What and When? A visual synthesis of service design methods and the phases for implementation

What and When? 1 (14)

What and When?A Visual Synthesis of Service Design Methods and the phases for

Implementing them

Salgado, Mariana

Ahvenainen, Mirja

Laurea University of Applied Sciences

This paper presents a set of methods, instantiated as "info-cards", to help guide design

processes. The derived methods are based on interviews with, and subsequent design-

feedback from design-researchers focusing on service design. Our focus was to find a set

of methods that describe and aid different key design process phases. The methods were

instantiated as six cards; physical boundary objects to open design processes and

discussion.

We describe possible uses of the cards in learning, research and development

environments. Also, we compare our cards to other design research methods-cards.

The uses of our method-cards are multi-fold. They open discussions of design-methods,

their characteristics, possibilities and limitations. In doing so they are differently relevant

at different levels of design. They introduce beginners to design methods, including the

public, and, they open up design processes for discussion and analysis with design

teams, as well as to co-deciding users. To aid co-deciding users in design processes, the

cards help share understandings of design processes and methods, enabling users to

further understand the realm of possibilities and be more informed in helping find relevant

co-determined paths through design processes.

KEYWORDS: service design, methods, design process, boundary objects,

visualizations

Introduction

This paper is based on the material gathered for thesis work carried out in the

User Centered Design MBA, at the Kerava unit of Laurea University of Applied

Sciences. Our main research question was, what methods are currently used in

service design processes, and when are these methods are applied during the

design process? In order to answer this question, we produced a set of cards that

are a kind of visual synthesis of the results.

Our interest in discussing methods comes from the impression, that the amount

of user-centred design methods is confusing for people not familiar with them.

This was the case for students and professionals with a Business background.

ServDes2012 paper submission


Researchers have tried to classify methods achieving different results (see for

example Tassi, 2008 or UsabilityNet, 2006). As Service Design methods are in

constant development by many different fields of knowledge, understanding both

the design process and the multitude of service design methods has been felt as

a challenge.

In certain cases, participants of the design process and students were lost

amongst the possibilities of the methods and their characteristics. In other cases

they had difficulties understanding the possible outcomes of certain method. In

addition, during this research process we discovered that even designers have

problems navigating the sea of methods. This is why we decided to create a set

of cards that works like an inspirational artefact that bring ideas on the most used

methods in service design, rather than try produce a exhaustive classification of

all possible methods.

For reference and inspiration, we have reviewed other sets of similar cards, such

as the ones created by Ideo (2002) and Moritz (2005, pp. 106-107). Amongst the

reviewed cards, the main goal was to present methods, rather than linking them

with a particular phase in the design process. Ideo's cards set includes 51 cards.

Each introduces one method. They are an inspiring tool which might have the

same functionality as ours: working as a reminder of the possibilities. The info-

cards presented in this paper do not merely present the methods, but link them

with a particular phase of the design process. The metaphors are a reminder of

the phase in question. On the other hand, each visual representation of the Ideo

cards, gives material for better understanding the method. A further difference is

that the Ideo cards are sold commercially while ours are a free online resource.

Design work is characterized by gathering and mobilizing a great quantity of

materials in different forms (Binder et al, 2011, 79). Designers seek for materiality

in their practice, even when their work is focus into the digital world. This is why

we believe that our cards could serve the needs of beginners not familiar with

design processes and also to participants that do not necessary have had design

education. The type of visualizations we have chosen for our cards relate to the

visuals that business experts and engineers are using at the moment. We see

these cards as a compass that could help all the participants in the design

process map possibilities, appropriate these methods, and make more informed

choices. They are a creative synthesis of research results. There are six cards



and each of them represents a design phase. In many design processes the

phases are not clear and the roadmap for going through them is not linear.

Although this fact does add some challenge for answering our research

questions, we believe that a deep understanding of these phases has to

necessary relate to the methods involved in each of them. But this classification

does not pretend to be extensive taking in consideration all the possible methods,

but just merely inspirational.

