D1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

MAKERS

DELIVERABLE 1.2

PAPER ON SERVITIZATION ON

MANUFACTURING

Task 1.3 Analyse the specific increased servitisation in the new manufacturing model

Authors:

Dr. Oscar F. Bustinza, University of Granada, oscarfb@ugr.es

Dr. Ferran Vendrell-Herrero, The University of Birmingham, F.Vendrell-

Herrero@bham.ac.uk

Dr. Erica Santini, University of Florence, erica.santini@unifi.it

Prof. Marco Bellandi,University of Florence, marco.bellandi@unifi.it

Prof Lisa De Propris, The University of Birmingham,

l.depropris@bham.ac.uk

Ref. Ares(2017)4937429 - 10/10/2017

D 1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

List of contents

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................2

2. Firm-level Servitization.......................................................................................................4

3. Meso-level approach on servitization.................................................................................9

3.1 Territorial Servitization......................................................................................................9

3.2 Servitising industrial regions........................................................................................... 11

References........................................................................................................................... 13

D1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

1. Introduction

According to the last European Rental Association (ERA) market report1 the European

Rental industry have had an average annual growth over the last few years of 2% despite

the uncertain economic conditions. This growth is catching the attention of global investors,

and rental fleets/inventories are rising fast. Why are we observing this preference for the

use over the ownership of equipment, vehicles or machinery?

This question is reflective of the broader interest in the growing field of study of service

implementation in product firms. Product and service firms have been conventionally

thought of as largely independent entities, but evidence seems to suggest that there are potential synergies between products and services, which ultimately can enhance

competitive position and consumer satisfaction. The business strategy consisting in adding

services to product offerings in product firms is known as Servitization or product-service

innovation (Bustinza, Vendrell-Herrero, Baines, 2017; Vandermerwe and Rada, 1989).

From a globalization perspective, servitization fits well with the argument that the

exploitation of economies of scale has become obsolete at the turn of the 21st century. With

the rapid rise of Asia’s engagement in global production, firms in advanced economies (i.e. Europe or US) need to increase customization while maintaining high levels of scalability

and efficiency to develop and maintain a competitive advantage. That is, new competitive

conditions require a better understanding of what drivers and bottlenecks can enable manufacturing sectors to transit to more innovation-intensive and difficult-to-imitate

business models based on services and digital upgrading of products features that will sustain their competitiveness in the medium and long term.

The implementation of service business models goes beyond manufacturing firms, and

the presence of local Knowledge Intensive Business Service (KIBS) firms is essential to

support the manufacturing fabric (Vendrell-Herrero and Wilson, 2017) and produce a

virtuous circle of growth in the region, known as territorial servitization (Lafuente, Vaillant,

Vendrell-Herrero, 2017).

In that respect this deliverable is composed of two separated sections, each of them

with two separated research papers - that are either published, accepted for publication or

1 http://erarental.org/en/publications/era-rental-statxstics/era-market-report-2016

D 1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

under review in prestigious academic journals. The first section of the deliverable looks at

firm-level analysis of servitization, focusing with a special interest at the differences in

servitization adoption between European Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and

Multinationals (MNEs), as well as at the establishment of partnerships to outsource advanced services to local or foreign firms. The second section of the deliverable focuses on the meso-level of analysis of servitization. The conceptual contribution is captured by

two case studies: one on an Italian traditional industrial district (Prato) and one on the UK.

They highlight how the spatial interaction of manufacturing firms with KIBS is changing over

time and its implications for the competitiveness of a territory.

D 1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

2. Firm-level Servitization

In servitization, production firms try to enhance product features and capabilities, as

well as consumer satisfaction, and increase product differentiation by including services to

their portfolio. By incorporating services as an integral part of the product to be sold, firms

obtain a more customizable offer. Services offered are not homogeneous as they differ

substantially in their level of risk, level of competition, and in the potential to create

competitive advantages. Some manufacturers create wealth through offering a wide range

of ‘break-fix’ services (e.g. maintenance), while others develop more sophisticated outcome

based contracts. Examples of the latter include Rolls-Royce TotalCare solution and Xerox delivering ‘pay-per-click’ scanning, copying and printing of documents.

