Conference Agenda

20-AM-06: ST7.5 - Emerging Landscapes. New Skills, New Technologies and New Organizational Challenges in the 4.0 Age
Thursday, 20/June/2019:
8:30am - 10:00am

Session Chair: Marcelo Enrique CONTI, Sapienza University of Rome, Management Dep.
Session Chair: Giuliano Maielli, Queen Mary, University of London
Session Chair: Cristina SIMONE, Sapienza University of Rome, Management Dep.
Session Chair: Laura RIOLLI, California State University Sacramento
Location: Room PC 17

Session Abstract

The concept of digitizing everything is already a reality. Automation, artificial intelligence, IoT, machine learning and other advanced technologies are capturing and analyzing a wealth of data that gives us sizable amount and types of information to work from. One of the major challenges we face is to change the way we think, train and work with data in order to create value through advanced technologies. The 4.0 revolution is occurring where countless elements comprising industrial systems and services are being interfaced with internet communication technologies to form the smart future factories and manufacturing organizations. 4.0 age and its key technologies (cloud-based design, Mobile Devices, Big Data, smart manufacturing systems, the Internet of Things (IoT), the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), 3D printing) are currently being driven by disruptive innovation that promises to bring countless new value creation opportunities across all major market sectors. Its vision of ecosystems of smart factories with intelligent and autonomous shop-floor entities is inherently decentralized. This, in turn, entails new complexities within platforms, metaplatforms and socio-technological ecosystems, constantly creating new challenges and opportunities (i.e. responding to customer demands for tailored products and/or creating new products for new customers) for technology enablers, users and users/enablers. The 4.0 age seems to dictate the end of consolidated models (mental, educational, managerial, organizational, cultural, social etc.) and, at the same time, it asks for new “lenses” and interpretative paradigms enabling old and new actors to succeed in such magmatic landscape. Despite the significant hype around the topic, there is extant research regarding the exact consequences for people, companies and institutions involved. For example, millions of workplaces are being vaporized in a rhythm never seen before, while others are emerging towards becoming of billion-dollar companies (i.e. unicorn companies), which are managed by a reduced number of highly skilled professionals. The 4.0 landscapes are made of diverse technologies spread across many disciplines with many different types of subject matter experts. However, there are few standards and processes designed to assist each entity to speak a common language and think systemically. Academics and practitioners are trying to deeply comprehend the consequences of the 4.0 age revolution for employees, businesses, technology users/enablers and the society at large. This is particularly challenging in the newly emerging socio-technological context where organizational boundaries and the distinction between services and manufacturing are getting fuzzier than ever. Under this perspective, atoms and bits interpenetrate more and more like a fluid and virtuosic dance. These key issues will be debated in the papers as forerunner ideas for future research on this emerging landscape.

The track aims to critically analyze the state-of-the-art about the industrial 4.0 context, its opportunities, dark side and challenges in terms of:

• new competitive rules;

• new skills, new jobs, new educational programs;

• new labor organization and new organizational models;

• new technologies;

• new paradigms for the value co-creation;

• new models of interactions among human beings, machines and virtual world.


The Personalization-Privacy Paradox in Attention Economy

Julien Cloarec

TSM-Research, Université Toulouse Capitole, CNRS


The personalization-privacy paradox is a cycle: while personalization is considered to be a privacy benefit, consumers are reluctant to provide personal information for it; in turn, marketers’ exploitation of consumer personal information to provide personalization can trigger consumers’ privacy concerns.


In our Big Data era, technology unfolds its secondary nature, which is being intrusive and source of interruption. Consumers’ attention is continuously threatened by interruptions and conflicting demands, which makes attention management a major avenue for research (Ayyagari, Grover, & Purvis, 2011). According to The Economist (2017), “the more people use their addictive-by-design social media, the more attention social-media companies can sell to advertisers—and the more data about the users’ behaviour they can collect for themselves.” While marketing scholars have investigated several relevant online issues (e.g., ad effectiveness), they have failed to capture the richness and complexity of firms’ digital marketing strategies (Yadav & Pavlou, 2014). To address this issue, a major opportunity for research (Yadav & Pavlou, 2014) lies in the combination of economic theories (e.g., competition in multisided markets (Rochet & Tirole, 2003) and attention economy (Falkinger, 2007, 2008)) and insights from the marketing literature.