Drawing and Thinking

Research in Service Design has lately been increasingly implemented qualitative

methods. Therefore, to use thematic interviews within a small but selected group

of experts it was considered a suitable method for answering the research

question. At the same time it seems to us natural to ask them to draw while

thinking, as they are designers and they tend to do both activities at the time.

Thematic interviews were done to four design-researchers in the area. Their

background and level of experience within the field of service design varied.

These interviews focused on innovative service design methods but started with

some background questions about the designers and questions about service

design process: 1) Which methods could be selected in developing a service?, 2)

In which phases of the service design process certain methods could be used?

(Ahvenainen 2011, p.10).

For discussing about phase, the model presented by Stefan Moritz (2005) was

proposed. Though, the model is not well known within designers, it is still in our

opinion a good one because of its simplicity and clearness. Moreover, of the

interviewed designers, even those unfamiliar with the model, found it easy to

work with. Moritz's model (2005, p.123) brings several service design processes

together. The six phases Moritz suggests present a sufficiently detailed

explanation of service design process requirements.

During the interviews, drawing was used for visualizing service design process

and phases. Particularly in this paper, the aim is to give an account on our

discussions regarding when in the design phases the methods were implemented

and why. We do not analyse why certain methods are considered and others are

taken out of the selection, but all the methods mentioned in the interviews are

present in the cards.



The visualizations that interviewers made were helpful for establishing out

understanding that our research questions were not going to be answered only

with words, but also with images. One of the interviewees said:

”The process evolves in the same way that the ISO-standard describes it.

At the beginning there is a design problem and then there are certain

circles of iteration. For example we can interview users at the beginning.

From these interviews we can get some preliminary idea of what the

solution could be. Afterwards, we do a meeting within designers where we

develop this preliminary idea. In a later phase we can call the users to

participate and discuss with us possible solutions. We continue in this way

and at a certain point a prototype appears. Again we call the users for

another iteration cycle. These iterative cycles are described according the

ISO-standard. Many iterations till we get to the final solution in which both

users and designers are at ease with the design solution1”.

Another of the interviewers said that the process is never linear, but is

going ahead tracing cycles. ”We do, learn, ideate, and we realize that we

need to test a bit more and we go back here (he pointed a place in his

drawing) to the understanding phase. The iterative process does in a way a

loop ”2.

We got different visualizations but there were certain recurrent topics and

elements, such as the iterative cycle and the loops. The design process,

according to our interviewers, goes forward in the constant dialogue with users

and different methods were combined to feed this dialogue.

Methods and Phases

User knowledge about a certain service has different levels. Therefore, we need

different methods in order to get to these levels (Sanders 2002). In each moment

of the design process we also need information with different degree of detail.

For example, at the beginning we need information on the service offerings and

the environment or context in which the service will be implemented. When we

grasp the big picture related to the service in question, we go into the specifics

1 This is a free translation of the authors from the original version in Finnish.

2 This is a free translation of the authors from the original version in Finnish.



regarding users and special characteristics of the new design proposal. In order

to be accurate we clarify why each method was linked with a certain phase.

However, the choice of a certain method in a phase, does not necessary lead to

another specific methods in the following phase. Therefore, info-cards where

suitable to visualize the results.

Although there are many nuances in the complexity of service design processes,

it is important to recognize some key phases and methods in order to ensure that

the design is based on user research. According to the design-researchers

interviewed, it is seldom that designers go through all these phases and

implement a certain method for each of them. In most of the design processes

some methods are implemented in two or three of these phases. In this paper we

do not want to discuss the relevance of each phase, but describe them in relation

to the other phases.

1.1 Phase One: Understanding

In this phase the materials gathered, for example from the context and the users

are analyzed, taking in consideration the design problem. This is the moment of

learning, in which we get to know about other services, context and point of views

regarding the service or possible future ones. The materials could have been

gathered using different methods such as observations, mystery shopper

(Goodwin, 2009, p. 187), surveys, focus group , card sorting (Goodwin, 2009, p.

