ORIGINAL PAPER

Relational Services

Carla Cipolla & Ezio Manzini

Received: 10 November 2008 /Accepted: 3 February 2009# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract Recent research projects have looked forsocial innovations, i.e., people creating solutionsoutside the mainstream patterns of production andconsumption. An analysis of these innovations indi-cates the emergence of a particular kind of serviceconfigurationdefined here as relational serviceswhich requires intensive interpersonal relations tooperate. Based on a comparative analysis betweenstandard and relational services, we propose to theService Design discipline an interpretative frameworkable to reinforce its ability to deal with the interper-sonal relational qualities in services, indicating howthese qualities can be understood and favored bydesign activities, as well as the limits of this designintervention. Martin Bubers conceptual framework ispresented as the main interpretative basis. Buberdescribes two ways of interacting (I-Thou andI-It). Relational services are those most favoringI-Thou interpersonal encounters.

Keywords Service design . Interaction design .

Design for sustainability . Social innovation .

Philosophy .Martin Buber

Relational Innovations

Martin Buber (18781965) has profoundly influencedthose who are interested in interpersonal encounters.Bubers writings about what he discovered by living lifein relation to others can be misunderstood and ignoreddue to its poetic complexity, but his voice is part of anauthentic Copernican revolution, a changing in theplace of thought from the subject to otherness(Bartholo 2001). It corresponds to the affirmation thatthe I without the Thou1 is impossible (Buber1921).

This affirmation is part of his dialogical principle,i.e., the distinguishing factor that makes us reallyhumans. The fundamental fact of human existence,according to Bubers anthropology, is man with man(Buber 1947). This idea and sensibility is deeplyrooted in our identities and is extended to define ourentire life. All actual life is encounter (Buber 1921).

Relations, in a dialogical perspective, are livedbetween us: On the far side of the subjective, on thisside of the objective, on the narrow ridge where I andThou meet, there is the realm of between. This reality

Know Techn PolDOI 10.1007/s12130-009-9066-z

1 Some translators, based on the original in German Ich andDu, use the word Thou instead of You.

C. Cipolla (*)Federal University of Rio de JaneiroCoppe,Ilha do Fundo, Centro de Tecnologia,sala F 123,21941972 Rio de Janeiro, Brazile-mail: cipolla@pep.ufrj.br

E. ManziniPolitecnico di MilanoIndaco,Via Durando 38/A,20158 Milan, Italye-mail: ezio.manzini@polimi.it

() shows the way, leading beyond individualismand collectivism, for the life of future generations(Buber 1949).

The main question raised in our contribution con-cerns the possibility of designing services that aredeeply rooted in relational qualities. This questionemerged out of two international projects2 which dis-cussed the potentialities of the collaborative creativityin everyday life, manifest in creative communities(Manzini, 2005a),3 to generate and diffuse new andmore sustainable ways of living in urban environments.An analysis of the social innovations (Mullgan 2007)organized by these communities revealed that they areprevalently organizing serviceswhich range fromchildcare to care of the elderly, from looking aftergreen spaces to alternative forms of mobility, from thebuilding of new solidarity networks to the realizationof unprecedented housing typologiesthat indicate anemerging new service model deeply and profoundlybased on the quality of interpersonal relations betweenparticipants. Starting from that point, our intention inthe next paragraphs is to further our understanding ofthe interpersonal relational qualities of these innovativeservices by placing them in a Buberian interpretativeframework, in which participantsmen and womenare seen neither as users or clients nor as theoreticalhumans but as relational beings.

Our contribution is based on an analysis of some ofthese innovations in order to understand how they canbecome the object of a Design agency, i.e., how theService Design discipline can deal with them, whatcan be learned, and how their own practices can berethought in the light of this comprehension. Themain question to be answered is how these qualitiescan be understood and favored by design activitiesand the limits of this design intervention.

Interpretative Framework

Bubers intent in (his magnum opus) I and Thou(1921), as in many of his later works, is to bring hisreader closer to a twofold attitude (being Thou orbeing It). In the description of these two basic words,he makes it clear that I-Thou and I-It cover everypossible kind of encounter. We simply live thispolarity, and it does not apply solely to interhumanissues, but rather to any and all forms of between.

The I-Thou relation is the most unique feature ofbeing human. It is the ability to truly relate with theother, a mutual relationship including both dialog andencounter. This I-Thou encounter requires noconcepts or certainties. When I relate to any ThouI hazard into an unknown adventure, with no suredefinitions or classifications.

