CUST.Reference:10.1 - Productization, families and customer choice

• Wirtz, Fritze, Jaakkola, Gelbrich and Hartley, “Service products and productization” (2021), DOI 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.033. The abstract, Sections 3–4 and selected discussion in Sections 5–6 support specification of a service product and its organized provision. This is a conceptual contribution, not measured evidence that CUST improves performance. CUST adapts the commercial framing for public and nonprofit provision while retaining actual resource requirements.
• Valtakoski and Järvi, “Productization of knowledge-intensive services: Enabling knowledge sharing and cross-unit collaboration” (2016), DOI 10.1108/JOSM-01-2015-0004. The primary abstract of two longitudinal cases supports attention to goals, shared understanding and collaboration. It does not supply a fully read transfer procedure; CUST.6 obtains that treatment through Implementation Facilitation.
• Salvador, de Holan and Piller, “Cracking the Code of Mass Customization” (2009). The article’s main text and three-capability account provide the historical anchor for solution-space development, robust process design and choice navigation, including services. CUST.3 and CUST.4 retain the three distinct questions instead of treating customization as a menu of features.
• Simpson, Siddique and Jiao, “Platform-Based Product Family Development” (2006). The bounded chapter treatment, especially printed pages 4–6, supports top-down family development and bottom-up consolidation, with a commonality/differentiation tradeoff. It is not a reading of the entire book or a source for every service-family construction.
• Bakås, Buer, Skjelstad and Kløve, “A Framework for Solution Space Development in Mass Customization” (2023), DOI 10.1007/978-3-031-34821-1_15. The primary abstract supports a continuing front-end/back-end learning account. It does not support importing the paper’s unread full module procedure. The positive family construction here remains explicit in CUST.3 and in its full suppliers.

These contributions favor an explainable common basis and permitted variation over premature standardization. They leave room for useful local residue. When similarity is merely superficial, CUST keeps separate offerings rather than forcing one family.