Literature Gap

Although personalization is a stimulus that triggers attention processing, the theories that underlie this paradox understate this phenomenon. Besides, theoretical advances regarding attention are late compared to the evolution of businesses’ and policymakers’ agenda.

Research Questions

Investigating the personalization-privacy paradox through the lens of attention thus appears to be one of the most promising avenues for research. Indeed, while consumers’ attention is fragmented by a multi-screen environment, marketers are still looking for the best way to capture attention through personalization.


The present theoretical paper shows to what extent insights from attention economy (i.e., governmentality, ecology of attention and policies) are valuable to understand the attentional noose that is tightening around consumers.

Empirical Material



The scarcity of attention means that consumers are unable to fully control their privacy in online social exchanges (e.g., personalization-privacy trade-offs) (Walker, 2016). This situation leads to hindered abilities to evaluate the trustworthiness of such exchanges (Walker, 2016). We thus draw on the literature on attention economy to provide the reader with insights regarding the personalization-privacy paradox.

Contribution to Scholarship

By managing stylized effects (Lanham, 2006), governmentality would be beneficial for marketing research to understand how to “build attention traps” and “create value by manipulating the ruling attention structures” (Lanham, 2006: 53). Analyzing the personalization-privacy paradox through the lens of governmentality enables researchers to integrate insights from both economics and marketing, particularly by encompassing micro- and macro-levels. That being said, governmentality, which is how populations can be governed, makes necessary to take into account the environment that affects consumers’ attention. This leads to the advent of an ecology of attention.

To avoid surrendering attention to technology, further research should investigate to what extent behavioral constraint theory might provide insights to create balance. This would enable consumers to regain self-control, and to avoid pathologies (e.g., burnout) (van Knippenberg et al., 2015). Overall, the key is to capture the quality of attention, rather than its quantity (van Knippenberg et al., 2015).

Contribution to Practice

However, the major limitation of the previous policies is that they are reactive (Walker, 2016). To fully encompass the issues regarding both the personalization-privacy paradox and attention management, education is necessary (Karwatzki et al., 2017; Walker, 2016). However, a balance must be reached. If consumers become too reluctant to enter online exchanges, they can be harmed. Indeed, previous works that studied privacy in a context of limited attention showed that there exists a prisoner’s dilemma situation (Acquisti et al., 2016): if all consumers opt out of personalization-privacy trade-offs, price competition is weakened, which is costly for consumers.


The evolution of Big Data, over the last decade, has made attention an important core research area for economists and choice theorists. Economists, side by side with management scholars must adopt an interdisciplinary approach.


Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., & Wagman, L. 2016. The Economics of Privacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(2): 442–492.

Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. 2011. Technostress: Technological Antecedents and Implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4): 831–858.

Falkinger, J. 2007. Attention Economies. Journal of Economic Theory, 133(1): 266–294.

Falkinger, J. 2008. Limited Attention as a Scarce Resource in Information-Rich Economies. The Economic Journal, 118(532): 1596–1620.

Karwatzki, S., Dytynko, O., Trenz, M., & Veit, D. 2017. Beyond the Personalization–Privacy Paradox: Privacy Valuation, Transparency Features, and Service Personalization. Journal of Management Information Systems, 34(2): 369–400.

Lanham, R. A. 2006. The Economics of Attention. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. 2003. Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4): 990–1029.

The Economist. 2017. Once Considered a Boon to Democracy, Social Media Have Started to Look Like Its Nemesis.

van Knippenberg, D., Dahlander, L., Haas, M. R., & George, G. 2015. Information, Attention, and Decision Making. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3): 649–657.

Walker, K. L. 2016. Surrendering Information Through the Looking Glass: Transparency, Trust, and Protection. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(1): 144–158.

Yadav, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. 2014. Marketing in Computer-Mediated Environments: Research Synthesis and New Directions. Journal of Marketing, 78(1): 20–40.

Tourism Management in the 4.0 age: Reliability of Aspect Based Sentiment Analysis and Viable System Approach

Marcelo Enrique CONTI, Francesca LOIA, Pietro VITO

Sapienza University of Rome, Management Dep., Italy


With the increasing availability of online reviews in specialized sites and personal blogs, new opportunities and challenges for decision makers are arising. In this direction, managers in the field of tourism are required to make fast and efficient decisions and acquire growing awareness of the context in which they operate.


