What is Service Design?
Background, emergence, process, considerations and context…
Its brief, high-level, and only key bits from my research. Hopefully you’ll find useful if you’re trying to get your head around what it is, where it emerged from, how its matured and why designing for services is different than products. I’ve also included a super brief overview of its relationship to innovation — often sitting alongside Design Thinking. Businesses appropriation of design for change can mean large or small improvements. The services sector are a crucial aspect of the Australian economy as we move away from a resources focused future.
Background
Through review of various sources, it becomes evident that a common definition does not exist, that service design is an emergent practice with an ongoing inquiry (by researchers and practitioners).
Thackara describes Service Design as ‘collaborative’ (in forward for Polaine, Løvlie, Reason 2003: p.xiv), and Polaine et al (2003) as ‘multidisciplinary’. Polaine et al (2003), goes on to outline that it is ‘co- produced’ because it uses the people within the service environment to redesign it. Services are based on the needs of the people using them, to ensure they are delivering value exchanges.
Service Designers make efficient use of networks, technology and people to simplify experiences and make them more powerful for end users. They have a sustainable approach to ensure resilience, enhanced performance, longevity and satisfaction over time (Polaine et al 2003).
“More precisely, service design is concerned with systematically applying design methodology and principles to the design of services” (Holmid, Evenson 2008, p. 341).
Sangiorgi (2009) proposes a framework for research to improve understanding, noting a lack of common theory. And suggests the reflective practice creates a stronger focus on methods than developing a common theoretical framework.
And Buchanan (2001) infers the dynamic nature of design and its multiplicity is its strength — acknowledging an inquiry into a search for common language and meaning.
“Frankly, one of the great strengths of design is that we have not settled on a single definition. Fields in which definition is now a settled matter tend to be lethargic, dying, or dead fields, where inquiry no longer provides challenges to what is accepted as truth” (Buchanan 2001, p. 3–23).
Stickdorn & Schneider (2011), suggest an insight to current standing can be attained by combining the multiple definitions with each other and lay them out in their book for you to do so.
Emergence
Kimbell (2011) provides a comprehensive literature review of design and management, concluding that a different view about the origins of Service Design exists depending on whether you believe it is a new field, or takes its heritage from design, management and social sciences.
Polaine et al attribute the origins to industrial design, citing Bauhaus central to its birth. They come from an interaction and product design background, representing a “digitally native generation professionally bred on network thinking” (Polaine 2003, p. 18).
Others (Holmid: Sangiorgi), agree on interaction design as the source — it “began in earnest in the ‘90’s and was positioned relative to industrial design” (Holmid 2008, p. 341: Sangiorgi 2009, p418–419).
Kimbell (2011) concludes Service Design emerged from an interdisciplinary field, stating the theories aren’t found in one body of literature. Her review of multiple fields evidence these findings, she surveys marketing, operations, information systems, and social sciences. Her attempts to create a multi-discipline joined-up view, is an angle not yet attempted by other scholars. It also seems fitting at a time when calls from other multi-discipline schools (such as Sensory Anthropology), are asking for more interdisciplinary research efforts to be made. Pink requests a similar approach in her sensory anthropology paper only a year earlier (Pink & Howes 2010).
Process
Damien Newman’s ‘The Squiggle’ (reproduced in Stickdorn & Schneider 2011), is used to visualise the iterative nature of the service design process. It’s an iterative, human centred practice with a range of tools that can be applied depending on the context (Stickdorn & Schneider 2011).
Four-stage framework
“Although processes are in reality nonlinear, it is possible to articulate an outline structure “, the four stages of the common framework are; exploration, creation, reflection and implementation (Stickdorn & Schneider 2011, p.124). To simply things I’m adopting this four-stage framework to frame my research, I’m focusing on the ‘exploration’ stage to consider sensory walking research as an effective research method.
What’s the focus during ‘exploration’?
- Understanding the context — the problem exists within, to design an approach for to solve. Understanding company, culture, stakeholders, design maturity, willingness and capability to co-create the solution will determine appropriate tools selected.
- Finding the right problem — to solve by finding out more about the problem from stakeholders, customers and future customers. Using a variety of tools to understand the mindsets and behaviours of people involved, often ethnographic.
- Visually conveying the findings — to service stakeholders about the service proposition to improve experience (Stickdorn and Scheider 2011).
Designing for services is different…
Polaine et al (2003) acknowledges services as fundamentally different to products; and is still bound by traditional marketing definitions to distinguish ‘services’ and ‘products’ characteristics from each other. They are aware of the need to re-think how ‘services’ are designed based on traditional business structures not being able to deliver them.
Further to this they recognise that services are delivered by people, and require an efficient sequencing of networks to deliver excellent experiences. The domain of the Service Designer is viewed as someone who can facilitate the sustainable reconnection of the broken links for business.
But it’s Lovelock (2004) who underscores a need for theory and the definition of ‘services’ to be reviewed. He encourages exploration of ‘aspects…not clearly visible in current theory’, concerned that changing times were eroding the traditional definitions and implications that ‘services’ had for the service marketing community (Lovelock 2004, p. 38).