When I interact with It, I always confrontsomething I know, that I know is an It and aboutwhich I might wish to know more through my actionsof knowledge. When I relate to a Thou, I alwayshave before me a person whom I do not know entirelyand whom I will never know unless I listen to whathis presence tells me and lets me know of himself.

The distinctive characteristics of I-It and I-Thou reside principally in the difference between arelation and an experience, as pointed out byBuber (1921): The world as experience belongs tothe basic word I-It. The basic word I-Thouestablishes the world of relation.

The relation between an I and a Thou isimmediate; the interaction between them happenswithout the interposition of any concept, any imagina-tion or fantasy. No prior knowledge intervenes betweenthem. Each one is, for the other, a pure presence.Exactly because of that it is an action that happens onlyin the present time. Therefore as long as I am in anI-Thou relation I will stand before an irreduciblebeing who bars me from seizing him through my ownknowledge.

The experience between an I and an It does nothappen in the present time, even when the twopersons are simultaneously one in front of the other.The I-It experience happens in the past time,because it is always anticipated by preconceptionsand classifications that each one has previouslyelaborated about the other. The I in an I-Itexperience is not in front of a presence but in frontof an object to be judged and valuated (Cipolla 2005).

2 These projects are part of a series of activities started over5 years ago by the Politecnico di MilanoDIS Research Unit,Indaco Department - in Europe (EmudeEmerging UsersDemands for Sustainable Solutions, funded by the EuropeanCommission) and extended later to Brazil, China, India (CCSLCreative Communities for Sustainable Lifestyles, backed by theUNEPUnited Nations Environment Program).3 Groups of innovative citizens organising themselves to solvea problem or to open a new possibility, and doing so as apositive step in the social learning process towards social andenvironmental sustainability (Manzini 2005a).

C. Cipolla, E. Manzini

The I confronts the other as a presence or as anobject: What is essential is lived in the present,objects in the past (Buber 1921).

Relational qualities here have a specific in-between definition. Relation is a result of opennessto others. When man meets man, when one humanbeing turns to another human being as a presence,the possibility of relation arises, moving from I-Itexperiences to I-Thou relations and vice versa. Thein-between dimension is lived in service interac-tions. The quality of interpersonal relationships in aservice will depend on the extent to which I-Thourelations can happen.

Standard and Relational Services

Relational services are defined here as those deeplybased on interpersonal interactions, particularly fa-voring I-Thou encounters. They are challenging thestandard way of conceiving and offering services. Tointroduce our analysis, let us consider some compar-ative examples.4

The standard service, usually called School Bus,is our first example. It does not operate based oninterpersonal relations because the driver is anemployee: he is part of the service like a part in amechanical operation. He can perform his functionon an anonymous basis and could be substituted byanother driver with the same technical skills. Someinterpersonal output can be generated in the interac-tion with users, like friendship or intimacy, but this isnot seen as an essential part of the service operation,i.e., it is an unexpected result. More than that, theinterpersonal relations between the students and thebus driver in the service performance threatensservice efficacy: Do not talk to driver when bus isin motion. This service configuration does notoperate on unmediated encounters between partici-pants and strongly favours an I-It basic word.

On the other hand, Walking Bus is a serviceencouraging children to walk to and from school onfoot, following predefined routes in the safety of agroup under the supervision of one or more adults(generally pensioners on a voluntary basis). It is a

service based on the interpersonal relationships be-tween teachers, parents, children and pensioners, whoare even called grandmothers or grandfathers. There-fore, the efficacy of the servicein its operationisstrongly based on the relational qualities producedbetween them. Also because of such interpersonalrelations, the participants cannot easily be replaced.Together, they produce more than a transport service;they produce a common story and identity. Theserelations are an essential part of the service operationand one of its most significant benefits. It goes beyondthose directly involved: all the neighborhood contrib-utes because while walking through the streets themembers of the group are also relating with theirlocality. In synthesis, transporting children on this wayrequires highly personalized and relational dynamics,favoring I-Thou encounters between participantsand, consequently, also the regeneration of the localsocial fabric. It is a good example of what we mean bya relational service. We must add that this relationalway of doing also reduces the time spent in traffic(traffic jams in the city), the consumption of fuel andacoustic pollution.

