The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to product-service system. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Servicizing[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence that the term is in standard use, and I wouldn't know what its equivalent would be in English. The references seem to discuss a variety of related concepts. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Reasonably used neologism. Used by respected sources such as The Oxford Handbook of Business and the Natural Environment; you may google yourself. The concept is long well known in software industry, "software as a service". Makes sense to have a generic term. - Altenmann >t 16:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. No evidence at all that this is used. --Zackmann08 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grr. This is actually a notable concept and the term is proper [1][2] although it has (of course) some rough synonyms [3]. It simply means transforming a product into a service (as much as possible). But the Wikipedia article a total nightmare of impenetrable writing. I'll slap it with ((rewrite)). Frankly it could be deleted per WP:TNT. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also this wiki article theorizes almost without end but gives only one (unreferenced!) example, whereas most quality sources covering this topic are rich in examples and don't drivel anywhere near as much. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under one of the alternative names, there are even an entire books about the topic. [4][5] (though they are a collection of papers). Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And we have a WP:CFORK article that is almost just as badly written at product-service system (PSS). Apparently most biz school guys writing stuff on Wikipedia can't keep it real. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It does seem that some authors consider servicizing a somewhat narrower concept than PSS (or just one of several ways of pursuing that) [6]. The PSS article (of course) engages in the typical theorizing with zero examples, not even examples at the level of related concepts, when that's the 1st thing I found in a google search... Another book/paper however points out that most authors mean the same thing by PSS and servicizing [7]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another (2011) book/paper concurs [8] that "The literature in the field of PSS has, until now, been focused largely on the actual transition from product to product/service-system", although that author refers to "servicizing" only as one of the early contributions (1999) to the framing/study of the PSS field [9]. He does go on to say the field is still in its infancy, so definitions & theories are still "fluid". Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Service economy also covers this a bit with the 2nd meaning given in its lead ("servitization of products"), although the topic is apparently not further discussed in there. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

"Software as a service" does not seem to be the same thing exactly, nor "service economy. " Is the general concept replacing objects with services? but in business contexts only?

Can someone find a well written quotable definition to start off with that does not use business or sociology jargon?

Some of the examples in the article do not make sense in terms of anything that might be this concept: using natural pesticides instead of synthetic, for example. The actual difference would be between buying pesticides, or hiring people who apply their own. Some don't make sense at all: property-acquisition/disposal costs can be outweighed by transaction costs of renting--somebody has to buy the property in order to rent it to you, and whoever does this is going to need to make a profit by it, & the end-user is going to pay the extra.

One of the examples is designing things to minimize the need for servicing, which is a different concept altogether.

Another separate concept is cost-based pricing, which is again a distinct subject, which can be understood without jargon.

Perhaps when it comes down to it, it is fundamentally the Marxist Labour theory of value.

My first problem remains: is this in general use, instead of use by a small circle? We should include jargon that is in common use, and explain it as best we can , even if the originators are totally unclear about it themselves; but we do not promote jargon that is not in general use by including it as separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AGREED! Well said DGG! --Zackmann08 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best course of action is to wp:smerge this page into product-service system (PSS). At least PSS can be said to be a somewhat notable academic field of study, given that there are several books/conferences titled that way (even if one can't give a universally agreed definition as to what it entails). The various flavors of PSS (whether they are only theoretical flavors or there is a more real-world distinction between them--sources cited above vary on that aspect) are best treated on a single page, I think. (I've done something like that with the somewhat similar issue of metamessage and subtext recently, though I had the advantage that metamessage wasn't really covered anywhere yet.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In practical terms, I think we could start with a WP:BLAR, but keeping the history intact. Most of the content isn't useful for immediate merging because of the highly idiosyncratic writing style (very wordy but still vague and peppered with jargon that doesn't actually illuminate: for example under "incentives" we have "The shift from products to servicizing solutions may create incentives for producers to: [...] Facilitate the development of supporting infrastructure, which often needs to be changed and/or optimised, including ICT software solutions and hardware solutions and systems;" -- doesn't really say anything), but at least it's useful for an outline of main issues to cover. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.