Capability antecedents and performance outcomes of servitization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to theoretically articulate and empirically test an integrated model of capability antecedents and performance outcomes of servitization strategies. The authors characterize servitization strategies based on the offering of two types of services: basic services (BAS) and advanced services (ADS). Design/methodology/approach Hypotheses are tested based on statistical analyses of a large survey of manufacturers from different countries and sectors. Findings The authors find that manufacturing capabilities associate with the provision of BAS, while service capabilities associate with both BAS and ADS; BAS do not impact financial performance, but support the offering of ADS; there seem to be naturally occurring servitization trajectories involving the gradual development of balanced levels of BAS and ADS and adequate levels of manufacturing and service capabilities. Research limitations/implications The findings on servitization trajectories are based on the observation of manufacturing business units at different stages of servitization (cross-sectional data). Practical implications Manufacturers wishing to servitize should distinguish between BAS and ADS and deploy a balanced adoption of BAS and ADS, using BAS as a platform. This should be accompanied with the building of appropriate capabilities. Originality/value This is one of the first studies to show an explicit link between different servitization strategies, capabilities, and servitization maturity. It provides new insights into the servitization paradox and servitization trajectories.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it