Prototyping in Digital Service Design

Transcription

1 Aalto University School of Science Master s Programme in Service Design and Engineering Stefanie Hofemann Prototyping in Digital Service Design Exploring User Needs for a Meeting Scheduling Service Master s Thesis Espoo, November 25, 2013 Supervisor: Professor Marjo Kauppinen, Aalto Univsersity Instructor: Mikko Raatikainen, M.Sc. (Tech)

2

3 Aalto University School of Science Master s Programme in Service Design and Engineering Author Title Stefanie Hofemann ABSTRACT OF THE MASTER S THESIS Prototyping in Digital Service Design Exploring User Needs for a Meeting Scheduling Service Number of pages 96 Date Language English Professorship Software Engineering Code T- 76 Supervisor Professor Marjo Kauppinen Instructor Mikko Raatikainen, M.Sc. (Tech) Software development has often been technology-driven, rather than taking a user-centered approach. However, in today s fast changing economy, it has become increasingly important to develop digital services that meet customers needs. In recent years, design thinking has been acknowledged as beneficial for innovation and developing superior solutions to customers problems. Service design has been described as the discipline that brings design thinking and new methods into services and thus, can be helpful with innovation. One of these methods is prototyping, which is extensively used in service design. Aalto University has developed a software-architecture and technical prototype for a meeting scheduling system (MSS) for heterogeneous calendar systems, as currently no solution for easy meeting scheduling between heterogeneous calendar systems exists. However, this previous study focused on the technical feasibility, rather than on users needs. The objective of this research is to use prototyping as a service design methods to gain better understanding of the users needs and design a service concept for MSS. Based on the existing technical prototype and software architecture, an interactive prototype was created and different design alternatives were created as paper prototypes. These prototypes were tested with four potential users. Based on the feedback from the users, a service concept was developed and visualized as a customer journey. Furthermore, design guidelines were created for the further development of the service. Using prototyping as service design methods for the development of digital services concerns mainly a change in mindset than just introducing a new set of methods. First, the mindset needs to change from feature-oriented to service-oriented thinking. Second, design thinking needs to be introduced to the development process and combined with the prevalent analytical thinking in software engineering. Prototyping is a core method in service design, which helps to put design thinking into practice. In service design, prototypes are used throughout the process, not only for evaluation, but also for exploration. As prototypes might only focus on small parts of the service, service concepts help to keep track of the big picture. We suggest using design guidelines to document learning results from a prototype session as input to the next iteration. Using service design, and specifically prototyping, in the development of digital services can be beneficial in order to increase the focus on the users, but challenges exist on a practical level. It induces a shift from specification-driven prototyping to prototyping-driven specifications. Keywords prototyping, service design, meeting scheduling, service- dominant logic, digital service

4

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Finally, after one year this study is finished. In the beginning, everything seemed fuzzy and I did not know where this study would lead me. During the course of this study, it sometimes felt that it would never end, but in the end everything fell into place. Looking back, it was a challenging, but also rewarding process, and most importantly, I have learned a lot. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Marjo Kauppinen for her advice and the feedback she gave me during this thesis process, and especially her positive attitude, encouragement, and enthusiasm. I also want to thank my instructor Mikko Raatikainen for the valuable guidance and feedback he continuously gave me throughout this thesis process. Many thanks also to Varvana Myllärniemi for the fruitful discussions and feedback for the empirical part of my thesis. The process would have been less enjoyable without great company also from all the other colleagues at SoberIT. Special thanks to Danielle Pichlis for setting up our "Thesis warriors" group and to her, Vittorio Dal Bianco, and Harri Töhönen for the great discussions we have had and the joy they brought to my work day. I also want to thank Terho Norja and others at Steeri for providing the opportunity to work with such an interesting case and sharing their inside views from industry perspective. I also want to express my gratitude to the participants of the prototype test session. Without them the empirical part of my thesis would not have been possible. Finally, biggest thanks to my loved ones: my family and friends for supporting and believing in me. Ari, I cannot thank you enough for your patience, support, and encouragement during the course of my studies and especially my thesis. Helsinki, November 25, 2013 Stefanie Hofemann