Kimbell traces the changing conversation across many related disciplines relevant to the design for services, to show the impact on Service Design today (in Stickdorn & Schneider 2011). She points to Booms & Bitner’s 1981 expansion of marketing’s theories 4P framework, and Zeithamal and Bitner 2003 consideration of a need to measure service quality from a customer’s viewpoint (in Stickdorn & Schneider 2011).
Kimbell traces Normann and Ramieriz 1983 theories pertaining to customer relations and value creation; and mentions Gronroos 2000 exploration into customer relationship marketing (in Stickdorn & Schneider 2011).
My favourite observation within all these converging theories is from Kimbell, where she distils the focus (in Stickdorn & Scheider 2011);
“What does matter is that understanding value and the nature of relationships between people and other people, between people and organisations, and between organisations of different kinds are now understood to be central to designing services”.
The outcome of related disciplines critiquing their own histories and theories, stimulated by the change of time, has produced a cross pollination of ideas all of which culminate to inform what Service Design is today. This history of emergence and reinvention, has given rise to new design disciplines including Service Design, Design Anthropology, Design Ethnography, and Sensory Anthropology. And by virtue of this research process, I am ticking off a deeper understanding of each — one at a time.
Relationship to Innovation
The context for Service Design is often within business, utilised to deliver Design Thinking innovation programs, or a strategic re-innovation, re-structure or reframing of sustainable competitive business practice in the face of an ever changing and turbulent economic outlook (Volkova 2016).
Volkova (2016) outlines drivers of turbulence and change that impact business, and encourage restructure to improve delivery of services. He positions them as a direct threat to the continuous deliver of value to customers.
Brown (2008) encourages business leaders to incorporate Design Thinking to existing innovation strategies ‘at all stages of the process’ to achieve such change. Showcasing examples of ‘innovation activities with a human-centered design ethos” that he holds accountable for the creation of differentiation and competitive advantage (Brown 2008, p. 86).
Brown emphasises, human centred design research is the best way to surface ‘unexpected insights and produce innovation that more precisely reflects what consumers want” (Brown 2008, p. 90).
Australian context
The Australian ‘economy produced services worth around $970 billion”, in 2014- 15 with the services sector contributed ’60 per cent of GDP’ (Department of Industry, Innovation and Science 2015, p. 51). Services are considered “a key requirement for businesses to get their products to market” (Department of Industry, Innovation and Science 2015, p. 3).
2007 Australian Government publications define the nature of wicked problems and outlining the need to up-skill, change management style and work in new innovative ways including creative thinking (i.e. adoption of iterative prototyping) (Australian Public Service Commission 2007).
Government’s recognition about the importance of services to deliver downstream added value, shapes the policy that has grown over time to increase support for ‘user-led’ innovation and the transformation of Australian businesses to remain internationally competitive (Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research 2009).
As sector dominance switches, services are becoming a renewed focus for government policy; “economic growth are changing. We can no longer rely on investments in the resources sector to drive economic activity” (DIIS 2015).
_____________
References
Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) 2007, ‘Tackling Wicked Problems: A Public Policy Perspective’, APSC, Canberra, Australia, p.44.
Brown, T 2008, ‘Design Thinking’, Harvard Business Review, June 2008, Vol.86, no. 6, pp.84–92.
Buchanan, R 2001, ‘Design Research and the new learning’ in Design Issues, vol 17 (4), 3–23.
Department of Industry Tourism and Resources 2007, ‘Australian Service Sector Trends’, Background Paper 3, May, DITR, Canberra, Australia, pp.6–11.
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science 2015, ‘Australian Industry Report’, Office of the Chief Economist, Canberra, Australian Government, pp. i-51.
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research 2009, ‘Service Sector: Overview of Structural Change’, Industry Brief 2007–08, Industry and Small Business Policy Division, Canberra, pp.71–75.
Holmid, S and Evenson, S 2008, ‘Bringing service design to service sciences, management and engineering’, in Service science, management and engineering education for the 21st century, 1st edn, Springer, US, pp.341.
Kimbell, L 2011, ‘Designing for service as one way of designing services’, International Journal of Design, vol. 5, no. 2, pp.41–52, viewed 7 February 2017, ProQuest.
Lovelock, C and Gummesson, E 2004, ‘Whither Services Marketing?’, Journal of Service Research, vol. 7, no.1, pp.20–41.
Pink, S and Howes, D 2010, ‘The future of sensory anthropology/the anthropology of the senses’, Social Anthropology, vol.18 no.3, pp.331–340.
Polaine, A, Løvlie, L, Reason, B and Thackara, J 2003, Service design, 1st edn, Rosenfield Media, Brooklyn, New York, pp. xiv, iv, 18–19.
Sangiorgi, D 2009, ‘Building up a framework for Service Design research’, in 8th European Academy of Design Conference, Aberdeen, 1–3 April 2009, The Robert Gordon University, pp.415–419, viewed 8 Feb. 2017, < https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniela_Sangiorgi/publication/228745546_Building_up _a_framework_for_Service_Design_research/links/0fcfd50bf0d16b443d000000.pdf>, pp. 418–419.
Stickdorn, M and Schneider, J 2011, This is service design thinking, 1st edn, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Brooklyn, New Jersey.
Volkova, T and Jākobsone, I 2016, ‘Design thinking as a business tool to ensure continuous value generation’, Intellectual Economics, vol.10, no.1, pp.63–69.