196), contextual workshops (Hultcrantz & Ibrahim 2002), interviews, diaries

(Goodwin, 2009, p. 188), cultural probes (Garver, Dunne & Pacenti, 1999),

drama or theatrical methods (Iaccucchi, Kuutti, & Ranta, 2000) and design

probes (Mattelmäki, 2006) or games (Brandt, 2006; Vaajakallio 2012). One of the

most popular methods with designers, to give sense to background research

material that have different formats (photographs, videos, voice recordings,

sound, text etc), are affinity diagrams (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 2005). This analysis

does not only give the possibility to better understand the data, but also to arrive

to a common perspective and interpretation of it by all the participants in a

service design research project. Other methods for interpreting material coming

from user studies in this phase are: actors map, concept maps, system maps,

SWOT analysis (Hill & Westbrook, 1998) and customer journey map. The

analysis of the material can be done also with users (see for example Hyökki,



2011) and invite them to these sessions in which designers go through the

material together. Certain interpretations can contrast with the opinions of the

users, therefore to invite them to the sessions to analyze data can be useful.

Other design teams prefer to do this in two steps. One session is used to analyse

the data, free from the opinions of the users and another session to ask their

opinion. In this phase the users' and the designers' perspective come together.

The designer understand not only the users' needs and emotions involved in a

certain service but also her own position or prejudices with respect of the service.

This first contact with the users and their environment is crucial for arising

empathy towards them.

As in this phase might happen the first encounter with the user it is important to

discuss how to select users. Though we do not want to go deep in this

discussion, we want to mention some relevant considerations. Most of these

methods are qualitative therefore the participants, in the projects with the role of

users, are limited from five to twenty. The most common practice is to get a

people belonging to different demographic categories (age group, gender, family

situation, education, etc) of possible users of the service intended to be

developed. However, nowadays there are other possibilities that designers take

into account such as, mapping Living labs (Feuerstein et al 2008), Fab labs (Fab

Central 2011), panels of clients, or Lead users (Von Hippel, 1986), in the area

that could be interested in collaborating with the project. These networks of

collaboration can bring to the project a group of people already involved and

committed to innovation processes and even familiar with the methods that

service designers are using.

1.2 Phase two: Thinking

In this phase people involved in the design process realize the direction and

expansion of the project based on the understanding that has happened in

previous phase. The analysis of the material gathered will be the locomotive of

design concepts and will point the direction and expansion of the project. It is the

moment to give character to the project and make certain decisions that trace a

smooth path towards concept design.

Common interpretations can be visually represented in the form of moodboards

(Rith, 2007), storyboards (Vertelney & Curtis, 1990), maps, video scenarios



(Ylirisku & Buur, 2007), rapid or rough prototyping, metaphors or posters

(Moggridge, 2006) and used to elicit discussion during interviews or workshops.

The discussion can be nurture by reinforcing the relationship with the users and

within the design team using these preliminary proposals. The design arena is

defined.

1.3 Phase three: Generating

In this phase designers make suggestions and expand the spectrum of

possibilities. New ideas, patterns and practices that the future service could bring

are analysed. It is the phase for innovation and creation. Methods used in this

phase are brainstorming (Jones, 1992, 274) and creative techniques such as the

six thinking hats (De Bono, 1985).There is a basis, or background material that is

required and it was gathered and analysed in the previous phase. In most of the

cases designers use visualizations in this phase as boundary objects (Star &

Griesemer, 1989). At this point there is a clear description of the characteristics

of the service based on the needs of the end-user. Challenges and opportunities

are also analysed for example using scenarios (Carroll, 1995; Bødker, 2000),

bodystorming (Oulasvirta, Kurvinen, & Kankainen, 2002), roleplaying (Iaccucchi,

Kuutti, and Ranta, 2000), service evidencing (Moggridge, 2006) and prototyping

(Ehn & King, 1991; Holmlid & Evenson, 2007). Contextual workshops where

users are invited to visualize ideal experiences or to give opinions towards

certain design concepts are also a part of this phase.

1.4 Phase four: Filtering

In this phase options are evaluated in respect to the end-users needs and

wishes; and socio-economical and environmental impact and conditions.

