Service Design needs a “pattern language”

If we want to ensure that design of services is shared, understood, discussed, challenged, implemented and improved by larger audience, we must build a language for it. A common “pattern language” to be precise. Currently such common language used in the field of service design does not exist. Some specific versions are used within small communities or individual teams, but nothing applicable for wider usage. If there is no common language used by wider population, we will not succeed in expanding the service design.

Language is a method for sharing thoughts and ideas among people. We humans, we use words and sentences to create language. Thanks to language, spoken thoughts are discussed, challenged and passed on for generations, from the dawn of the humans.

We name and describe things with words. Sometimes we use a single word (e.g. “a house”). Sometimes we want to extend the meaning of that word by adding additional words (e.g. “a house that provide feeling of love and protection for me and my family”). And with time, we evolve the language to come back to a single word with same associated meaning (e.g. “a home”). That makes words very complex communication tools that allow us to express quite a lot with a single word or a specific name.

Architect and author Christopher Alexander discusses how to define and to communicate an architectural “quality without a name”, based on that particular language complexity. He wrote two books (“Timeless way of building” and “A pattern language”) all the way back in 1977. He structured and proposed an architectural language of “patterns” (not words nor sentences).

What he calls a “pattern” is in fact an element of the architecture that can be repeated with indefinite variations (e.g. a street, a type of house, a room, a wall, a room, a window, a garden).

These “patterns” in their definition also include human associated events that bring that particular piece of architecture alive, as well as associated impact on human behaviour.

To illustrate, here are some random “patterns” he defined for a group of entrances, roofs, courtyards and gardens: “A tree place”, “The sunny place”, “Half-hidden garden”, “Garden growing wild”, “Entrance transition”, “Building edge”, “Six-foot balcony”, “Courtyards that live”.

He proposed a collection of highly elaborated “patterns” (253 of them at that time), that covers whole scale of architecture: from the macro level of the city, all the way to the details and ornaments on the building walls.

Very important to say that these “patterns” do not prescribe WHAT or HOW you should built, rather what must be included or thought about, to make that pattern “feel right”. You still need a great architect to design that particular “pattern” and to create a beautiful piece of architecture. And no two designs will be the same.

Let me share how deep his thoughts are and what the “pattern” really is on one example — the example of a “pattern” called “External Transition”.

Alexander defines “External Transitions” as: “the house entrance, how they have a specific position between the road and the front door, how they usually include change of surface, change of view, sometimes change of level. There is often a change in direction. And above all that is an actual place so that you first pass from the street to this place and then again from this place to the front door. And above all how it helps people by creating in-between breathing space between the outside and the inside — a place of preparation, where person can change his frame of mind, and adopt to different conditions: from loud, noisy, public, vulnerable, exposed feeling of the street, to the private, quiet, intimate, protected feeling of indoors”.

Now imagine for a moment that service design had something similar to that — collection of structured and deeply elaborated “patterns”. If we would share such “patterns” (specific service design “patterns”, not necessarily Alexander’s “patterns”), how much more engaging and inviting the discussions would be around what we experience as a service now, or we design for the future. We could immediately break any design of service to its building blocks (or “patterns”) and start a meaningful, deep and insightful conversation: Does this element of service resolves the conflict? Does it fit the purpose? Does it have an effect on end result? How did you execute it repeatedly in your system or organisation?

Have you noticed that other creative disciplines and arts already developed their “pattern” language. Architecture developed it to discuss interiors, buildings and urbanisation of towns. Music developed it to discuss harmony and musical elements. Dance arts developed it to discuss movement and expressive figures. Graphic art and design developed it to discuss patterns, forms, contrasts, compositions and graphical elements.

But do service designers have a “pattern” language? Unfortunately not. So how we can expect to make service design shared to wider audience and discussed more when we do not have language for that?

And why would we need this kind of language?

Within service design community:

Well, to finally start discussing the content and substance of designed services, the true value of service design. Today, most service design conversations revolve around tools, methods and techniques (customer journey maps, service blueprints, empathy maps, research, prototyping, workshops, procedures and policies). When we finally start discussing the essence of service (designed solutions in a given context, components of designed service, relate human sentiment to it, fit to overall business need), that would significantly increase the value of our conversations.

Outside of service design community:

It would be also easier to discuss with others, non-service designers, you are co-working with on your projects (e.g. engineers, sales, customer support, IT,..). This would require less storytelling imagination effort when engaging colleagues from other business areas onto your projects.

In environment of business organisation:

This could help demystifying service design in business organisations, because conversations would have a content to discuss. We would finally move away from “the process discussion” how we would create something, and “the design discussion” (two the most scary discussion topics for managers and executives due to uncertainty of outcome). We could focus, and keep the conversation in domain of specific value to the business and how the change would look like.

In general:

I see a “pattern” language as one of ways (not as the only way) towards this new enriched conversations. First we could finally start naming components of our work, and second, it would enrich these components with a deeper meaning. Also it would be really inviting to others to engage and build up our work.

To be honest, we are all already creating specific “patterns” that could build a the common language, on each service design project, don’t we?

If that common language would have been structured, I do not see it as exposing your skills to the others. Yes, a list of “patterns” would be accessible. However it still takes a hell of a good service designer to create specific high performing solution for a specific design problem.

Let’s use this article to trigger conversation on subject of “pattern” language applicability in service design. Thanks!

More info on humanact team is available on http://www.humanact.design