Since its conceptualization (Hu & Liu, 2004) the Aspect Based Sentiment Analysis has frequently been used in literature to identify the opinions on features of products on the market (Popescu & Etzioni, 2007). Few works use ABSA concerning tourist destinations and territorial governance, using the massive amount of user-generated data in management models to provide decision makers information about the shared sentiment regarding points of interests (Afzaal et al., 2018). The difficulty of identifying territorial management models which are able to explain its potential in terms of usability (tourism attractiveness, residents' well-being, sustainability), recognized by Ehlinger, Perret and Chabaud (2007), is addressed in the existing literature through the proposal of new management models aimed at ensuring effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. This is the direction of the systemic vision of Beer (1972), enriched by new conceptualizations by Barile (2009) on decision making in a complex context.

Literature Gap

In the existing literature, applications of the Aspect Based Sentiment Analysis to tourism management and territorial governance are scarce, and where available, these are not mainly oriented to a system approach.

Research Questions

• Can the huge amount of user-generated content support the decision maker in the tourist and territorial field?

• Is it possible to combine Aspect Based Sentiment Analysis and system approach to provide a generally accepted decision support model?

• How can 4.0 technologies contribute to the value co-creation?


The methodology used is based on Aspect Based Sentiment Analysis that, through the interpretative lens of the Viable System Approach, is able to evaluate the opinions of the community with respect to the components of urban assets to make the decision makers aware of the shared opinions regarding the aspects of the points of interest (POI). The ABSA identifies the sensations expressed by the users of the community analysed (“holders”), concerning the “aspects” of urban resources and establishes whether they are positive or negative.

Empirical Material

A large-scale text analysis study was conducted following a Big Data-oriented approach, with the aim of understanding, in relation to the identified Italian point of interest, the main sentiments expressed within the texts generated on the net by citizens and visitors of the selected city. The collection of users' opinions takes place in the community of a Website. In particular, the choice fell on the Trip Advisor website, the largest travel site in the world. The entire corpus of reviews present on regarding the selected point of interest was considered. On this population of reviews, we identified a sample size that allows us to guarantee, with respect to the entire population, a sampling error of 5% at a 95% probability level. During the data collection phase, specific tools were used for syntactic analysis and knowledge extraction. The identification, extraction and analysis of the data were carried out by means of "RStudio", version 1.1.463, an open source statistical environment. The components of the point of interest, to which the community pays more attention, and the attributes associated with them, were identified. Subsequently, the Aspect Based Sentiment Analysis was applied through the lexical resource.


Represented the "sentiment" levels of each tuple obtained, concerning the entity taken into consideration and its corresponding aspects, we proceeded with the aggregation of the latter, in order to be able to make general assessments on the point of interest considered. Then, analyzing the polarities of each aspect of the entity, it emerged that some aspects are perceived as particularly positive and others negative. The positive connotation suggests the possibility of emphasizing, through marketing strategies, the aspects’ attractiveness. Instead, the negative opinions reveal signs of discontent (e.g. safety, cleaning, etc.) to which the decision maker must necessarily pay attention. Based on these elements, it is possible to arrive at the characterization of a recursive model oriented to the achievement of a territorial valorisation, in order to develop and strengthen the probability of survival of the overall territorial context. The actions of the decision makers must tend to develop the interaction between the systemic components, in order to bring out distinctive features of the system.

Contribution to Scholarship

The work offers interesting theoretical implications, combining, in a single model, the Viable System Approach, interpretative lens of reality, with ABSA, a technique of extraction and evaluation of opinions about specific entities. The aim is to define a model that allows not only the collection and analysis of data but also offer an interpretative method of the information obtained. Furthermore, the system approach, combined with the technique of text analysis and elaboration, refers to the processes of value co-creation. In fact, the VSA recognizes the complexity of social phenomena in general, and particularly territorial decision-making processes, and pushes to evaluate numerous information, without losing a system vision, to co-create value through an increasingly dynamic interaction of context actors. Besides, the paper highlights the strong interconnection between technology, people and institutions, three main dimensions behind the definition of smart city.

