Table 4 Configurational analysis of the...

Table 4

Configurational analysis of the research linking the level of servitization and performance impacts. Identified abstract concepts are crossed, and the identified relationships stated in the right column

Source	Servitization level*					Perfor-mance impact*		Indicated relationships *Different text styles are used for improved readability Servitization level – Circle Performance impact – Box Non-financial measures – Empty Financial measures – Filled
	NFSL				FSL	FP	NFP
	SP	MSO	OSC	OS	ST	FP	NFP
Research linking non-financial servitization level indicators
Kim and Toya (2019, H1-3)	○	○						Certain managerial leadership styles have a positive influence on developing servitization
Sousa and da Silveira (2019, H1-4)	○	○	○					Firms competing on product customization through customer orientation can more easily adopt servitization strategies
Research linking non-financial servitization level indicators to non-financial performance impact indicators
Zhang et al. (2017)	○						□	Servitization has an indirect positive impact on operational performance
Santamaría et al. (2012, Figure 1)	○	○					□	Training employees and engaging with customers in technological collaboration positively affects service innovation
Bustinza et al. (2015, Table 3)				○			□	When services are managed by a specialized business unit, customer satisfaction increases. Some form of competitive advantage (differentiation) is achieved when organizations have a dedicated service executive or outsource service provision to a specialized provider
Research linking non-financial servitization level indicators to financial servitization indicators
Szász et al. (2017, H1-4)	○				●			Service portfolio has a positive impact on the share of revenue from service. Economic context has a negative effect on the service portfolio and no effect the share of revenue from service. The service paradox (high servitization - low service return) occurs more frequently in less developed economic contexts
Research linking financial servitization level indicators to non-financial performance impact indicators
Dachs et al. (2014, H4)					●		□	Firm size and service turnover have a U-shaped relation. Servitization is a strong trigger for product innovation and vice-versa
Research linking non-financial servitization level indicators to financial performance impact indicators
Neely (2008, Tables 5–7)	○					■		On average, servitized firms have higher bankruptcy risk and generate lower profits because they have higher internal costs
Benedettini et al. (2015, H2-3)	○					■		Servitized firms have higher bankruptcy risk, due to internal risks. Moreover, different types of service have different risks. Demand-chain service are also subject to environmental risks
Li et al. (2015, Sections 3.3.2-3)	○					■		Service portfolio is positively related with ROE. In addition, service portfolio and profit per capita (PCPbt) have a U-shaped relationship
Valtakoski and Witell (2018, H1-3)			○			■		There is a positive relationship between front-office employee service capability and firm performance. On the other hand, there is a negative relationship between back-office employee service capability and firm performance. Firm age moderates the impact of both capabilities on firm performance
Visnjic et al. (2016, H1-4)	○		○			■		Customer-oriented business models (CO-BM), namely service-rich business models, have more positive impact on EBIT than product-oriented business model (PO-BM), which in turn are better than product-only business models. In the long-run, learning capabilities (R&D) positively moderates the effect of CO- and PO-BMs on Tobin's Q. In the short-run, both BMs might result in a performance decline
Ambroise, Prim-Allaz, Teyssier, and Peillon (2018a, propositions 1–3, Figure 1)	○	○	○			■		Organizational design components must be adapted to the servitization strategy to realize the expected financial benefits. Service strategies and customer-oriented organizational design must be aligned
Ambroise et al. (2018b, H1-3)	○	○	○			■		Both the servitization strategy and external environmental factors (industry dynamism, competitive intensity and industry munificence) moderate the relationship between the organizational design and financial performance. On the contrary, there is no evidence that the more developed the service portfolio, the relational capabilities, and the service development capabilities, the higher the financial performance
Research linking non-financial servitization level indicators to financial and non-financial performance impact indicators
Demeter and Szász (2013, H4)	○					■	□	Firms in which services have a high strategic priority, assumed to indicate the level of servitization, do not have better ROS, ROI, and market share
Souza et al. (2018, H1-3)	○					■	□	There is a positive and significant relationship between servitization (service portfolio) and organizational financial and non-financial performance (general profitability, ROA, net profitability, sales, operational productivity, market share)
Bustinza et al. (2019, Figure 1)	○					■	□	To maximize financial and non-financial performance, manufacturers should outsource base and intermediate services to knowledge-intensive business service providers, while they should develop advanced services in-house
Guo et al. (2015, Figure 1, Table 2)		○	○			■	□	Relational capabilities, service-development capabilities, and service oriented physical resource management increase the profitability of the service offering, the customer satisfaction/loyalty and the service non-financial performance
Zhao et al. (2017, H1-4)		○				■	□	Service-oriented human resource management (SO-HR) has a positive relationship with customer satisfaction and loyalty (CP), profit growth, market share growth, ROS, ROI, ROA, and operational efficiency (FP). Commitment to learning demand side mediates the relationship between SO-HR and CP, and SO-HR and FP.