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction Research background The Meeting Scheduling System Research problem and questions Scope of the study Structure of the study 4 2 Literature Review Services: from Goods-Dominant to Service-Dominant Logic Service design What is service design? Service thinking: bringing S-D logic to service design Design of digital services Service design process Service concept Prototyping in service design Service Prototyping Frameworks for prototyping Service prototyping techniques Calendar sharing, collaboration and social interaction Factors influencing adoption and information sharing Calendar sharing in work and private life Design challenges for meeting scheduling services 32 3 Current meeting scheduling practices and tools 35 4 Research Method Overview of the process Workshop: Understanding the meeting scheduling context Creating interactive and paper prototypes Prototype test session with potential users 46 5 Research Findings Workshop: Understanding the meeting scheduling context Current meeting scheduling practices for different types of meetings Main problems and possible solutions Other findings Prototype test session with potential users Finding suitable time slots Privacy protection and sharing information Other findings Summary of the research findings 59

7 6 MSS Service Concept Target group Design Alternatives Customer Journey Connecting Scheduling Discussion on the design guidelines 76 7 Discussion Answer to the research questions Validity of the research findings 86 8 Conclusion 87 References 89

8 ABBREVIATIONS CEO CRM DT FP G-D IHIP IT MSS RQ S-D Chief Executive Officer Customer Relationship Management Design Thinking Foundational Premise Goods-Dominant Intangibility, Heterogeneity, Inseparability, Perishability Information Technology Meeting Scheduling System Research Question Service-Dominant

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Diagram of Market Entities Figure 2. Approaches to conceptualizing service design Figure 3: The evolution of service and value Figure 4: The iterative service design process Figure 5: The service concept Figure 6: Service experience concept components Figure 7: Service prototyping levels Figure 8: The service prototyping practical framework Figure 9: A model of what prototypes prototype Figure 10: Example of a customer journey map Figure 11: Screenshot of a Doodle poll Figure 12: Screenshot of scheduling meeting from Doodle Meet Me page Figure 13: Mapping of the research process to service design process model Figure 14: View for creating a new meeting in the interactive prototype Figure 15: One design alternative of the paper prototypes for selecting time slots Figure 16: Customer Journey of MSS Figure 17: User flow for creating a new group in MSS Figure 18: User flow for creating a new meeting in MSS

10 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Service-dominant logic foundational premises Table 2: Prototyping techniques by practitioners Table 3: Privacy concerns Table 4: Advantages and disadvantages of finding suitable meeting time slots via Table 5: Advantages and disadvantages of finding suitable meeting time slots via shared calendars Table 6: Advantages and disadvantages of finding suitable meeting time slots through a poll Table 7: Advantages and disadvantages of finding suitable meeting time slots through publishing availability Table 8: Summary of potential target groups (organizational context) Table 9: Summary of potential target groups (personal context) Table 10: Options for availability rules Table 11: Options for amount of details when selecting a time slot Table 12: Options for loosen criteria in order to increase likelihood for finding common free time slots Table 13: Options for consideration of location information

11 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research background In today s fast changing economy, it has become increasingly important to develop products and services, which meet customers needs. However, the development of software has often been technology-driven, rather than taking a user-centered approach. The design of software typically refers to specification and is driven by engineers. Designers, as understood in design disciplines, are typically brought in late in the process and their role is mostly the visual design of the user interface. However, this often leads to technically superior solutions, but they are not necessarily considered valuable by the customers (Lindberg et al. 2011). Thus, new approaches are needed to develop better digital services. In recent years, design thinking has been increasingly acknowledged as beneficial for innovation and developing superior solutions to customers problems (Brown 2008). Design thinking is characterized by first focusing on identifying the problem and exploring possible solutions; only after that on how to implement these solutions, instead of restricting one s thinking by implementation constraints in the beginning (Liedtka & Ogilvie 2011). However, while design is an established part of product development, service design is still an emerging discipline. Evert Gummesson stated about 20 years ago [w]e have yet to hear of service designers (Grönroos, cited in Kimbell 2011, p.41). Service design is often described as the discipline that brings designer s methods and design thinking into services (e.g., Ostrom et al. 2010). The most common methods and tools used in service design are prototyping and visualizations (Wetter Edman 2011). Prototypes have been used in various disciplines, but the understanding of what prototypes and prototyping are varies among them. In software development, the purpose of prototypes is often seen to evaluate a concept and prototyping considered as one specific phase in the development of a new product or service (Blomkvist 2011). Houde and Hill (1997) propose a division into three possible purposes of prototypes: the role of the system in the user s life, its look and feel and the actual implementation. However, others suggest that prototyping can 1