Contribution to Practice

The model could be a valid support to the decision-making activities, proposing, in a flexible manner, shared evaluations on the levels of "sentiment" perceived by the community concerning the point of interest, in order to both assess the main aspects of attractiveness and the symptoms of a principle of discontent. Therefore, the decision maker can implement a series of interventions, aimed at establishing the conditions for a context consonance by having acquired an overview of the different perceptions of the community.


4.0 technologies, including Big Data, are promising to bring new value creation opportunities across all major sectors. However, there are a few models and processes designed to think systemically. In this direction, this work aims to offer a valid support system to decision making, proposing community-shared evaluations regarding tourism destinations.


Hu, M., & Liu, B. (2004, August). Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 168-177). ACM.

Popescu, A. M., & Etzioni, O. (2007). Extracting product features and opinions from reviews. In Natural language processing and text mining (pp. 9-28). Springer, London.

Afzaal, M., Usman, M., & Fong, A. (2018). Predictive aspect-based sentiment classification of online tourist reviews. Journal of Information Science, 0165551518789872.

Ehlinger, S., Perret, V., & Chabaud, D. (2007). Quelle gouvernance pour les réseaux territorialisés d'organisations ? Revue Francaise de Gestion, 170(1), 155-171.

Beer, S. (1972), Brain of the firm; a development in management cybernetics, New York: Herder and Herder.

Barile, S. (2009), Management sistemico vitale, Giappichelli: Torino.

Industry 4.0: challenges and disruptions for Procurement




Industry 4.0 technologies are changing the game for companies.This paper aims to investigate the impact of Industry 4.0 on the Procurement function, either in terms of challenges or real disruptions, and to suggest strategy tracks for Procurement managers and CPOs having to drive the coming 4.0 big change.


Despite the fact that a few number of papers have been published in the scholar literature some of them are analyzed such as (Bienhauss, 2017) or (Pellengahr, K. Schulte, A. Richard, J. Berg, M., 2016). On the other hand a lot of Consulting firms such as (Daher, M. et al., 2017) for Deloitte, (Nowosel, K. et al., 2015) for Accenture, produced recently either dedicated reports or white papers in that matter, aiming to show how 4.0 technologies are an historical opportunity for Procurement productivity.

Literature Gap

No real quantified estimation of the digitization impact on Procurement creation value, either in scholar literature or consulting / practitioners lietrature.

Research Questions

o How Procurement value proposal changed along the time until the digital age ?

o What is the impact of digitization on Procurement operations ?

o What is really disruptive in the digitization of Procurement ?

o What are the digitization challenges for buyers ?

o Will Procurement be differently organized in companies ?


o A review of the incremental evolution of Procurement’s mission statement along the time is done.

o The use of models recently proposed : 1) the CTG model (Competitiveness, Trust, Growth) for supplier panel breakdown (Potage, 2011a) 2) the PRIME layer model (Purchasing Relationship Integrated Model) for buyer-supplier relationship modeling business (Potage, 2011b). 3) The recent PIMM model (Purchasing Integrated Maturity Model) are used (Potage, 2011b, 2017a, 2017b).

o The effect of digitization on the Procurement function effectiveness is analyzed and mostly quantified.

o Challenges are identified, either for buyers themselves, but also for Procurement managers or CPOs.

Empirical Material

Two empirical materials are used in the paper. They are essential in order to provide a net estimation of the value created by Procurement without and with digitization effect. A first one is about PIMM gross value calibration for PIMM's levels 1 & 2: during seven years, from 1993 to 2000, Purchasing savings have been measured with a precise metrics and a “thermometer”. The savings of 80 Business Units have been reported each month to the CPO. Result of such a huge heuristics: more than 5000 measuring points, and a mean value of savings due to level 1 and 2 practices typically estimated at 5% per year. Concerning PIMM’s level 3 & 4, another company program has been led during five years from 1995 to 2000, aiming to create “engineers projects buyers” having in charge to apply upstream purchasing practices of PIMM's level 3 & 4 in Business units projects. A reporting process to Corporate has been done for 1000 projects giving an estimation at 5-15% of gross value.

A least, a cost model for the Procurement function at 2% in IT or Services activity and 4% in Products or System activity, measured a company scale has been obtained and validated.