Focusing more specifically on the European case, the rise of product-service innovation

is evidence of a business environment that -in some countries- has significantly dented the

weight of manufacturing contribution to GDP. Over the past twenty years pressure to

reduce labour costs has led companies to move a large share of production overseas (e.g.

offshoring) (see Coro’ et al, 2017 and De Propris et al, 2017). The European manufacturing

industry has been in decline since the 1990s, and has reached recently a minimum of 15%

of total GDP (see Figure 1 below), a share that the European Commission is committed to raise to 20% by 2020 as part of the 2020 Agenda (Veugelers, 2013).

European manufacturing SMEs are often reluctant to implement service business

models, as the results are difficult to predict (Benedetti et al., 2015), and there is a lack of

organisational resources for implementing digital service offerings. Risks and uncertainty

are especially relevant in Europe since the average size of firms is small compared to other

contexts (e.g. US and China). According to Eurostat, in 2015, 92.7% of non-financial

firms employed fewer than 10 employees, while roughly 20% of manufacturing workers

were employed in firms of less than 250 people. It might be more beneficial for society if firms offer services as well as goods, but traditional SMEs seeking to maximize short term

profits do not take this into account.

To this end a primary concern for European manufacturers is the uncertainty involved

in introducing new services. As a result, it turns out that developing services in addition to

products is often seen too risky for small manufacturers, and they cannot compete globally unless external firms can offer the right services. Outsourcing allows firms to experiment

with service provision without so many risks (Cusumano et al., 2015). In this vein,

processes of territorial co-location and knowledge transfer between manufacturing SMEs

and KIBS have started to be identified in Europe (Lafuente et al., 2017). The aim of this

deliverable is therefore to understand better the antecedents and consequences of service implementation in manufacturing firms and the role of critical factors such as organisational

commitment or collaborative partnerships between product firms and KIBS.

D 1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

Figure 1. Manufacturing share of value added in the EU, 1991-201425

20

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Authors’ elaboration on World Bank data.

As it is exhibited in Figure 2 the firm-level section of the deliverable is divided in two academic papers that have been accepted for publication in peer reviewed journals. The

first article, which has been accepted for publication in Strategic Change, seeks to understand the factors underlying the decision of implementing services in European

manufacturing SMEs. Based on the collaboration with Veneto’s Chamber of Commerce the

study is developed in the NUTS-2 Veneto region (Italy). This region has a significant

number of KIBs that can provide services relevant for advanced manufacturing

development (De Marchi, and Grandinetti, 2012; Minelio, 2014; Unioncamere Veneto,

2016). Veneto’s Chamber of Commerce has a research observatory that collects and

diffuses statistical and economic information on the region. 1,500 manufacturing SMEs with

more than 5 employees were approached in summer 2016. The response rate was around 50%, and the usable sample contains 736 observations. The survey comprised a set of

D 1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

standard control variables plus questions regarding service implementation and the

establishment of collaborative arrangements with KIBS. The data was collected by

Veneto’s Chamber of Commerce and we were able to access the data thanks to the

partnership in MAKERS. The use of this data follows MAKERS ethic procedures and the database can be used as a piece of secondary information. An appropriate consent form

has been signed on that matter.

Figure 2. Framework of the deliverableManufacturing firm

Questions and assessment

Question 1 Assessment (outcome)

Paper 1736 Italian SMEs236 Servitize73 Servitize through alliances j(Data collected through MAKERS Į· network

Paper 2370MNES166 of them with headquarters in EU j52 of them Servitize through alliances i

Authors obtained the data beforeMAKERS project kicked off.

------------------------------------------------------------- 1 ........................... ----- ----------------------------

Our findings indicate that practically one third of SMEs (32%) undertake product-

service innovation in the form of integrated solutions. The main factors underlying this

decision are organizational resources and capabilities as well as firm commitment.

Furthermore, our results also show that 31% of SMEs resort to KIBS at the time of adding

services to their portfolio. We also found that the lack of firm strategic agility is an important

reason to outsource the service function to a KIBS. This result is important as reinforces the idea that manufacturing SMEs are dependent on the local business ecosystem and the

existence of KIBS nearby. These firms have a preference on focusing on what they know (e.g. production), leaving to others the enhancement of products through integrated

solution.The second article, which has been accepted for publication in R&D Management,

seeks to evaluate the economic benefits of undertaking product-service innovation in

Manufacturing Multinationals Enterprises (MMNEs). The context of multinationals is relevant as they have had more resources to develop product-service innovation in-house

K D 1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

and hence the additionality effect of product-service innovation in terms of firm performance

can be better observed than in SMEs. The sample is based on a survey conducted in 2013

and contains 370 servitized MMNEs. The sample was in possession of the authors before

MAKERS project kicked off, but this research has been conducted in 2016 during the

researchers’ secondments.Through robust Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) estimation our results show that

there is a positive relationship between our construct of product-service innovation, which includes items on product innovation, updated product lifecycle, product-service alignment

and service analytics, and an overall performance measure containing information on firm

competitive advantage, revenues and operative margin. The sample contains 52 MMNEs

that have established a concentric partnership with a KIBS. This provides the opportunity for testing the moderation role of partnerships. Our results strongly indicate that

externalizing the service function to KIBS significantly increase overall firm performance.