12 be used for varies purposes and throughout the whole development process. In service design and other design disciplines, most visualizations and other artifacts that help designers to better understand the context, generate, clarify, or evaluate ideas and, communicate these ideas to users and other stakeholders can be considered as prototype (Blomkvist 2011). Commonly cited purposes for prototyping are exploration, evaluation and communication (e.g., Buchenau & Fulton Suri 2000). Service design is still an emerging field and, especially academic publications are still scarce. Furthermore, little research has focused specifically on prototyping in service design. Most publications in service design literature focus on the case examples from traditional service industries, such as airlines, restaurant, and public services. Despite a growing number of services that are mainly distributed through digital channels, little attention has been paid to the design of these kinds of services in the field of service design. 1.2 The Meeting Scheduling System Aalto University has developed a software-architecture and technical prototype for a meeting scheduling system (MSS) for heterogeneous calendar systems in cooperation with the company Steeri, who is a service provider for Customer Relationship Management (CRM) solutions, such as Salesforce.com and Oracle Siebel. In addition to offering the implementation of standard CRM solutions, Steeri develops services, which complement these CRM solutions and differentiate them from their competitors. Steeri would like to offer MSS as an additional service in order to expand their current offering. The problem MSS addresses is that current solutions for scheduling meetings mainly work effortlessly for persons within the same organization, who use the same calendar system, such as Microsoft Exchange. Across organizational borders and between different calendar systems, no solution seems to exist for automatic availability checking to support meeting scheduling. Instead, meeting invitees have to provide their available time slots manually via tools, such as or Doodle 1. Agreeing on a meeting time by often requires sending a lot of s back and forth. Doodle requires adding one s available time slots manually. Both methods can be cumbersome, as they require manually checking one s own calendar against the suggested meeting times. Moreover, it might take a long time until all invitees have provided their availability to the suggested meeting times. In order to overcome these issues, MSS was developed. In contrast to existing solutions, MSS retrieves available time slots automatically from users calendars and provides all time slots that are free for all meeting participants to the meeting organizer as possible options for meeting times. Users keep control of 1 Doodle AG, [Online] [Accessed ] 2

13 their data by setting rules to define which calendar times are shown as available to different persons. For instance, users might want to show all free time slots during working hours as available to their colleagues, but only free time slots in the mornings as available to business partners outside of the company. However, the software architecture and technical prototype for MSS were developed in order to evaluate the technical feasibility of general architectural principles, such as retrieving calendar data from different calendar systems. The development did not involve any potential users in the gathering of the requirements or evaluation of the software architecture and technical prototype. Thus, one challenge is to know how to develop the MSS into an interesting service offering. Service design can be seen as one approach to develop services that users perceive as valuable. 1.3 Research problem and questions As MSS will only be used if users perceive it as valuable, the major challenge is to discover the amount of calendar information that needs to be exposed in order to be considered valuable as well as the amount of calendar information potential users are willing to share. Furthermore, for the technical prototype, only the scheduling of a meeting was implemented. However, in order to make it a successful service, the whole customer journey is important. The objective of this research is to use prototyping as a service design methods to gain better understanding of the users needs for such as service and design a service concept for MSS. Thus, the research questions (RQ) for this thesis are: RQ1: What does service design in the development of digital service mean? RQ2: How should prototyping as a service design method be used to develop digital services? RQ3: What are the design guidelines for a service concept of a meeting scheduling service between heterogeneous calendar systems? 1.4 Scope of the study The scope of this study is limited to the design of a service concept and prototypes for a meeting scheduling service. Thus, the technical implementation of the service concept or adjustment of the existing technical prototype based on the results of this study is not included in the scope of this thesis. Moreover, this study does not focus on the usability and user experience of the user interface. Nevertheless, the basics of usability and user experience are taken into consideration, as they have an impact on the users evaluation of the prototypes, but the focus of the prototypes is on the concept rather than detailed questions about the user interface. Even though business strategy and marketing are important for the success of a service, they are, 3