Depending on the service provider and its possibilities for delivering certain

outcomes in a sustainable way, choices are made. However, regarding this

phase, we only included the methods that allow to better understand end-users'

needs and emotional tights to a certain service. We know that in some cases

other issues might have more relevance in the decision-making agenda, but in

this paper we concentrate in methods coming from the user-centered design

field. Therefore, the most common methods in this phase are Wizard of Oz

(Kelley, 1984; Dahlbäck, Jönsson & Ahrenberg, 1993), paper prototyping and

other prototyping techniques (Buchenau & Suri, 2000) or mock-ups (Moritz,



2005), scenarios, contextual workshops for discussing on already well-defined

options, personas (Cooper, 1998; Grudin & Pruitt, 2002), SWOT analysis,

cognitive walkthrough (Polson, Lewis, Rieman & Wharton, 1992) and heuristic

evaluation (Nielsen & Molich, 1990).

1.5 Phase five: Explaining

In this phase designers take the last decisions that will develop the concept into a

real service. There were already a selection of options and the new service take

shape with its details. For describing the services in this phase the most common

methods are: prototyping (in this case some details of the system are described

and it is not only the rough idea of the whole), personas, scenarios, mock-ups,

use cases, system maps and usability testing. Ideas of the users are taken in

consideration in order to give shape to the details of the service.

1.6 Phase six: Realising

This phase takes place when we have already done a functional prototype and

the service happens. Evaluation is still needed for the constant development of

the service. The methods used at this moment are: blueprint (Bitner, Ostrom,

Morgan, 2007) maps and usability tests (UsabilityNet, 2006). Also, in this phase it

is important to involve people that are not using the service in question in order to

broad the spectrum of possible end-users. In this phase the service goes back to

the organization that has asked for it, in case it was outsourced.

Visualizing results

Visualizations are good, effective and natural complementation to show research

results within the framework of design-research. Most of the design teams are

nowadays working in a transdisciplinary environment. In some cases the work

environment is also multicultural. Therefore, visualizations are playing a big role

in finding common vocabulary for designing together. The cards aim to serve the

challenges of nowadays design teams that include end users, developers,

technicians, entrepreneurs, local institutions and civic society organizations.

Furthermore, the cards could be efficient in bringing new inspirational ideas in

regards of the methods to use. Sometimes designers work within the same array

of methods, as they are more familiar with them, or they have developed a



certain skill that the method implied. The cards show the variety and motivate

exploration regarding methods.

Here are the cards.

Figure 1: Understanding. This card shows a person listening. The attitude in this phase is receptive. Designers get inspiration and information that is vital for all the phases that will come.

Figure 2: Thinking. This card shows the team working together. The idea is to put emphasis in the collaboration that is the key element in this phase. It is the moment to open the spectrum of possibilities and analyze them.

Figure 3: Generating. This image is based in the idea of that each method has a role in a certain moment of the design process. But it is only in the combination of certain methods, that it is possible to get clear picture of end-users' perspective. This is why the methods form a construction, because they support each other. The selection of a method is the vital question in this phase.



Figure 4: Filtering. The image plays with the metaphor of a card game. We have the cards, or the elements from the user research to make the right choices. Therefore, we have all the possibilities to win this game but still we need to play it to the end.

Figure 5: Explaining. This image shows a woman showing a panel with the methods. Because this is the moment of explaining the others what has been done and reach a consensus in the team and with others that are not part of the team but can be key decisions makers. We communicate the service and its characteristics.

Figure 6: Realising. This is the moment to play the game and see what happens. This is why we use the metaphor of a puzzle. The last piece addition is a clear reference to the fact that this is the last phase in the design process but also that now the game is over and we have to let it grow and be in the hands of the end-users.

Discussion

The act of making these info-cards, as a synthesis of the outcomes of a thesis

project, contribute to the discussion on how materiality support appropriation of

knowledge. These material things can modify the space of interaction during the

design process, by explaining when and how to apply methods to non-designers.

Normally only designers choose which methods to use for a certain process.