Interestingly, 45% of the sample is composed by MMNEs with headquarters in Europe (166

firms). As a robustness exercise we have reproduced the same analysis with these 166 firms and the results are qualitatively the same as the ones presented in the academic

paper. This means that European manufacturers can obtain economic and financial

additionalities from establishing partnerships with KIBS.It is interesting to highlight the relationship between the two pieces of research.

Remarkably there are differences between the developments of product-service innovation

between SMEs and MNEs. One important difference is that whilst the implementation of a

service business model is considered normal in MNEs, it is still incipient in SMEs. Our

sample comes from one of the most vigorous manufacturing regions in Europe (Veneto),

and only one third of manufacturing SMEs seem to undertake service business models.

Another difference is the reliance to external partners. Our results show that whilst only

14% (52 out of 370) MMNEs decide to servitize through collaborative partnerships, 31% (73

out of 236) of SMEs decide to servitize with KIBS. This is an important result as it stresses

the need for the development of service reforms in Europe assuring that the business fabric

mostly populated by SMEs can further collaborate with local (Lafuente et al., 2017) or even

with foreign service firms when the tasks undertaken can be standardized (Arnold et al.,

2016).The above research output has already been accepted for publication in Wiley

academic journals, this means that the copyrights of the articles belong to the publisher. Papers 1 and 2 are/will be available online in the following references.

7

i

D 1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

Paper 1: Bustinza, O.F., Gomes, E., Vendrell-Herrero, F., and Tarba, S. (2017). An

organisational change framework for digital servitization: Evidence from the Veneto region. Strategic Change, In Press. Expected date available online: March 2018.

Paper 2: Bustinza, O.F., Gomes, E., Vendrell-Herrero, F., and Baines, T. (2017). Product-

service innovation and performance: The role of collaborative partnerships and R&D

intensity. R&D Management, In Press.

http:A/onlinelibrary.wilev.com/doi/10.1111/radm. 12269/full

D 1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

3. Meso-level approach on servitization3.1 Territorial Servitization

One of the novel aspects of servitisation that has been expanded with MAKERS has been the concept of territorial servitisation. This was developed in the project via a number of secondments and joint research.

To understand the place-based dimension of the relations between manufacturing and

servitization, we need to focus on the interplay between manufacturing and services

activities, which is raising a growing attention in the international debates (Bellandi and De

Propris, 2018). The increasing volatility and personalization of consumer demand in many

markets, the opportunities and threats coming from new industrialized countries with the

international fragmentation of production (Lester & Piore, 2009; Humphrey & Schmitz,

2002), and the disruptive introduction of new technologies (Duyin & Geissler, 2016), have

made the synergies between specialized manufacturing industries and service activities more important than ever. This has brought about not only an expansion of the role of

tertiary phases such as logistics, marketing, design and R&D, combined with a shift of the

value added to those activities, but also a growing weight of service content in the actual

manufactured goods (Cusumano et al. 2015). This radical change in the manufacturing model of production has led to an increasing role of KIBS in industrial processes.

Agglomeration of both service related knowledge and specialized manufacturing

competences becomes crucial: ‘KIBS are confronted with the specific problems of their

clients and thus they require most often direct contacts with them in order to conceive

solutions by recombining existing knowledge and complementing it with new inputs if

necessary. A high share of these interactions, especially in the starting phase of a

consulting activity, is characterized by a strong tacit content, requiring personal contacts.

Proximity (geographical, social, cultural, etc.) is hence helpful to manage these phases’ (Muller & Zenker, 2001, p. 1506).

As stressed by Porter & Heppelmann (2014), a growing number of manufacturing

products cannot be defined considering only their physical content. Other two elements have often a crucial importance nowadays: the “smart” and the “connectivity” components.

These elements relate directly or indirectly to digital technologies, and tend to transform the market and the role of the economic agents in the global competition.