14 nevertheless, left out of the scope of this thesis. Instead, the focus of this study is on gaining better understanding on users problems, needs and preferences in the context of meeting scheduling. In contrast to a service design project for a new service, which is started from the scratch, a technical prototype for MSS already exists, which is based on certain assumptions and hypotheses. Thus, the risk is that the existing technical prototype limits the thinking of possible solutions. Moreover, the prototype is not in use and thus, it is not possible to get feedback from users based on actual usage. 1.5 Structure of the study This study is divided into eight chapters. Following this introduction chapter, the remainder of this thesis is structured as follows: Chapter 2 explores the literature relevant for this study. This includes analyzing the change in the concept service in marketing and management from goods-dominant to service-dominant logic as well as reviewing literature on service design and, in specific, prototyping as critical aspect of a service design process. Furthermore, literature on calendar sharing, collaboration and social interaction is reviewed from the perspective of human behavior rather than technical implementation. Chapter 3 gives on overview of current meeting scheduling practices and tools in order to gain better understanding of shortcomings in existing solutions. Chapter 4 focuses on the research method of this study. Chapter 5 describes the research finding from a workshop to understand the current meeting scheduling context and a prototype test session with potential users. Chapter 6 describes the service concept as the result of the research process. Chapter 7 provides the answers to the research questions and discusses the validity of the results. Finally, Chapter 8 draws the conclusions and gives suggestions for future research. 4

15 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter presents the theoretical background of the study. Section 2.1 explores how the concept of service has evolved in marketing and management literature. Section 2.2 presents the concept of service design. It includes an overview of the relation between service dominant logic and service design, the concept of digital services and how these differ from other services as well as an overview of a typical service design process and definitions of the term service concept. Section 2.3 describes prototyping in service design. Section 2.4 provides an overview of designing for collaboration and groupware. The focus of the last section is on meeting scheduling and meeting management. 2.1 Services: from Goods- Dominant to Service- Dominant Logic In economics, the tertiary sector of an economy forms the service industry (Kimbell 2010): however, the division into sectors does not provide a clear definition of services, but instead, the tertiary sector is the left-over category for industries, which do not fit into the primary or secondary sector referring to raw materials and manufacturing. Thus, services have often been defined in relation to goods and described based on characteristics that differentiate them from goods. The most commonly cited characteristics are intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability and perishability, also known as IHIP-characteristics (Zeithaml et al. 1985). Since the 1980s, the leading paradigm in marketing and management literature has been that the IHIPcharacteristics distinguish services from goods (cf. Lovelock & Gummesson 2004; Moeller 2010). These IHIP characteristics are summarized as follows: Intangibility: Intangibility is often cited as the fundamental difference between goods and services. In contrast to services, goods are usually perceived as objects, which can be seen, felt, tasted, or touched. (Zeithaml et al. 1985) Heterogeneity: Services are typically delivered with significant involvement of the service providers employees. The performance of a service provider s employee varies during the interaction with different customers as well as the same customer at 5