Standard Services

In the standard service model, [agents] and [clients]are performing predefined roles. The service activitiessubsist in the performance between the two. It is theimage that usually comes to mind when we thinkabout services. The point of intersection of theservice performance occurs when the two distinctareas, the provider and the client area, meet. Theparadigmatic example of the intersection area orinterface is the service-counter and the usualexample is a bank. This example illustrates how inthese services, the encounter between persons isintermediated and based on a specifically designedapparatus in a way that favors the perception of eachother as It. The interpersonal encounters betweenthe participants are not considered an essentialrequirement to a satisfactory service performance.

Standard services are designed and operate mainlyon a specific form of rationality which tends to focuson the hows of an action, rather than its whys.The main criterion by which to evaluate its qualities isquantitative, usually the productivity of peopleinvolved. These characteristics can also relate toprofessional-based services, i.e., the presence of

4 All cases of relational innovations presented in this study arereferred to Emudes (see note 2) case study collection (Meroni2006).

Relational services

experts, or specially trained personnel deliveringbenefits to clients.

Services have not always been delivered followingthis approach. Industrialization determined an im-portant historical change in the way services werecarried out (Levitt 1972, 1976). One paradigmaticexample of the service rationalization process isthe supermarket, which substituted the traditional,localized, district shop. The use of standardized pro-cesses and the concept of self-service reduced inter-personal contact in service provision. Progressively, theincorporation of technological and communicationdevices in service provision led to automatization(e.g., self-service through automatic cash dispensers)and to delocalization (e.g., the use of phones andinternet; Pacenti 2004).

Regarding the interpersonal dimension of services,the application of concepts based on assembly linetechniques to service provision had several undesirableconsequences for relational qualities. In our view, thesedifficulties are exemplified by the concept of smileincentive, i.e., employees were instructed to put asmile on their face during the service encounter. Themanufacturing and commercialization of this supposedhappiness clearly characterizes the quality of suchinterpersonal encounters.

Let us cite Levitt (1972) to better understand whichkind of interpersonal encounters in services, designerswere called to develop: If machinery is to be viewedas a piece of equipment with the capability ofproducing a predictably standardized customer-satisfying output while minimizing the operatingdiscretion of its attendant, that is what a McDonaldsretail outlet is. It is a machine that produces, with thehelp of totally unskilled machine tenders, a highlypolished product. Through painstaking attention tototal design and facilities planning, everything is builtintegrally into the machine itself, into the technologyof the system. The only choice available to theattendant is to operate it exactly as the designersintended. However, Levitts (1972) promised in-creased service productivity has not been trulyrealized. Economists started to perceive that servicedelivery is, in practice, constrained by the capacity ofindividual human servers (Baumol 1966).

By the early 1990s, most service providers turnedtheir attention back to the human element andpersonalized their services. Employees were empow-ered to customize the service encounter to the

individual characteristics of customers. The ServiceDesign discipline acknowledged (Pacenti 2004) thatthe way to ensure service interface efficiency waspersonalization. A good interface is able to listen tothe client; is easily adapted to clients demands(flexibility); and offers clients all the informationrequired to enable his/her participation in the serviceinteraction. By the late 1990s, an approach based onthe value of the experiences emerged. Goods andservices were no longer enough in the context of anew economic era, in which all businesses mustorchestrate memorable events and transformations fortheir customers (Pine and Gilmore 1999).

Even though the traditional user/client imageprogressively changedfrom a final, passive recipi-ent to a service coproducerand although market-ing strategies were oriented to build social ties withclients and engage them in partnerships, all theseapproaches still considered a service model performedby two main actors: agents (representing an organi-zation) and a client.

Relational Services

Considering the standard service modelwhichcorresponds to an intersectional interaction model(client + agent)the relational service model intro-duces a circular interactional model. The circularityserves to illustrate that this model is based on anapproach where benefits are reciprocally producedand shared by the participants, who collaborate in away that favor the perception of each other as aThounot as an Itin their interpersonalencounters.

The service called Living Room Restaurant isconsidered here as a paradigmatic example of thisservice model. It is a service in which a family runs arestaurant in their own living room. After reservingplaces via email or a phone call, complete strangerscan literally come and sit at the dining table withthem. After a short chat and getting acquainted withall the guests, dinner is served. Guests can choose thebackground music they want and help by clearingthe table between each course. The members of thefamily sit at the ends of the table and between coursesthey change places so they can talk to everyonepresent. The client even helps lay the table. In thissituation, is the family promoting the restaurant aprovider or a host? Can the users be defined as

C. Cipolla, E. Manzini

clients or guests? Certainly, the roles betweenagents and clients are not clearly defined.