9

European

We apply this framework and explore territorial servitization in the case of a mature

manufacturing system: that is the textile district of Prato in Tuscany. The analysis of the

multiplicity of know-how nuclei is based on a previous secondary data analysis, which maps

the companies of all the sectors within the Prato ID with a longitudinal perspective (Santini,

2016). A cluster analysis has been applied for the period 2005-2013. Our findings are that there is evidence of an increasing multiplicity in the local economy. We define the know­

how nuclei as sets of firms and competences embedded in a place, and part of its historical ‘industrial DNA’. We find that the number of ‘nuclei’ related to KIBS in Prato rose from 500

in 2005 to 600 in 2013. This spawning of new specializations signals a decisive diffusion of

new KIBS providers. Together with new types of manufactures, they represent a new

generation of firms in the district, like the Makers that we have identified in some part of the contemporary Prato ID.

Paper: Bellandi Marco and Santini Erica, New service oriented manufacturing and

place-based division of labour: The case of the textile industrial district of Prato, Paper Under Review, Regional Studies (for the Special Issues on Territorial Servitisation).

D 1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

D 1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

3.2 Servitising industrial regions

Ironically, etymologically, the word ‘service’ comes from Latin and has developed to mean ‘to provide with a service’ or ‘to be of service’. Services are now however starting to

be seen not as ‘functional to’ but ‘strategic to’ manufacturing and this not a trivial change.

Indeed, the suffix ‘ation’ derives from the Latin ‘action’ and ‘process’ and when it is paired

with service, it suggests the idea of ’services in action’.

The theme of servitisation has mainly developed across the supply chain

management discipline as a new strategy that firms can adopt to manage their competitive

advantage, and the innovation literature that has looked at the role of knowledge intensive

business services in the innovation dynamics of firms.The research aims to explore the evolving role of services in relation to

manufacturing activities within local systems of production.

The current literature refers to the servitisation of manufacturing (Dimache and Roche,

2013) to suggest a contamination of service practises and strategies to manufacturing,

whereby manufacturing is moving from a product-based business model to a service-based

business model: the so called product-service system (ibid).There is an embryonic debate on the territorial dimension of servitisation. Vendrell-Herrero

and Wilson (2017) suggest that more research is needed to better understand the link

between servitisation and territorial competitiveness. Servitisation through KIBSs requires

manufacturing firms to identify, contact, access and relate to such providers. The literature

on KIBS presents no clear cut solution on whether KIBSs need to be co-located or not with

the manufacturing firms they serve; although there some evidence in favour of co-location

(Rodriguez, Camacho, and Chica, 2012) and against (Shearmur and Doloreux, 2012).

The manufacturing sector is changing and a new manufacturing model is emerging.

Three forces are shaping this new manufacturing model:

(1) technological changes and the pervasive penetration of digital technology are

enabling distributed and cross-media digital communications;

(2) the increasing involvement of customers in manufacturing processes;

(3) new relationships between manufacturing and services.The very recent debate on servitisation makes a completely different proposition with respect to the relationship that services and manufacturing had in the part, as services

D 1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

maintain a key role as value creators but no longer in contrast to manufacturing. The term

‘servitisation’ is suggested as the hybridisation of manufacturing with services; this indeed

entails a dovetailing of manufacturing and services. Changes in the relationship between

services and manufacturing has also seen changed their need to be co-located or not.

We have tested the concept with an empirical investigation that with UK employment data at the regional level (NUTS 2) between 2010 and 2015.

The first main finding is that neither high-tech manufacturing nor medium-tech

manufacturing appear to co-locate with KIBS; possible explanations are that the UK is in

the phase where services and manufacturing are still going through a phase or strategic

decoupling whereby manufacturing are offshored overseas and KIBS are located in the UK.

Alternatively, another interpretation is that those most manufacturing intensive regions have

large firms that have internalised servitising competences since the latter are not present in

the local economy due to the strong attraction pole of London. The other main finding

related to the growth dynamics of the two sectors. We find that the growth rates of KIBS

and High/Medium tech manufacturing sectors are inversely related. This suggests a

substitution effect or territorial specialisation.

Paper: Lisa De Propris and Dimitri Storai, Servitising industrial regions, Paper Under Review, Regional Studies (for the Special Issues on Territorial Servitisation).

D 1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

ReferencesArnold, J. M., Javorcik, B., Lipscomb, M., and Mattoo, A. (2016). Services reform and

manufacturing performance: Evidence from India. The Economic Journal, 126, 590,

1-39.

