Comparing Service Design Approaches

Peter J Wild Institute for Manufacturing,

University of Cambridge, United Kingdompw308@cam.ac.uk

With Giuditta Pezzotta

University of Bergamo, Italy

giuditta.pezzotta@unibg.it

“Agreement merely upon common names for phases, steps, and structural elements alone

would assist greatly in the transfer of knowledge among the professions (Hall 1969).”

Introduction• Marked increase in explicit approaches for the Design of

Services • Services marketing• Design theory (esp. user centred design)• Operations Management • Engineering• Variety of claims are made for generality, novelty, etc.,

but these are often without evaluation • Claims about the general applicability of methods and

concepts from, established design fields

Service Design Approaches

• Should we fall into the trap of assuming that because they use the terms “Service” and “Design,” that the term is used in the same way across different language communities and research cultures

• Embody a disparate range of Design: – Foci– Activities – Phases– Perspectives– Participation levels

Project context: S4T • Service Support Systems: Strategy and

Transformation – Five Workpackages – 1: Organisational Transformation– 2: Service Information Strategy– 3: Risk and Cost Assessment– 4: Combined Maintenance and Capability Enhancement– 5: Integration

• How do the methods and findings relate to each other?– D-FAPPP is one strand of the overall Integration strategy

D-FA

PP

Clas

sifica

tion

S4T

Out

puts

Direct Exploitation (Consultancy)

Systematic Mapping…….

Practitioner Approach 1

Practitioner Approach 2

Practitioner Approach N

Therefore

• Provide brief overview of D-FAPPP Classification

• Highlights of current analysis against methodologies

• Elicit feedback from Participants… • If pressed I might come to some conclusions…

D-FAPPP

• Design Foci, Activities, Phases, Perspectives and Participation

• Facetted Classification– Analytico / Synthetic

• Design as forward looking activity creation of artefacts / procedures / general behaviours – People follow formal and informal methods

Foci (what is being designed)

• A service system is variously described as being a combination of people, organisations, products, activities etc (e.g., Goedkoop et al. 1999, Mont 2002)

• Previous work has developed a high-level framework for comparison of approaches to the definition of services

Service Domain (composed of Intangible &

Tangible objects)

Service Activities

Affect or Maintain

Service Goals

Sco

ped

toReflect Values

Service Actants(with Structures &

Behaviours)

Artefacts(with

Structures & Behaviours)

Performed by

Held by

Ser

vice

Sys

tem

B

ound

ary

Performed by

Service Environment Social, Political, Cultural, Physical

Service System Effectiveness

Function of

Desired Service Quality

against

Resource Costs

to achieve Value / Benefit

At least two systems

• Domain:• Goals: goals for the Service System, not of the

System • Activities: Two big clusters:

– Explicit: Enable and Core– Implicit

• Actants: Explicitly declared in the process – Individuals (Customers) Groups and Service and Supply Chain. – In some case it is reported explicitly– in most of the case it is implicitly considered

• Artefacts & Technologies: – Some models report the tools and techniques used to carry out the

service.

• Values: – How to evaluate effectiveness is not reported or

elicited • Environment:

– Only PSS consider this as relevant.• Structures & Behaviours:

– not particular considered ,only in some case models standards and knowledge base

Foci:

• Different elements are being designed • Designed elements have different

predictability levels and controllability– This is not being fully reflected in varying

perspectives • Heavy emphasis on elements of Service

Blueprints • Little actual systems thinking for designed

elements

Phases:• Macro and Micro Phases

– Macro BOL MOL EOL • Reflects our product legacy

– Micro • Consistent terminology across Service Product

and Service for Phases

• Lifecycle types • Iteration (after Wynn et al. 2007 )

Phases: Broad Findings

• Very few through life approaches are through life. • Broadest coverage of micro-phases is within Systems

Engineering • Is Life the responsibility of (Service) Operations

Management community , or should a user centred design ethos permeate this area?

• Bulk use waterfall with Iteration• Little “correlation” between Micro lifecycle issues

and Iteration types

Perspectives:• Design perspectives “Design As…. ”

– after Hendry and Friedman (2008) • Service

– Service In , Product-Out , Communication Goods/Service -Dominant Logic

• Knowledge Prescription (after Long and Dowell 1989)– Craft, Applied Science, Engineering Principles.