It is a service based on interpersonal relationalqualities. First of all, it is conceived to run in a spacethat is traditionally considered to be private, evenintimateones own homewhich is made availableto others. Opening your own space also means openingyour own intimacy, the first step in favoring an I-Thouencounter. Making ones intimate space available (in theabove cases, ones own home) means making oneselfvulnerable: the other person may hurt or betray me,but first and foremost can reach me (Cipolla 2005).

Trust is the other essential interpersonal qualityrequired from participants: The Living Room Res-taurant is open to everyone, i.e., total strangers arereceived in the family living room. If we consider thatthis solution runs in an urban context, it can beconsidered as a particular form of trust and open-ness. The host family invests their trust inothers, but there is also a certain level of trustrequired from guests: they are entering someoneelses place, and who knows if this unusual servicecould be a trap. Certainly, there are mechanisms torelieve this tension: indications about the servicetrustworthiness are passed by word of mouth, forexample.

In this service model, service scripts or previouslydefined performances hardly seem applicable. Peopleare personally involved, they are not representingsomeone else or operating according to a definiteplan. Participants are presences one for another. Themeaning of what is being done and the personalengagement are essential components of these serv-ices. The main criterion by which to evaluate itsqualities is the openness to alterity5 and collaboration.It follows that these forms of organization aredistinctly different from the usual concept of standardservice. This is the opposite of our paradigmaticexample of the service encounter taking place overa counter: when we stand in front of a counter, we donot necessarily need to know and have a personalrelationship with the person serving us.

The interpersonal relations between the partici-pants are an essential part of the relational serviceoperation and generate a particular form of efficiency

in achieving desired results. These services proposean approach that focuses more on actions orrelations than on things (De Leonardis 1998)which leads to environmental benefits. They enablepeople to share, in order to consume fewer environ-mental resources, particularly considering that shar-ing is an intensive relational activity. The LivingRoom Restaurant, for example, improves the utili-zation of existing resources (in this case, peoplesown houses). At the same time, it is a service thatimproves or regenerates contexts of life, enabling andstimulating participants to collaborate with others. Itmeans that relational services are able to promote asocial learning process toward sustainability, indi-cating a way of living based on sharing andcollaboration, promoting the reinforcement of localsocial fabric and the creation of new common goods.

Enabling Relational Services

Considering the analogy and effective transpositionbetween Interaction Design and the emergent ServiceDesign, Pacenti (1998) affirmed that the role ofdesigners and their specific area of intervention is todesign the interactions between the users and thevisible6 part of the service provision, that happensthrough what have been called service interface. Theservice interface is the area in which the agentsrepresenting the organizationand the clients interact.

However, Pacenti (1998) recognized that servicesare a special kind of interfaceunlike machine/deviceinterfacesmade up of human beings, i.e., serviceinteractions cannot be totally previewed and controlled.Although a service script may have been designedservices are defined and redefined during their perfor-mance. This means that no one can fully design aservice, and this affirmation introduces a key issue forthe Service Design discipline. It concerns the difficultyof designing a service because it presents (also) anunpredictable human aspect. If this is the essentialchallenge that needs to be faced by every study onService Design, for us here, it is even more remarkable.As relational services are qualitatively oriented tofavor I-Thou encounters, these services are those that

5 Alterity here is used with reference to Levinas (1961,1998) and includes the capacity to deal with interpersonaldifferences, i.e., with otherness.

6 The invisible elements are all the actions, structures, andsolutions that support the service but with which users do nothave direct contact (Pacenti, 1998).

Relational services

more radically present a limitation to a direct designintervention in interhuman interactions. I-Thou rela-tional encounters happen in present time; they areimmediate, i.e., this specific interpersonal interactionneeds to be favored by a solution that does not imposethe interposition of any predefined procedure betweenparticipants. Each participant, for the othersand forthe designer himselfneeds to be perceived as apresence, not as an object.

Therefore, the production of relational qualities canonly be meta-designed, in the sense that the designintervention needs to be placed behind or beyondthese qualities. Considering service design practices,relational services can only be enabled, i.e., theyneed to be designed in such a way as to start up,support, and continuously sustain interpersonalencounters between the participants (Cipolla 2005).