Bailey D. and De Propris L. (2014) Manufacturing reshoring and its limits: the UK automotive case, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Volume 7,

Issue 3, 1 November 2014, Pages 379-395.

Bailey, D and A De Ruyter. (2015) Plant Closures, Precariousness and Policy Responses: revisiting MG Rover ten years on, Policy Studies, 36(4), 363-383.

Baines T. and Lightfoot H. W. (2014) Servitization of the manufacturing firm; Exploring the

operations practices and technologies that deliver advanced services, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2014, Voi.34(1), p.2-35.

Bellandi M and De Propris L (2018) New Forms of Industrial Districts, Journal of Industrial

and Business Economics, forthcoming.

Boschma R. and Fornahl D. (2011) Cluster Evolution and a Roadmap for Future Research,Regional Studies Voi. 45 , Iss. 10.

Coro’ G. , Volpe M., Pejcic D. and De Propris L. (2017) Paper on the technological upgrading in manufacturing in the light of the new manufacturing model, MAKERS

Report for the EU commission, http://www. makers-rise.orq/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/D1.1-Manufacturinq-4.0.pdf [accessed 03/10/2017].

Bustinza, O.F., Vendrell-Herrero, F., Baines, T. (2017). Service implementation in manufacturing: An organisational transformation perspective. International Journal of

Production Economics. 192, 1-8.

Cusumano, M. A., Kahl, S. J., and Suarez, F. F. (2015). Services, industry evolution, and

the competitive strategies of product firms. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4):

559-575.

Cusmano, L., Mancusi, M. L., & Morrison, A. (2010). Globalization of production and innovation: how outsourcing is reshaping an advanced manufacturing area. Regional

studies, 44(3), 235-252.

Davids M. and Frenken K. (2017) Proximity knowledge base and the innovation process: towards an integrated framework, Regional Studies,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1287349 [accessed 03/10/2017].

13

D1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

De Marchi, V. and Grandinetti, R. (2012). Le imprese di servizi ad alto contenuto di

conoscenza: Dal contesto locale al mercato internazionale, in Unioncamere Veneto,

Veneto Internazionale. Rapporto annuale 2012, Venezia.De Propris L., Pamirez P., Robinson P. , Bailey d. and Pegoraro D. (2017) Paper on EU

positioning in key manufacturing GVC, MAKERS Report for the EU Commission http://www.makers-rise.orq/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/D5.1-Glocal-value-chains.pdf

[accessed 03/10/2017].De Propris L. (2005) Mapping local production systems in the UK: Methodology and

application, Regional Studies Voi. 39 , Iss. 2.De Propris, L., Chapain, C., Cooke P., MacNeill S. and Mateos-Garcia J. (2009) The

Geography of Creativity, Interim report: August 2009.http://www.nesta.orq.uk/assets/Uploads/pdf/Research-Report/Geography-of-

creativity.pdf [access 21/05/2017].Lafuente, E., Vaillant, Y., and Vendrell-Herrero, F. (2017). Territorial Servitization: Exploring

the virtuous circle connecting knowledge-intensive services and new manufacturing businesses. International Journal of Production Economics, 92, 19-28..

Lester, R. K., & Piore, M. J. (2009). Innovation, The missing dimension. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Minelio, A. (2014). Il ruolo dei servizi ad alta intensità di conoscenza in tempo di crisi:

Struttura ed evoluzione dei KIBS in Veneto, in Unioncamere Veneto. La situazione

economica del Veneto. Rapporto annuale 2014. Venezia.

Santini, E. (2016). Apprendimento e cambiamento in sistemi produttivi locali in condizione

di lock-in [Learning and change in locai production systems in condition of lock-in].

Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Economia e l'Impresa, Università degli Studi di Firenze,

February 2016, PhD Thesis.Shearmur, R., and D. Doloreux. 2012. “Is There a Connection Between KIBS Clustering

and KIBS Innovation?” In Exploring Knowledge Intensive Business Services, edited by

E. Di Maria, R. Grandinetti, and B. Di Bernardo, 193-213. London: Paigrave

MacMillan.Vandermerwe, S. and Rada, J. (1989). Servitization of business: Adding value by adding

services. European Management Journal, 6(4) 314-324.Vendrell-Herrero, Wilson, J. (2017) "Servitization for territorial competitiveness: taxonomy

and research agenda", Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal,

Voi. 27, Issue: 1, pp.2-11.