However in many design projects, specially within the field of Participatory

Design, there is a wish to empower communities in decision making processes.

Thus there needs to be a means of communicating what the methods are about

to non-designers. We think that these info-cards, because of their playfulness,

could make it easier to include different actors in the decision of what methods to

choose. It is open to discussion how well these cards support the participation

and the communication between team members.

New methods are developed by design practitioners on daily basis, but little

resources are invested in mapping existing ones and understanding when to use

them. Info-cards are a way to map the methods in a flexible way where methods

are classified not in a fixed way, but in a malleable solution.

By using these cards designers could find out which phases needs new methods,

or which methods could be adjusted for another phase. For example, after

manipulating these info-cards, we found out that these methods concentrate in

producing a broad amount of data from/with users, but do not focus on how to

analyse this data. Many researchers use affinity diagrams to analyse this data in

teams. But little effort has been made in deepening on the criteria for this analysis

and for the understanding on how to get from the material gathered using these

methods to a design brief.



In parallel the cards could encourage designers to try out new methods. We

consider these cards under development and we need still to test them in

different environments to be sure of their possible use and suitability. We aimed

to share with people involved in design processes these info-cards that can work

as: a reminder, an inspirational material for different moments of the design

process and a physical boundary object to discuss the choice of methods in a

design process.

References

Ahvenainen, M. (2011). Co-creation, Understanding and Synthesizing-Innovative

Research Methods in Service Design. Master’s Thesis. User-Centered

Design. Laurea University of Applied Sciences.

Beyer, H. and Hotzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: defining customer-

centered systems, San Francisco, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

Binder, T.; De Michelis, G.; Ehn, P.; Jacucci, G.; Linde, P. and Wagner, I. Design

Things. A.Telier. (2011). The MIT Press.

Bitner, M. J.; Ostrom, A.L. and Morgan, F.N. (2007). Service Blueprinting: A

Practical Tool for Service Innovation, AZ State University, Centre for Services

Leadership.

Brandt, E. (2006). Designing Exploratory Design Games: a Framework for

Participation in Participatory Design, 9th Conference on Participatory design.

Bødker, S. (2000). “Scenarios in User-Centred design”. Setting the phase for

reflection and action. Interacting with computers, 13, 1, pp. 61–75.

Buchenau, M. and Suri, F. (2000). “Experience prototyping”. Proceedings of the

conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods,

and techniques, p.424-433, August 17-19, 2000, New York City, New York.

Carroll, J. (1995). Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in

System Development.

Cooper, A. (1998). The Inmates Are Running the Asylum. Sams Publishing.

Dahlbäck, N.; Jönsson, A. Ahrenberg, L. (1993) Wizard of Oz studies — why and

how. Natural Processing Laboratory, Linköping, Department of Computer and

Information Science S-581 83.



De Bono, E. (1985). Six Thinking Hats: An Essential Approach to Business

Management. Little, Brown, & Company.

Feuerstein, K.; Hesmer, A.; Hribernik, K. A.; Thoben, K. D. and Schumacher, J.

(2008). Living Labs: A New Development Strategy. In: European

Living Labs (Schumacher, J. and Niitamo, V. P., Eds.), Berlin,

Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin pp. 1–14.

Garver, B.; Dunne, T. and Pacenti, E. (1999). “Cultural Probes”. Interactions,

January and February, 1999, pp. 21-29.

Goodwin, K. (2009). Designing for the Digital Age. How to create human-centred

products and services. Wiley Publishing.

Grudin, J. and Pruitt, J. (2002). “Personas, participatory design, and product

development: An infrastructure for engagement”. Proc. PDC 2002, 144–161.

Ehn, P. and King, M. (1991). Carboard computers: Mocking-it-up on the future.

In: J. M. Greenbaum and M. Kyng, (Eds.) Design at work: cooperative design

of computer systems.

Fab Central.(2011). Fab Central. Retrieved from on the 09 25, 2011, from

http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/labs/

Hill, T. and Westbrook, R. (1998). SWOT analysis: It's time for a product recall.