It means that it is necessary to place the relationalservice model alongside the one of services asdisabling systems. If today, the most widely held ideais one in which a service itself is designed consideringusers only as an expression of problems (problems tosolve requiring a minimum of participation on theirpart), the relational service model must instead startwith what the participants know how to, can, andwant to do. In other words, a relational service mustbe favored by an enabling solution,7 i.e., one thatmatches a users desired result with an offer of themeans by which to achieve it using his owncapabilities (Manzini 2005a, b). It consists of toolsand organizational models that promote the activationof a relational service as well as give support in itsoperation.

All services rely on user participation. Howeverrelational services, more than other kinds of service,require participation and engagement. It is necessarynot only to be operationally active but also personallyinvolved. Participants, in a relational perspective areco-producers, bringing knowledge and will, but aboveall else, they bring relational capabilities.

Acknowledgments This paper has been written in collabora-tion by the two authors. C. Cipolla wrote paragraphs one tothree and E. Manzini the fourth one. This work is part of thePhD dissertation of the first author (Cipolla 2007), developed atPolitecnico di MilanoIndaco Department, DIS Research Unit,coordinated by the second author.

References

Bartholo, R. (2001) Voc e Eu. Martin Buber, Presena Palavra.Rio de Janeiro. Garamond.

Baumol, W. J., Bowen, W. G. (1966). Performing Arts: The Eco-nomic Dilemma. New York. The Twentieth Century Fund.

Buber, M. (1921) Ich und Du. Consulted: (1996) I and Thou.New York. Simon and Schuster-Touchstone.

Buber, M. (1947) Between Man and Man. Consulted: (2006)New York. Routledge Classics.

Buber, M. (1949) Paths in Utopia. London. Routledge & KeganPaul.

Cipolla, C. (2005) Tourist or Guest - Designing TourismExperiences or Hospitality Relations? In: (A Willis, ed.),Design Philosophy Papers: Collection Two, Ravens-bourne, Australia.Team D/E/S: pp. 5966.

Cipolla, C. (2007). Designing for interpersonal relationalqualities in services. A model for service design theoryand practice (PhD thesis in Industrial Design). Milan.Politecnico di Milano University.

De Leonardis, O. (1998) In un diverso welfare. Sogni e Incubi.Milan. Feltrinelli.

Levinas, E. (1961) Totalit et Infini. Consulted: (1980) Total-idade e Infinito. Edies 70, Lisbon.

Levinas, E. (1998) Entre Nous: On Thinking-ofthe-Other.New York. Columbia University Press.

Levitt, T. (1972) Production line approach to service. In: Harv.Bus. Rev. doi:10.1225/72505

Levitt, T. (1976) The industrialization of service. In: Harv. Bus.Rev. doi:10.1225/76506

Manzini, E. (2005a). Enabling solutions for creative communi-ties. Social innovation and design for sustainability.Designmatters 10, pp. 4552.

Manzini, E. (2005b) Creative communities and enabling plat-forms. An introduction to a promising line of research andactions on sustainable production and consumption. In:(D. Doyle), Taking responsibility. Hamar, Norway.Hed-mark.University College Publishing: pp.110116

Meroni, A. (ed) (2006) Creative Communities. People invent-ing new ways of living. Milan. Polidesign.

Mullgan, G. (2007) Social innovation: what it is, why it mattersand how it can be accelerated. London. Young Foundation.

Pacenti, E. (1998) Il progetto dell'interazione nei servizi. Uncontributo al tema della progettazione dei servizi. (PhDthesis in Industrial Design). Milan. Politecnico di MilanoUniversity.

Pacenti, E. (2004) Design dei servizi. In: (P. Bertola, E.Manzini ed), Design multiverso. Appunti di fenomenolo-gia del design. Milan., Polidesign: pp 139152.

Pine, J., Gilmore, J. (1999) The experience economy. Work istheatre and every business a stage. Boston. HarvardBusiness School.

7 The concept of enabling solution therefore indicates a line ofresearch concerning the possibility of developing products,services and knowledge conceived as systems that diffuse andstrengthen social innovations. This line of research is promotedby Politecnico di Milano (Indaco Department, DIS ResearchUnit) also in collaboration with the Federal University of Riode Janeiro (Coppe, LTDS, Desis Research Unit).

C. Cipolla, E. Manzini

http://dx.doi.org/10.1225/72505http://dx.doi.org/10.1225/76506

Relational ServicesAbstractRelational InnovationsInterpretative FrameworkStandard and Relational ServicesStandard ServicesRelational Services

Enabling Relational ServicesReferences

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 150 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 600 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org?) /PDFXTrapped /False

/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 /Description >>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice