Industrial manufacturers are innovating their business models by shifting from selling products to selling outcome‐based services, where the provider (manufacturer) guarantees to deliver the performance outcomes of the products and services. This form of business model innovation requires a profound yet little understood shift in how value is created, delivered, and captured. To address this research gap, our study examines two successful and four unsuccessful cases of this shift. We find that effectiveness in business model innovation hinges on the three process phases that unfold in collaboration with the customers: value proposition definition, value provision design, and value‐in‐use delivery. We also find that that success is determined by the alignment of specific value creation and value capture activities in each phase: identifying value creation opportunities—agreeing on value distribution in value proposition definition, designing the value offering—deciding on the profit formula in the value provision design, and finally refining value creation processes—regulating incentive structures in the value‐in‐use delivery. Our process model contributes to the literature and practice on business model innovation by providing a thorough understanding of how alignment of value creation and value capture processes is ensured, whilst paying special attention to their interdependence and the interactions between provider and customer.

Purpose: This study shows various pathways manufacturers can take when embarking on digital servitization (DS) journeys. It builds on the DS and modularity literature to map the strategic trajectories of product–service–software (PSSw) configurations.Design/methodology/approach: The study is exploratory and based on the inductive theory building method. The empirical data were gathered through a workshop with focus groups of 15 servitization manufacturers (with 22 respondents), an on-site workshop (in-depth case study), semi-structured interviews, observations and document study of archival data.Findings: The DS trajectories are idiosyncratic and dependent on design architectures of PSSw modules, balancing choices between standardization and innovation. The adoption of software systems depends on the maturity of the industry-specific digital ecosystem. Decomposition and integration of PSSw modules facilitate DS transition through business model modularity. Seven testable propositions are presented.Research limitations/implications: With the small sample size from different industries and one in-depth case study, generalizing the findings was not possible.Practical implications: The mapping exercise is powerful when top management from different functional departments can participate together to share their expertise and achieve consensus. It logs the “states” that the manufacturer undergoes over time.Originality/value: The Digital Servitization Cube serves as a conceptual framework for manufacturers to systematically map and categorize their current and future PSSw strategies. It bridges the cross-disciplinary theoretical discussion in DS.

Building on an in-depth study of a manufacturing company’s shift from a product to a product-service business model, we explore how single-focus companies transition to a dual orientation. Although companies generally use highly sophisticated practices to manage a dual orientation, those that transition to one successfully start with less sophisticated practices. Early on, the use of simple tradeoff practices, which maintain the product and service logics, helps single-focus companies explore the emergent tensions that their transition to a dual orientation causes. Conversely, adopting more sophisticated practices at this early stage overwhelms them. At a later stage, these companies’ growing understanding of the tensions allows them to experiment with more comprehensive paradox practices that transcend the product and service logics. Conversely, maintaining simple practices at this stage prevents them from gaining the solution experience required to complete the transition. The evolutionary process culminates in sophisticated routinized practices that institutionalize recurrent tensions’ solution, while allowing for further experimentation to deal with new tensions. The different practices’ appropriate sequence and pacing during the evolutionary process facilitate companies’ transition to a dual orientation.