}

Veugelers, R. (Ed.). (2013). Manufacturing Europe's future, Bruegel, http://brueqel.org/wp- content/uploads/imported/publications/Blueprint XXI web 181113a.pdf [accessed

03/10/2017].

D 1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

D 1.2 Servitization on manufacturing

MAKERS - Smart Manufacturing for EU growth and prosperity is a project funded by

the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Staff Exchange Programme under the Marie

Sklodowska-Curie Actions - Grant agreement number 691192.

UNIVERSITY™" OH AM

LundUniversity

Unioncamere

d&S&'. Ca’ Fosca ri ' J University

of Venice

Fondazione per la ricerca e l'innovazione ini

UNIVERSITÉ DE NEUCHÂTEL

NUSNational University of Singapore

Hochschule Karlsruhe Technik und WirtschaftUNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES

и—jļ¡eshoringnstitute University of San Diego®

VINNOVA

Steinbeis

galdón

Call for Papers

KNOWLEDGE BASED ECONOMIES Special Issue for Regional Studies

Guest editors:Esteban Lafuente, Polytechnic University of Catalonia - Barcelona Tech, Spain

Yancy Vaillant, Universität Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain Ferran Vendrell-Herrero, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

Territorial servitization and the manufacturing renaissance in

RationaleOver the last decade, the provision of knowledge-intensive services is widely recognized as one of the key engines for the consolidation of knowledge-based economies (European Commission, 2012). The competitiveness of manufacturing businesses increasingly relies on their ability to introduce value-adding services into their operations, and to offer integrated packages of goods and services; a process described in the literature as the servitization of manufacturing (Cusumano et ak, 2015). Servitization can be seen as a mechanism to develop innovation capabilities by realizing a shift from products to product-service systems. There is an increasing number of manufacturing firms adding services to their offer, with recent evidence indicating that the proportion reaches up to two thirds of manufacturers in developed economies (Crozet and Milet, 2015).

The integration of services in-house has considerable risks (Benedetti et al., 2015) and therefore manufacturers have a growing demand for externalizing knowledge-based services (Baines et al., 2016). Knowledge intensive business service (KIBS) firms inject advanced services—i.e., servitization—across new and incumbent manufacturing businesses (Corrocher and Cusmano, 2014; Lafuente et al., 2010). KIBS are both sources and carriers of knowledge that might impact territorial and urban performance by providing high value-adding services to other organizations, and fueling job creation (Bailey and de Propris, 2014).

The renaissance of local manufacturing sectors has been found to result in some cases from the presence of a dynamic KIBS sector (Arnold et al., 2016). The local presence of knowledge­intensive services has been shown to help new manufacturers internalize the cost of offering advanced services (Jacobs et ah, 2016), while at the same time contribute to alleviating operational weaknesses linked to their liability of both newness and smallness (Grönroos & Voima, 2013). As such servitization and the benefits of knowledge-intensive service provision do not necessarily have to be fully integrated within the manufacturer’s internal value chain. There are benefits to ‘Territorial Servitization’.

Territorial servitization is found to contribute to local competitiveness and employment creation through the virtuous cycle generated when a resilient local manufacturing base attracts or stimulates the creation of complimentary KIBS businesses, which in turn facilitates the creation of new manufacturers (Lafuente et al., forthcoming). Knowledge-intensive service ventures tend to agglomerate together with new and incumbent manufactures, developing linkages and strategic alliances, and therefore opening a virtuous entrepreneurial circle, which in turn positively influence the renaissance of manufacturing (Vaillant et al. 2012).

The servitization of regions offers an opportunity for local manufacturing economies to resume growth and sustain long-term competitiveness. As such, the renaissance of manufacturing through territorial servitization not only enables the upgrading of existing manufacturing competences, but it offers an opportunity to develop and anchor new technological capabilities

across regions. These can potentially support business and industrial resilience leading towards better distributed and sustainable socio-economic growth and prosperity (Ariu, 2016).

The level of entrepreneurial activity in regions with geographically proximate groups of established interconnected product and service firms as well as institutions contributed comparatively more towards regional economic performance (Rocha and Sternberg, 2005). The key, according to these authors, does not come from economic territorial specialization or from the pure quantitative agglomeration of firms in a particular region, but rather from the inter­connections and complementarities that link these together. From this we can extrapolate that territorial servitization, as a meso-level process linking services and industry, enhances the local impact of manufacturing activity on regional development facilitating local knowledge diffusion.