The disruptive effects of Industry 4.0 on Procurement activity are clearly identified and described. The change to manage is mainly based on :

o A new Make / Team / Buy decision process to redefine.

o The Procurement organization change or reshaping to operate.

o The effectiveness jump of Procurement to size.

o The boon for a better management of CTG suppliers panel in Procurement organizations to size via a staffing swap

o The improvement of Purchases risks management with new « intelligent » tools

The consequences for General Managers and CPOs are described through five challenges.

o Define their company's Big and Small Data purchasing strategy,

o Set up a Company Supplier Information System if not already under construction,

o Define an E-Tools Strategy,

o Re-asses buyers maturity mainly about the « Means KPAs »,

o Automate everything that can be.

Contribution to Scholarship

The Correlation between digitization, supplier panel management, Procurement maturity and Procurement effectiveness is established and quantified in a unified way.

Contribution to Practice

For CPOs or Procurement managers, a digitization vision and five concrete actions is proposed in order to anticipate the change effects.


This paper is relevant with Track 7.5 - Emerging landscapes. New skills, new technologies and new organizational challenges in the 4.0 age.


Bienhauss, F. (2017), Procurement 4.0: factors influencing the digitisation of procurement and supply chains, Online Programmes, Management School, University of Liverpool, Liverpool

Daher M., Chmielewsk J., Jayaraj V., (2017), The Future of Procurement in the Age of Digital Supply Networks, Deloitte White Paper

Geissbauer, R., Weissbarth, R., Wetzstein, J., (2017) Procurement 4.0 : are you ready for the digital revolution ?,

Pellengahr, K. Schulte, A. Richard, J. Berg, M., (2016), Procurement 4.0, The Digitalisation of Procurement,

Potage, J. (2011a), A holistic and integrated model for customer supplier relationship management, Ipsera 2011, Maastricht

Potage, J. (2011b), A holistic and integrated maturity model for purchasing management, Ipsera 2011 Conference, Maastricht

Potage, J. (2016b), Maturité des Services Achats et Relation Client- Fournisseur, Maxima Editions, Paris

Potage, J. (2017a), Purchasing maturity development with models: PIMM Toolkit for CPOs, IPSERA 2017, Budapest

Potage, J. (2017b), Managing procurement value creation with a maturity model, LOGISTIQUE & MANAGEMENT, 2017, Vol. 25, N°. 4, 303–315

Creating value in the fourth industrial revolution

Giacomo Büchi, Monica Cugno, Rebecca Castagnoli

University of Turin, Italy


Industry 4.0 allows for greater integration and interoperability between all actors and tools of the enterprise system. Companies need to create a smart environment of communication, intermediation and relationship between people, objects, machines and products. The smart environment must be accompanied by a transformation of the enterpises in smart factories.


The paper analyses the literature on Industry 4.0 to understand the effect that Industry 4.0 has on customer co-creation process. For this reason the study investigates papers that analyse the diffusion of the phenomenon (see Chovancová, Dorocáková, Malacká, 2018); the impact of Industry 4.0 on the reconfiguration of products (Porter & Heppelmann, 2014; Porter & Heppelmann, 2015); the performance allowed by the adoption of Industry 4.0 (see Dalenogare et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2015; Müller et al., 2018; Porter & Heppelmann, 2015).

Literature Gap

Management research explores the phenomenon through theoretical studies or case studies that verify the effects of individual enabling technologies on customer co-creation process (Grandhi, Patwa & Saleem, 2017; Dukić, Dugandžić & Dukić, 2017) without a holistic approach.

Research Questions

The paper answers to two research questions:

RQ1 – Does the Industry 4.0 modifies the way companies create value?

RQ2 – How the industry 4.0 modifies the way companies create value?


The paper is conceptual and is based on a literature analysis ̶ conducted through ISI-Thompson Web of Science database ̶ divided in three research objectives: (1) to reconstruct the fundamental characteristics of Industry 4.0; (2) to analyse opportunities and risks of the single enabling technologies; (3) to identify if and how the fourth industrial revolution modifies the customer co-creation process.

The three research studies require different keywords to meet their respective goals.

Empirical Material

This paper is conceptual and there are not empirical materials.


