92
M. Aurisicchio et al.
where producers grant consumers access to products or offer consumers the performance of products as experiences. Ownership of products in these business models
is retained by producers. Futures have been proposed where business models based
on access, not ownership, will become the dominant market offering and the idea of
ownership is perceived as old fashion (Rifkin 2000). In a market where consumers
are granted access to goods that they feel theirs though they do not legally own them,
research has emerged to understand how to design to satisfy psychological ownership
using a human centred approach (Baxter et al. 2018, 2015).
In recent reviews of business models for the circular economy and sustainability
(Pieroni et al. 2019; Lüdeke-Freund et al. 2019; Bocken et al. 2014), models are
reported where access to products is granted by paying-per-use instead of paying
per-ownership (i.e. by delivering functionality rather than ownership), but there is
no reference to a model where materials are offered as a service.
7.3 Approach
This research is based on literature review and the experience of the authors in the
fields of ownership, design, product-service systems, the circular economy and business along with insights gathered during research projects with industrial partners.
The paper presents a theoretical exploration of the concept of materials as a service.
Two scenarios are used to explain how a material-service system would work. In the
first scenario we explore its interaction with a product-service system. In the second
scenario we review its independent use in the resource lifecycle system.
7.4 The Concept of Material Service System
The concept of MSSs revolves around the fact that the principle to ‘pay per use’ can
be moved up the supply chain. In a MSS, suppliers of materials offer producers the
use of material resources through services. MSSs can be thought of as marketable sets
of materials and services capable of jointly fulfilling the needs of producers. They
offer producers access to the performance of materials, while ownership of resources
and corresponding responsibility of material management remains with suppliers. A
MSS, therefore, implies a new role for producers, as they shift from consuming,
to using material resources, which remain owned by material suppliers. Producers
enter a business relationship with suppliers based on a ‘pay per use’ model rather
than traditional purchasing of material resources. In Table 7.1 a MSS is contrasted
to a PSS. As it can be seen the fundamental difference between the two models is
that in a MSS material suppliers retain ownership of material resources and sell the
function of materials, whereas in a PSS producers retain ownerships of produced
resources and sell the function of products. It is noteworthy that material suppliers
retain ownership of resources, not of the intellectual property resulting from the
M. Aurisicchio et al.
where producers grant consumers access to products or offer consumers the performance of products as experiences. Ownership of products in these business models
is retained by producers. Futures have been proposed where business models based
on access, not ownership, will become the dominant market offering and the idea of
ownership is perceived as old fashion (Rifkin 2000). In a market where consumers
are granted access to goods that they feel theirs though they do not legally own them,
research has emerged to understand how to design to satisfy psychological ownership
using a human centred approach (Baxter et al. 2018, 2015).
In recent reviews of business models for the circular economy and sustainability
(Pieroni et al. 2019; Lüdeke-Freund et al. 2019; Bocken et al. 2014), models are
reported where access to products is granted by paying-per-use instead of paying
per-ownership (i.e. by delivering functionality rather than ownership), but there is
no reference to a model where materials are offered as a service.
7.3 Approach
This research is based on literature review and the experience of the authors in the
fields of ownership, design, product-service systems, the circular economy and business along with insights gathered during research projects with industrial partners.
The paper presents a theoretical exploration of the concept of materials as a service.
Two scenarios are used to explain how a material-service system would work. In the
first scenario we explore its interaction with a product-service system. In the second
scenario we review its independent use in the resource lifecycle system.
7.4 The Concept of Material Service System
The concept of MSSs revolves around the fact that the principle to ‘pay per use’ can
be moved up the supply chain. In a MSS, suppliers of materials offer producers the
use of material resources through services. MSSs can be thought of as marketable sets
of materials and services capable of jointly fulfilling the needs of producers. They
offer producers access to the performance of materials, while ownership of resources
and corresponding responsibility of material management remains with suppliers. A
MSS, therefore, implies a new role for producers, as they shift from consuming,
to using material resources, which remain owned by material suppliers. Producers
enter a business relationship with suppliers based on a ‘pay per use’ model rather
than traditional purchasing of material resources. In Table 7.1 a MSS is contrasted
to a PSS. As it can be seen the fundamental difference between the two models is
that in a MSS material suppliers retain ownership of material resources and sell the
function of materials, whereas in a PSS producers retain ownerships of produced
resources and sell the function of products. It is noteworthy that material suppliers
retain ownership of resources, not of the intellectual property resulting from the