Ayala et al. (2019, H1-3, Table 2)		○	○			■	□	The alignment of managerial service orientation and organizational capabilities for servitization is associated with higher product and service financial and non-financial performance. The development of organizational service capabilities is associated with higher financial and non-financial performance. Finally, service-oriented physical resource management is associated with higher financial and non-financial performance
Lin et al. (2019, Figures 1–3, H1-5)		○	○			■	□	Service orientation (SO) has a positive impact on market share, profitability, and reduced operational costs (FP), and service quality, fulfilment of customer needs, customer loyalty, growth of market share (CP). Service Innovation (SI) mediates the relationship between SO and FP, SO and CP, customer orientation (CO) and FP, CO and CP. Service orientation (SO) and customer orientation (CO) are two broad constructs including managerial service orientation and organizational capabilities. Service innovation (SI) refers to organizational innovation capabilities
Sousa and da Silveira (2017, H1-5)	○	○				■	□	Employee service capabilities and organizational service-development capabilities are positively associated with the provision of basic and advanced services. Basic services have a negative impact on profitability, while advanced services have a positive impact on sales and profitability
Ruiz-Alba et al. (2019, H1-10, Figure 2)	○	○	○			■	□	Co-creation positively mediates the effects of servitization on firm performance. Base services have no effect on performance and servitization for both high and low degrees of co-creation. Advanced services have a positive effect on performance when the degree of co-creation is high
Li et al. (2018, H1-4)	○			○		■	□	Basic services are positively related to sales growth. Advanced services are positively related to sales growth, financial performance, and operational performance. Service-oriented human resource management (SO-HR) moderate the relation between advanced services and operational performance. Basic services are not related to financial performance and operational performance. SO-HR do not moderate the relation between basic services and firm performance
Lexutt (2020, Figure 1)	○	○		○		■	□	Success (higher performance) is not achieved without strong service orientation of corporate culture, decentralized decision-making, and strong managerial commitment to services. Companies that combine the presence of the above necessary conditions with a limited portfolio of SSCs; or an extensive portfolio of SSPs; or a separate service organization, regardless of the types of offerings, consistently achieve overall success
Yan et al. (2019, H1-4, Figure 1)	○	○		○		■	□	Servitization strategies have no effect on firm performance. However, certain combinations of services and organizational factors are positively associated with performance, namely SSP–Culture (managerial service orientation)–Structure and SSC–Culture–HR (service-oriented human resource management)
Research linking financial servitization level indicators to financial performance impact indicators
Visnjic Kastalli and Van Looy (2013, H1-2)					●	■		The servitization-performance relationship has an S-shape: initially, it is positive; then, it declines before recovering after the scale of the service offering has gone over a certain threshold
Patel et al. (2019, H1-4)					●	■		Higher service intensity lowers the odds of survival for manufacturing ventures. However, survival odds improve under increasing service intensity when the company achieves a higher industry median–adjusted ratio of tangible to total assets, improved labor productivity, or a stronger current ratio position
Martín-Peña et al. (2020, H1-4)					●	■		Servitization is positively associated with sales and digitalization positively mediates this relationship
Research linking financial servitization level indicators to financial and non-financial performance impact indicators
Crozet and Millet (2017,Table 1)					●	■	□	Service sales have risen in the decade 1997–2007. Servitization increases profitability by 0.4%, employment by 2.1%, and total sales (market share growth in our framework) by 0.6%
Research linking financial and non-financial servitization level indicators to financial and non-financial performance impact indicators
Zhou et al. (2020, H1-3, Figures 1 and 2)	○				●	■	□	Servitization has a U-shaped relationship with a manufacturer's financial performance. Stronger ties between a manufacturer and major service suppliers intensify the U-shaped servitization-performance relationship
Totals per category	24	13	9	4	7	24	18

Source	Servitization level*					Perfor-mance impact*		Indicated relationships*Different text styles are used for improved readabilityServitization level – CirclePerformance impact – BoxNon-financial measures – EmptyFinancial measures – Filled
	NFSL				FSL	FP	NFP
	SP	MSO	OSC	OS	ST	FP	NFP
Research linking non-financial servitization level indicators
Kim and Toya (2019, H1-3)	○	○						Certain managerial leadership styles have a positive influence on developing servitization