Long Range Planning. Volume 30 Issue 1. February 1997, pp.46-52.

Holmlid, S. and Evenson, S. (2007). Prototyping and enacting services: Lessons

learned from human-centered methods. Proceedings from the 10th Quality in

Services conference, QUIS 10. Orlando, Florida.

Hultcrantz, J. and Ibrahim, A. (2002). “Contextual Workshops: User Participation.

In: The Evaluation of Future Concepts”. Binder, T., Gregory, J., Wagner, I.,

(Eds). Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference. CPSR, Palo Alto.

Hyökki, S. (2011). Visual Eye Tracking Data as Medium in User Dialogue-

Service Design's Perspective. Master’s Thesis. User-Centered Design. Laurea

University of Applied Sciences.

Iaccucchi, G.; Kuutti, K., and Ranta, M. (2000). On the Move with a Magic Thing:

Role Playing in Concept Design of Mobile Services and Devices. Proceedings

of Designing Interactive Systems. New York, USA.

Ideo. (2002). Method Cards. Ideo. Retrieved on 09 25, 2011, from

http://www.ideo.com/work/method-cards/

Jones, J. C. (1992). Design Methods. Second Ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York.


http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/labs/


Kelley, J.F. (1984). An Iterative Design Methodology for User-Friendly Natural

Language Office Information Applications, ACM Transactions on Office

Information Systems.

Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design Probes. University of Art and Design Helsinki.

Moritz, S. (2005). Service Design. Practical Access to an Evolving Field. Köln.

International School of Design.

Moggridge, B. (2006). Designing Interactions. Boston. MIT Press.

Nielsen, J. and Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces, Proc.

ACM CHI'90 Conf. (Seattle, WA, 1-5 April).

Rith, C. (2007). Five reasons to design with moodboards. LifeClever. Retrieved

on the 09 25, 2011, from http://www.lifeclever.com/5-reasons-to-design-with-

mood-boards/

Oulasvirta, A. Kurvinen, E. and Kankainen, T. (2002). Understanding contexts by

being there: case studies in bodystorming. Personal and Ubiquitous

Computing. Volume 7, Number 2, 125-134.

Polson, P. G.; Lewis, C.; Rieman, J. and Wharton, C. (1992). Cognitive

walkthroughs: a method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces,

International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 36.

Sanders, E. (2002) From User-Centered to Participatory Design Approaches.

SonicRim. In Design and the Social Sciences. Frascara, J. (Ed.), Taylor &

Francis Books Ltd.

Star, S.L. and Griesemer, J.R. (1989). “Institutional Ecology, “Translations” and

boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of

Vertebrate Zoology”. Social Studies of Science, 19, 3 (August, 1989) 387-420.

Tassi, R. (2008). Design Service Tools. Retrieved on the 09 22, 2011, from

http://www.servicedesigntools.org/about

UsabilityNet (2006). UsabilityNet. Retrieved on the 09 22, 2011, from

http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/list.htm

Vaajakallio, K. Design Games as a tool, a mindset and a structure. (2012).

Doctoral Dissertation. Aalto University.

Vertelney, L. and Curtis, G. (1990). Storyboards and Sketch Prototypes for Rapid

Interface Visualisation, CHI Tutorial. Engine Group. Retrieved on the 09 22,

2011, from

http://www.enginegroup.co.uk/service_design/m_page/storyboarding


http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/list.htm

http://www.springerlink.com/content/1617-4909/7/2/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/1617-4909/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/1617-4909/

http://www.lifeclever.com/5-reasons-to-design-with-mood-boards/

http://www.lifeclever.com/5-reasons-to-design-with-mood-boards/


Von Hippel, E. (1986), "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts"

Management Science 32(7): 791–806.

Ylirisku, S. and Buur, J. (2007). Designing with video: focusing the user-centred

design process. Springer.

Acknowledgements:

We wish to express our special thanks to the four design-researchers that agreed to be interviewed for the complexion of this research project. We also wish to thank the graphic designer; Mervi Lipp who gave shape to the cards.
