes that are considered important to the future development of the field. Regarding future research, the main recommendations are as follows: increasing the use of well-established theories from adjacent mature fields, borrowing ideas from different research communities to stimulate knowledge accumulation within and across communities, and reducing the level of description while increasing the number of confirmatory, quantitative, and longitudinal research designs. Finally, the development of formal structures for socialization (e.g. conferences and special issues) could allow the field to achieve a greater degree of scientific maturity and would influence the direction and pace of the development of servitization-related research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036 · Cited by 14,779
Eight types of product–service system: Eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet
Tukker, A. (2004) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.414 · Cited by 2,456
Industrial Product-Service Systems—IPS 2
Meier, H., Roy, R., & Seliger, G. (2010) · CIRP Annals · doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2010.05.004 · Cited by 994
Krasnikov, A., & Jayachandran, S. (2008) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.72.4.001 · Cited by 823
Challenges in transforming manufacturing organisations into product‐service providers
Martinez, V., Bastl, M., Kingston, J., & Evans, S. (2010) · Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management · doi:10.1108/17410381011046571 · Cited by 567
Lindahl, M., Sundin, E., & Sakao, T. (2014) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.047 · Cited by 261
Cited by
Circular business models: a review
Geissdoerfer, M., Pieroni, M. P. P., Pigosso, D. C. A., & Soufani, K. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123741 · Cited by 1,089
Favoretto, C., Mendes, G. H. S., Oliveira, M. G., Cauchick-Miguel, P. A., & Coreynen, W. (2022) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.01.003 · Cited by 219
Metadata
- Authors
- Rabetino, R., Harmsen, W., Kohtamäki, M., & Sihvonen, J.
- Venue
- International Journal of Operations & Production Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2018-02-05
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 350-371
- ISSN
- 0144-3577 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2788560662
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 57.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Structuring servitization-related research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/ijopm-03-2017-0175
- The paper
- Rabetino, R., Harmsen, W., Kohtamäki, M., & Sihvonen, J. (2018). Structuring servitization-related research. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-03-2017-0175
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.