Within a servitization frame, internal large scale economies were substituted by external economies related to the existence of skilled workers, specialized suppliers, and an informal system of knowledge diffusion. This path of development using territorial servitization which share a stock of work-related and knowledge intensive services in local settings with locally interweaving patterns of production and marketing ramifying out from this experience to create a diversified, but related, industrial fabric (Bellandi and Sforzi 2004). Following this rationale some voices are requesting of policy makers the design and implementation of service reforms in order to increase industrial resilience and competitiveness (Arnold et al., 2016). Overall, the aim of this special issue is threefold:

1. From a territorial perspective, the issue intends to uncover the mechanisms in which manufacturers and KIBS develop co-location configurations, collaborative arrangements and other business linkages. Similarly, the issue seeks to better understand how these business dynamics facilitate the renaissance of manufacturing and its competitiveness in developed and developing economies.

2. From a business perspective, the issue pursues a better understanding of the entrepreneurial patterns that explains the creation of new service and manufacturing companies in specific patterns. In doing so there is an expectation to provide policy recommendations for regional development.

3. From a policy perspective, this issue aims to provide a greater understanding of the role of institutions in fostering territorial servitization. In particular this issue seeks to unveil whether service reforms and institutional engagement with the business environment supports and reinforces the virtuous circle produced by the geographical co-location of manufactures and KIBS.

Scope

This special issue of Regional Studies therefore invites contributions in the role of KIBS as an engine for enhanced territorial resilience, manufacturing renaissance and competitiveness, and regional development. The guest editors seek submissions with an original perspective and advanced thinking on the topics proposed above and related issues. Novel and original papers on the theoretical framework proposed and with solid empirical grounding should include, but not be limited to, the following:

- Economic assessment of the impact of product-service implementation of firm or territorial performance in servitized contexts

- What may be the antecedents, moderators/mediators, and outcomes of manufacturing-KIBS collaborations on organizational resilience and performance?

- Which are the contractual arrangements that underpin the linkages between KIBS and manufacturers: outsourcing, partnerships, strategic alliances, joint ventures, mergers & acquisitions?

- What are the organizational and regional causes and consequences of creating and ■ developing knowledge intensive business services firms?

- Which are the factors that determine the location strategy of KIBS and manufacturers? Is the proximity to providers, collaborators and clients an important factor?

- Comprehensive state-of-the-art reviews that present a conceptual and integrated view of the concept of territorial servitization.

- Real-world studies analyzing cases in which manufacturing regions developed a territorial servitization with success.

In methodological terms we encourage case-based, conceptual, and empirically-based submissions. Moreover, we recommend that authors pay explicit attention to the managerial and policy implications of their findings.

Planned timeline

The Special Issue is scheduled to be published in 201-. The following timetable/deadline dates are given for your information:

Submission of full papers: Month Day, 201- First feedback from reviewers: Month Day, 201- Submission of the revised papers: Month Day, 20- Expected delivery date to ERD: Month Day, 201-

Guest editors

Authors with questions about the suitability of proposed topics for this special issue areencouraged to contact the guest editors:

• Dr. Esteban Lafuente ('esteban.lafuente@upc.edu~) is Associate professor at Polytechnic University of Barcelona (UPC Barcelona Tech). He served as senior investigator in the Catalan Observatory of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM: www.gemconsortium.org) between 2009 and 2013. Esteban’s research is mostly devoted to the economic analysis of organizations and individuals, with special emphasis on managerial economics, entrepreneurship, and territorial development. He has published in a variety of journals including, among other, the British Journal of Management, Journal of Business Research, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Regional Studies, Technovation, Journal of Technology Transfer and Safety Science. For further information please go to http://www.doe.upc.edu/ca/pers/lafuente-esteban

• Dr. Yancy Vaillant (vancv.vaillant@uab.cat) is currently with the Business Department of the Universität Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) and formerly with the ESC-Rennes School of Business where he was Associate Professor and the Director of Studies. He has been Visiting Scholar with the Community Policy Analysis Centre and the Rural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri. He led the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor project in Catalonia from 2003 to 2013 as the Director of the GEM-Catalunya business observatory and contributed as researcher for GEM-Spain. He also acts as an external consultant for the OECD’s Governance and Territorial Policy division, having participated in several OECD territorial and policy reviews of many different countries (Mexico, Spain, Canada, Sweden). He has also participated in several research projects for the European, Spanish or Catalan administrations that study and formulate policy recommendations in areas related to territorial strategy, entrepreneurship and the promotion of innovation-based development. Yancy Vaillant is a graduate of Concordia University (Canada) and earned his PhD from the University of Barcelona (Spain). He has post-graduate certificates from both Växjö University (Sweden) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT Sloan School of Management (USA). He was also trained as an entrepreneurship educator with the Babson College (USA).

• Dr. Ferran Vendrell-Herrero (f.vendrell-herrero@,bham.ac.uk) is a lecturer in managerial economics in the University of Birmingham, UK. His research focuses on the innovation dynamics of business models within creative industries as well the impact of digital technology in organizations of creative businesses and territories. This has led him to assess empirically innovation policies, and to analyze recent changes in the business models of multinationals in the music, publishing and media sectors through close collaboration with industry partners. Across these themes he has made a distinctive contribution through publications in top academic journals, including the International Journal of Production Economics, Technovation, Small Business Economics, Regional Studies and Supply Chain Management and has edited special issues in International Journal of Production Economics, Strategic Change and Competitiveness Review. Additionally, Dr. Vendrell-Herrero initiated and scientifically directs the International Conference on Business Servitization, which is now into its fifth edition, and is actively involved in a Horizon 2020- Marie Sklodowska- Curie Actions project called MAKERS on Smart Manufacturing for EU Growth and Prosperity.

Bibliography

Ariu, A. (2016). Crisis-proof services: Why trade in services did not suffer during the 2008­2009 collapse. Journal of International Economics, 98, 138-149.

Arnold, J.M., Javorcik, B., Lipscomb, M., Mattoo, A. (2016). Services reform and manufacturing performance: Evidence from India. The Economic Journal, 126, 1-39.

Bailey, D., De Propris, L. (Eds.). (2014). Industrial and Regional Policies in an Enlarging EU. Routledge.

Baines, T., Bigdeli, A., Bustinza, O.F., Shi, V., Baldwin, J., Ridgway, K. (2016). Servitization: Revisiting the state-of-the-art and research priorities. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Forthcoming.

Bellandi, M. and F. Sforzi (2004): “The Multiple Paths of Local Development”, in Becattini, M. Bellandi, L. Omodei, and F. Sforzi, From Industrial Districts to Local Development, p. 210­226. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Benedettini, O., Neely, A., Swink, M. (2015). Why do servitized firms fail? A risk-based explanation. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(6), 946-979.

Bustinza, O. F., Bigdeli, A. Z., Baines, T., Elliot, C. (2015). Servitization and competitive advantage: the importance of organizational structure and value chain position. Research­Technology Management, 53(5), 53-60.

Corrocher, N., Cusmano, L. (2014). The ‘KIBS engine’ of regional innovation systems: Empirical evidence from European regions. Regional Studies, 48(7), 1212-1226.

Crozet, M., Milet E. (2015). Should everybody be in services? The effect of servitization on manufacturing firm performance. CEPII Working paper 2015-19

Cusumano, M.A., Kahl, S.J., Suarez, F.F. (2015). Services, industry evolution, and the competitive strategies of product firms. Strategic Management Journal, 36 (4), 559-575.

European Commission (2012). Knowledge-intensive (business) services in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union (doi: 10.2777/59168).

Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 133-150.

Jacobs, W., Van Rietbergen, T., Atzema, O., Van Grunsven, L., Van Dongen, F. (2016). The impact of multinational enterprises (MNEs) on knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) start-ups: empirical evidence from the Dutch Randstad. Regional Studies, 50(4), 728-743.

Lafuente, E., Vaillant, Y., Vendrell-Herrero, F. (forthcoming). Territorial Servitization: Exploring the virtuous circle connecting knowledge-intensive services and new manufacturing businesses. International Journal of Production Economics.

Lafuente, E., Vaillant, Y., Serarols, C. (2010). Location decisions of knowledge-based entrepreneurs: Why some Catalan KISAs choose to be rural? Technovation, 30, 590-600.

Macneill, S., & Jeannerat, H. (2016). Beyond production and standards: toward a status market approach to territorial innovation and knowledge policy. Regional Studies, 50(2), 245-259.

Rocha, H., Sternberg, R. (2005). Entrepreneurship: the role of clusters, theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence from Germany. Small Business Economics, 24, 267-292.

Vaillant, Y., Lafuente, E., Serarols, C. (2012). Location Decisions of New KISA firms: The Rural-Urban Divide. The Service Industries Journal, 32(16): 2543-2563.