• “Philosophical” positions (after Wilber)– I, It, We, Them

SD

LG

DL

Service IN Product OUT

V-Model

LegendSystems EngineeringMKTFunctional Products

SM Hall 1969

Edvardsson, 1996

Alonso-Rasgado et al 2004

Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006

Fast-track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006

Bullinger et al 2003

Service EngineeringService DesignPSS

Engine

IDEO

Smith et al., 2007

Magnusson, 2003

MEPSS

Morelli 2002

Aurich et al., 2006

Yang et al, 2009

Sakao and Shimomura, 2007

Waterfall Royce 1970Spiral Boehm 1986 Unified Process Lifecycle Schmidt 2008Hartson and Hix 1989

SoftwareSupply Chain MngMng

dCOR

Goldstein et al., 2002

Herrmann et al., 2000

Service As communication

CMMI

SD

LG

DL

Service IN Product OUT

V-Model

LegendApplied Science Engineering

SM Hall 1969

Edvardsson, 1996

Alonso-Rasgado et al 2004

Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006

Fast-track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006

Bullinger et al 2003

Engine

IDEO

Smith et al., 2007

Magnusson, 2003

MEPSS

Morelli 2002

Aurich et al., 2006

Yang et al, 2009

Sakao and Shimomura, 2007

Waterfall Royce 1970

Spiral Boehm 1986

Unified Process Lifecycle

Schmidt 2008

Hartson and Hix 1989

Design Craft

dCOR

Goldstein et al., 2002

Herrmann et al., 2000

Service As communication

CMMI

SD

LG

DL

Service IN Product OUT

V-Model

LegendApplied Science Engineering

SM Hall 1969

Edvardsson, 1996

Alonso-Rasgado et al 2004

Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006

Fast-track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006

Bullinger et al 2003

Engine

IDEO

Smith et al., 2007

Magnusson, 2003

MEPSS

Morelli 2002

Aurich et al., 2006

Yang et al, 2009

Sakao and Shimomura, 2007

Waterfall Royce 1970

Spiral Boehm 1986

Unified Process Lifecycle

Schmidt 2008

Hartson and Hix 1989

Design Craft

dCOR

Goldstein et al., 2002

Herrmann et al., 2000

Service As communication

CMMI

Participation:

• Represents my own HCI legacy • Service-Dominant Logic and related work have

refined the concepts of Co-production and Co-creation

• Design, Operations, Marketing and Engineering communities have varying depths of participation in their approaches.

• Bekker and Long (2000) and Reich et al (1996)

Participation: Bekker and Long (2000); Reich et al (1996)

• Motivation for participation.– Economical : V-Model, Edvardsson& Olsson1996, Alonso-Rasgado et al

2004, Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006, Fast-track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006, Engine Coarse Grain, IDEO, Magnusson, 2003, Morelli 2002, Aurich et al., 2006 ( Technical service design), Yang et al, 2009, Spiral Boehm 1986 , Schmidt 2008, dCOR, Goldstein et al., 2002, Herrmann et al., 2000, Fischbacher and Francis , 1999, Glushko, 2008

– Economical and Environmental: MEPSS, Sakao and Shimomura, 2007 - scenario model

Participation: • Duration of participation

– long-term:V-Model; Edvardsson& Olsson1996, Engine, IDEO, Magnusson, 2003, MEPSS , Sakao and Shimomura, 2007 - scenario model, Schmidt 2008, dCOR

– Short-term: Alonso-Rasgado et al 2004, Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006, Fast-track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006, Morelli 2002, Aurich et al., 2006 ( Technical service design), Yang et al, 2009, Spiral Boehm 1986 , Goldstein et al., 2002

• User Involvement Timing– Early: Alonso-Rasgado et al 2004; Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006; Fast-

track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006; Morelli 2002; Aurich et al., 2006 ( Technical service design); Yang et al, 2009; Spiral Boehm 1986

– early and late: Goldstein et al., 2002– throughout: V-Model; Edvardsson& Olsson1996; Engine; IDEO; Magnusson,

2003; MEPSS; Sakao and Shimomura, 2007 - scenario model ; Schmidt 2008; dCOR

SD

LG

DL

Service IN Product OUT

V-Model

LegendCo-Design Subject-Co-Design

Edvardsson, 1996

Alonso-Rasgado et al 2004

Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006

Fast-track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006

Bullinger et al 2003

Engine

IDEO

Smith et al., 2007

Magnusson, 2003

MEPSS

Morelli 2002

Aurich et al., 2006

Yang et al, 2009

Sakao and Shimomura, 2007

Spiral Boehm 1986

Dialog Information

dCOR

Goldstein et al., 2002

Herrmann et al., 2000

Service As communication Co-producer

Codesign = Service IN

Codesign = SDL

Codesign =No in Product OUT

CMMI

Conclusions• Differences in Service Design methods across a

range of dimensions • Influence of Marketing on Operations, Design

and Engineering brings a user focus to work– Is this deep enough?– Where does customer focus stop?

• What perspectives can be legitimately combined?

• What foci can be designed, vs. engineered, vs, crafted

Future Work

• Fuller evidence trace • Confirmation with independent subject

experts• Expand the range of HCI approaches used• Attack methods / techniques, not just

methodologies

Open Questions

• Are five dimension enough? • What additional cross comparison do you

need?