The main expected results of the research are:

(1) A reorganization of the existent literature identifying origins, definition, key factors and enabling technologies of Industry 4.0

(2) The identification of six macro-tyoplogies of opportunities derived from the application of Industry 4.0 based in particular on a greater competitive advantages linked to improved efficiency and effectiveness in mass production and the introduction of new production models (mass customization and mass personalization) by adapting production capacity to different levels of demand.

(3) The description of the dark side of the Industry 4.0 such as: the needs for high initial investments related to the acquisition of new assets and skills and to understand the potential offered by the market; privacy and ethical issues.

(4) The adoption of Industry 4.0 allows for a greater tailored production even with the co-production of solutions with customers.

Contribution to Scholarship

The main contribution of the study is the integration of the theoretical framework of the customer co-creation process (Vargo & Lusch, 2008; Grönroos & Voima, 2013) in the context of the transformations of the Industry 4.0.

In particular Industry 4.0 allows the production of manufacturing products in order to satisfy each individual client’s needs with production efficiency near mass production but in limited numbers (mass customization) and manufacturing products and acquiring purchasing experience of individual consumer’s tastes based on their preferences (mass personalization).

Mass customization and mass personalization facilitate implementing a variety into the product range – going from the many of a kind variety to a one of a kind variety. This can then be altered over time in response to growing needs for variety that demand calls.

Similar situations have arisen from manufacturing small lots (niche) thanks to additive manufacturing that offers on-demand products via 3D printing.

Contribution to Practice

Despite the still limited application of Industry 4.0, the results obtained encourage managers and policy makers to implement a wider range of enabling technologies along the various phases of the supply chain and to adopt a new way to manage the company itself and the relations with customers involving them in the co-creation of products.


Industry 4.0 modifies genetic heritage and strategic design of the enterprise system creating new opportunities and threats that need to be managed. These changes have a significant impact on relationships with stakeholders (primarily customers) but aren’t identified studies that investigate holistically the effect that Industry 4.0 has on customer co-creation.


B. Chovancová, M. Dorocáková, V. Malacká, Changes in the industrial structure of GDP and stock indices also with regard to industry 4.0, Business and Economics Horizons, 14 (2), (2018), pp.402-414.

L.S. Dalenogare, G.B. Benitez, N.F. Ayala, A.G. Frank, The expected contribution of Industry 4.0 technologies for industrial performance, International Journal of Production Economics, 204, (2018), pp. 383-394.

B. Dukić, S. Dugandžić, S. Dukić, S., Conceptual CRM application database model in the function of physical products distribution for known customer, 17th international scientific conference Business Logistic in Modern Management,(2017), pp. 369-383.

Fettig, K., Gačić, T., Köskal, A., Kühn, A., Stuber, F., Impact of Industry 4.0 on Organizational Structures, IEEE International Conference on Engineering, technology and Innovation, (2018), pp. 1-8.

Grandhi, B.; Patwa, N.; Saleem, K., Data driven marketing for growth and profitability, 10th Annual Conference of the EuroMed Academy of Business, (2017), pp. 675-694.

C. Grönos, P. Voima, critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation, Journal of the Academy of Management Science, (2013), 41 (2), pp.133-150.

W.W.H. Kagermann, J. Helbig, W. Wahlster, Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative Industrie 4.0, Final report of the Industrie 4.0 working group (2013), pp.1-84.

J. Lee, B. Bagheri, H.A. Kao, A Cyber-Physical Systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems, Manufacturing Letters, 3, (2015), pp. 18-23.

R. Lorenz, K. Lorentzen, N. Stricker, G. Lanza, Applying User Stories for a customer-driven Industry 4.0 Transformation, IFAC papers online, Elsevier, (2018), 51 (11), pp. 1335-1340.

J.M. Müller, O. Buliga, K. Voigt, How SMEs approach business model innovations in Industry 4.0, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 132, (2018), pp. 2-17.

M.E. Porter, J.E. Heppelmann, How smart, connected products are transforming competition, Harvard Business Review, 92 (11), (2014), pp. 64-88.

M.E. Porter, J.E. Heppelmann, How Smart, Connected Products Are Transforming Companies, Harvard Business Review, 93 (10), (2015), pp. 96-114.

S.L. Vargo, R.F. Lush, Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution, Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, (2008), 36 (1), pp.1-10.