Sousa and da Silveira (2019, H1-4)	○	○	○					Firms competing on product customization through customer orientation can more easily adopt servitization strategies
Research linking non-financial servitization level indicators to non-financial performance impact indicators
Zhang et al. (2017)	○						□	Servitization has an indirect positive impact on operational performance
Santamaría et al. (2012, Figure 1)	○	○					□	Training employees and engaging with customers in technological collaboration positively affects service innovation
Bustinza et al. (2015, Table 3)				○			□	When services are managed by a specialized business unit, customer satisfaction increases. Some form of competitive advantage (differentiation) is achieved when organizations have a dedicated service executive or outsource service provision to a specialized provider
Research linking non-financial servitization level indicators to financial servitization indicators
Szász et al. (2017, H1-4)	○				●			Service portfolio has a positive impact on the share of revenue from service. Economic context has a negative effect on the service portfolio and no effect the share of revenue from service. The service paradox (high servitization - low service return) occurs more frequently in less developed economic contexts
Research linking financial servitization level indicators to non-financial performance impact indicators
Dachs et al. (2014, H4)					●		□	Firm size and service turnover have a U-shaped relation. Servitization is a strong trigger for product innovation and vice-versa
Research linking non-financial servitization level indicators to financial performance impact indicators
Neely (2008, Tables 5–7)	○					■		On average, servitized firms have higher bankruptcy risk and generate lower profits because they have higher internal costs
Benedettini et al. (2015, H2-3)	○					■		Servitized firms have higher bankruptcy risk, due to internal risks. Moreover, different types of service have different risks. Demand-chain service are also subject to environmental risks
Li et al. (2015, Sections 3.3.2-3)	○					■		Service portfolio is positively related with ROE. In addition, service portfolio and profit per capita (PCPbt) have a U-shaped relationship
Valtakoski and Witell (2018, H1-3)			○			■		There is a positive relationship between front-office employee service capability and firm performance. On the other hand, there is a negative relationship between back-office employee service capability and firm performance. Firm age moderates the impact of both capabilities on firm performance
Visnjic et al. (2016, H1-4)	○		○			■		Customer-oriented business models (CO-BM), namely service-rich business models, have more positive impact on EBIT than product-oriented business model (PO-BM), which in turn are better than product-only business models. In the long-run, learning capabilities (R&D) positively moderates the effect of CO- and PO-BMs on Tobin's Q. In the short-run, both BMs might result in a performance decline
Ambroise, Prim-Allaz, Teyssier, and Peillon (2018a, propositions 1–3, Figure 1)	○	○	○			■		Organizational design components must be adapted to the servitization strategy to realize the expected financial benefits. Service strategies and customer-oriented organizational design must be aligned
Ambroise et al. (2018b, H1-3)	○	○	○			■		Both the servitization strategy and external environmental factors (industry dynamism, competitive intensity and industry munificence) moderate the relationship between the organizational design and financial performance. On the contrary, there is no evidence that the more developed the service portfolio, the relational capabilities, and the service development capabilities, the higher the financial performance
Research linking non-financial servitization level indicators to financial and non-financial performance impact indicators
Demeter and Szász (2013, H4)	○					■	□	Firms in which services have a high strategic priority, assumed to indicate the level of servitization, do not have better ROS, ROI, and market share
Souza et al. (2018, H1-3)	○					■	□	There is a positive and significant relationship between servitization (service portfolio) and organizational financial and non-financial performance (general profitability, ROA, net profitability, sales, operational productivity, market share)
Bustinza et al. (2019, Figure 1)	○					■	□	To maximize financial and non-financial performance, manufacturers should outsource base and intermediate services to knowledge-intensive business service providers, while they should develop advanced services in-house
Guo et al. (2015, Figure 1, Table 2)		○	○			■	□	Relational capabilities, service-development capabilities, and service oriented physical resource management increase the profitability of the service offering, the customer satisfaction/loyalty and the service non-financial performance
Zhao et al. (2017, H1-4)		○				■	□	Service-oriented human resource management (SO-HR) has a positive relationship with customer satisfaction and loyalty (CP), profit growth, market share growth, ROS, ROI, ROA, and operational efficiency (FP). Commitment to learning demand side mediates the relationship between SO-HR and CP, and SO-HR and FP.
Ayala et al. (2019, H1-3, Table 2)		○	○			■	□	The alignment of managerial service orientation and organizational capabilities for servitization is associated with higher product and service financial and non-financial performance. The development of organizational service capabilities is associated with higher financial and non-financial performance. Finally, service-oriented physical resource management is associated with higher financial and non-financial performance
Lin et al. (2019, Figures 1–3, H1-5)		○	○			■	□	Service orientation (SO) has a positive impact on market share, profitability, and reduced operational costs (FP), and service quality, fulfilment of customer needs, customer loyalty, growth of market share (CP). Service Innovation (SI) mediates the relationship between SO and FP, SO and CP, customer orientation (CO) and FP, CO and CP. Service orientation (SO) and customer orientation (CO) are two broad constructs including managerial service orientation and organizational capabilities. Service innovation (SI) refers to organizational innovation capabilities
Sousa and da Silveira (2017, H1-5)	○	○				■	□	Employee service capabilities and organizational service-development capabilities are positively associated with the provision of basic and advanced services. Basic services have a negative impact on profitability, while advanced services have a positive impact on sales and profitability
Ruiz-Alba et al. (2019, H1-10, Figure 2)	○	○	○			■	□	Co-creation positively mediates the effects of servitization on firm performance. Base services have no effect on performance and servitization for both high and low degrees of co-creation. Advanced services have a positive effect on performance when the degree of co-creation is high
Li et al. (2018, H1-4)	○			○		■	□	Basic services are positively related to sales growth. Advanced services are positively related to sales growth, financial performance, and operational performance. Service-oriented human resource management (SO-HR) moderate the relation between advanced services and operational performance. Basic services are not related to financial performance and operational performance. SO-HR do not moderate the relation between basic services and firm performance
Lexutt (2020, Figure 1)	○	○		○		■	□	Success (higher performance) is not achieved without strong service orientation of corporate culture, decentralized decision-making, and strong managerial commitment to services. Companies that combine the presence of the above necessary conditions with a limited portfolio of SSCs; or an extensive portfolio of SSPs; or a separate service organization, regardless of the types of offerings, consistently achieve overall success
Yan et al. (2019, H1-4, Figure 1)	○	○		○		■	□	Servitization strategies have no effect on firm performance. However, certain combinations of services and organizational factors are positively associated with performance, namely SSP–Culture (managerial service orientation)–Structure and SSC–Culture–HR (service-oriented human resource management)
Research linking financial servitization level indicators to financial performance impact indicators
Visnjic Kastalli and Van Looy (2013, H1-2)					●	■		The servitization-performance relationship has an S-shape: initially, it is positive; then, it declines before recovering after the scale of the service offering has gone over a certain threshold
Patel et al. (2019, H1-4)					●	■		Higher service intensity lowers the odds of survival for manufacturing ventures. However, survival odds improve under increasing service intensity when the company achieves a higher industry median–adjusted ratio of tangible to total assets, improved labor productivity, or a stronger current ratio position
Martín-Peña et al. (2020, H1-4)					●	■		Servitization is positively associated with sales and digitalization positively mediates this relationship
Research linking financial servitization level indicators to financial and non-financial performance impact indicators
Crozet and Millet (2017,Table 1)					●	■	□	Service sales have risen in the decade 1997–2007. Servitization increases profitability by 0.4%, employment by 2.1%, and total sales (market share growth in our framework) by 0.6%
Research linking financial and non-financial servitization level indicators to financial and non-financial performance impact indicators
Zhou et al. (2020, H1-3, Figures 1 and 2)	○				●	■	□	Servitization has a U-shaped relationship with a manufacturer's financial performance. Stronger ties between a manufacturer and major service suppliers intensify the U-shaped servitization-performance relationship
Totals per category	24	13	9	4	7	24	18

Note(s): SP: service portfolio (offering; complexity); MSO: managerial service orientation (culture; practice); OSC: Organizational service capabilities (relational, development, employees); OS: Organizational structure (dedicated unit, decentralized decision-making); ST: Service turnover (services revenue); FP: Financial performance (profitability, services performance, products performance); NFP: Non-financial performance (manufacturing, service-based, product-based, market, relationships)

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable