Hardware-to-Subscription Pivots: Measuring the “SaaSification” Trap in Industrial Products

References

[1] Baines TS, Lightfoot HW, Benedettini O, Kay JM (2009). The servitization of manufacturing: A review of literature and reflection on future challenges. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20(5), 547–567. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380910960984

[2] Barney J (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108

[3] Cisco Systems (2024). Annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 27, 2024. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/858877/000085887724000017/csco-20240727.htm

[4] Coreynen W, Matthyssens P, Van Bockhaven W (2017). Boosting servitization through digitization: Pathways and dynamic resource configurations for manufacturers. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.04.012

[5] Deere & Company (2024). Annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 27, 2024. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/315189/000155837024016169/de-20241027x10k.htm

[6] Fang E, Palmatier RW, Steenkamp JBEM (2008). Effect of service transition strategies on firm value. Journal of Marketing, 72(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.5.001

[7] Gebauer H, Fleisch E, Friedli T (2005). Overcoming the service paradox in manufacturing companies. European Management Journal, 23(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2004.12.006

[8] Honeywell International (2024). Annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/773840/000077384024000014/hon-20231231.htm

[9] Mont OK (2002). Clarifying the concept of product–service system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(3), 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00039-7

[10] Neely A (2008). Exploring the financial consequences of the servitization of manufacturing. Operations Management Research, 1(2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-009-0015-5

[11] Oliva R, Kallenberg R (2003). Managing the transition from products to services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230310474138

[12] PTC (2024). Annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/857005/000095017024127231/ptc-20240930.htm

[13] Raddats C, Kowalkowski C, Benedettini O, Burton J, Gebauer H (2019). Servitization: A contemporary thematic review of four major research streams. Industrial Marketing Management, 83, 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.03.015

[14] Rexfelt O, Hiort af Ornäs V (2009). Consumer acceptance of product-service systems. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20(5), 674–699. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380910961055

[15] Story VM, Raddats C, Burton J, Zolkiewski J, Baines T (2017). Capabilities for advanced services: A multi-actor perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.04.015

[16] Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7509::AID-SMJ8823.0.CO;2-Z

[17] Ulaga W, Reinartz WJ (2011). Hybrid offerings: How manufacturing firms combine goods and services successfully. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.09.0395

[18] Vandermerwe S, Rada J (1988). Servitization of business: Adding value by adding services. European Management Journal, 6(4), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(88)90033-3

[19] Visnjic Kastalli I, Van Looy B (2013). Servitization: Disentangling the impact of service business model innovation on manufacturing firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 31(4), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2013.02.001

@article{1724238,
      author = {Arjun Chaturvedi},
      title = {Hardware-to-Subscription Pivots: Measuring the “SaaSification” Trap in Industrial Products},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2025},
      volume = {8},
      number = {7},
      pages = {975-988},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1724238.pdf},
      abstract = {Industrial and enterprise hardware companies increasingly combine equipment with software, maintenance, analytics, and other services. The strategic promise is attractive: recurring contracts may deepen customer relationships, monetize installed bases, smooth revenue, and create differentiated offerings. Yet a shift from equipment sales to subscriptions does not automatically create a software-as-a-service business or a durable advantage. It can also move costs forward, complicate sales incentives, unsettle customers accustomed to ownership, and delay cash returns while a firm develops the capabilities required to support service delivery. This article synthesizes research on servitization, product–service systems, hybrid offerings, the service paradox, firm resources, and dynamic capabilities to develop a framework for assessing these opposing possibilities. The framework treats the pivot as a sequence connecting strategic intent, capability development, offer and contract design, customer adoption, unit economics, cash-flow timing, and enterprise value. It proposes that subscription revenue is most defensible when the offer produces measurable customer value, the supplier can deliver it at scale, retention economics are attractive, and the firm’s capital structure can withstand transition investment. It also identifies a measurement problem: company disclosures such as annual recurring revenue and deferred revenue are not necessarily comparable, and they do not reveal churn, customer acquisition cost, or lifetime value unless definitions and underlying data are supplied. The article concludes with testable propositions, a comparative archival research design for Cisco, Deere & Company, PTC, and Honeywell, and a bounded descriptive baseline from their SEC Form 10-K disclosures. It remains a conceptual and non-causal study: the filings illustrate differences in recurring-revenue maturity, adoption indicators, contract timing, profitability, and cash flow, but they do not provide harmonized evidence of retention, customer lifetime value, or causal enterprise-value effects.},
      keywords = {servitization; subscription business model; industrial products; product–service systems; service paradox; recurring revenue; customer retention; resource-based view; dynamic capabilities},
      month = {January},
  }