16 different points of time. Moreover, different employees of a service provider typically provide varying service experience to customers. (Zeithaml et al. 1985) Inseparability: Production and consumption of most services occur at the same time and cannot be separated (Zeithaml et al. 1985). Consequently, customers are typically present during the production of the service, which emphasizes their role in the service delivery (Lovelock & Gummesson 2004). Perishability: Perishability represents an extension to the service characteristic of inseparability (Segelström 2010). In contrast to physical goods, services cannot be stored between production and consumption (Zeithaml et al. 1985). However, perishability refers to the need of balancing supply and demand of the service at all times or as Gummesson and Lovelock (2004) express it: If demand is low, unused capacity is wasted. If demand exceed capacity, it goes unfulfilled and business may be lost (p. 29). In addition to the IHIP characteristics, Palmer and Cole (1995) propose non-ownership as the fifth generally accepted characteristic of services. While the ownership of tangible goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer, customers of services only attain the right to use the service. The distinction between goods on the one hand and services on the other hand dates back as far as 1776 to Adam Smith s The Wealth of Nations, in which he argues that, unlike in goods, no value is embedded in services due to their perishability, and thus, service do not contribute to a nation s wealth (Kimbell 2010; Lovelock & Gummesson 2004). Consequently, services have typically been considered as inferior to goods, and over the years, different approaches have been suggested to address these challenges in the management and marketing of services. For example, Levitt (1976) advocates the industrialization of service in order to decrease the heterogeneity and increase efficiency of services. He proposes the substitution of humans by machines and tools, such as pay machines, standardized processes and prepackaged service offerings, such as fast-food restaurants or prepackaged vacation tours, as well as a mixture of the two approaches. In contrast, other authors suggest that services need a different approach to marketing and management than products due to the inherently different characteristics of services (Shostack 1977). However, the claim that there are products on the one hand and services on the other hand has been questioned. Many services do not exhibit all IHIP-characteristics and thus, these characteristics cannot be generalized to distinguish between services and goods (Lovelock & Gummesson 2004). Shostack (1977) emphasizes that there are really very few, if any, pure products or services (p. 74). Instead, many offerings consist of a combination of goods and services (Ramírez & Normann 1993). Using Shostack s example (see Figure 1), seats in airplanes are tangible elements in a traditional service, while a car, which is traditionally considered a good, provides the 6

17 service of transportation to its owner. Gummesson (1995) suggests that [c]ustomers do not buy goods or services: they buy offerings which render services which create value (p. 250). Christensen et al. (2007) express a similar view stating that customers buy products or services for their jobs to be done. Figure 1. Diagram of Market Entities (source: Shostack 1977, p.76) In 2004, Vargo and Lusch (2004) advanced these views further and suggested a paradigm shift from goods-dominant logic (G-D logic) to service-dominant logic (S-D logic), in which they propose service, rather than goods, as the fundamental basis of economic exchange. In the service-dominant logic, goods are merely considered as mechanisms for the distribution of services (Vargo & Lusch 2008). Further, this paradigm shift entails a turn in the view on value creation. In G-D logic, value is embedded in the goods; this is referred to as value-in-exchange (Vargo & Akaka 2009). In contrast, in S-D logic the value of a service is depending on the perceived value of the customer, which is referred to as value-in-use (Vargo & Lusch 2008). Vargo and Lusch summarized the substance of the S-D logic as Foundational Premises (FP) (Table 1). 7

18 Table 1. Service- dominant logic foundational premises (source: Vargo & Lusch 2008, p.7) Premise Number FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 FP6 FP7 FP8 FP9 FP10 Foundational Premise Service is the fundamental basis of exchange Indirect exchange masks the fundamental basis of exchange Goods are a distribution mechanism for service provision Operant resources are the fundamental source of competitive advantage All economies are service economies The customer is always co-creator of value The enterprise cannot deliver value, but only offer value propositions A service-centered view is inherently customer oriented and relational All social and economic actors are resource integrators Value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary In accordance with the S-D logic, Vargo and Lusch (2008) define service as the process of using one s resources for the benefit of another entity (p. 2). They distinguish between service (singular) and services (plural): the latter referring to intangible elements in the service (singular) provision process (Vargo & Lusch 2004). In summary, services used to be considered as inferior to goods and without contribution to economic progression. However, in current service management literature the leading school of thoughts is S-D logic (Segelström 2010), in which all economic transactions are based on service provision and a service offering can include tangible and intangible elements. Throughout this thesis, the term service is used to refer to service based on S-D logic and traditional service to refer to services based on G-D logic. 2.2 Service design First, this section provides an overview of service design as a discipline. Next, it explores the relation of S-D logic and service design. Then the concept of digital services is described and an overview of a typical service design process is given. Finally, definitions of the term service concept are described. 8

19 2.2.1 What is service design? Service design originates in times, when services were still defined based on the IHIP-characteristics. It was argued that services, and not only products, need design (Pacenti & Sangiorgi 2010) Thus, the focus of service design is on the design of traditional services, such as banking or retail. Furthermore, the evolvement of service design can also be seen as a part of a general development in the understanding of the role of design. In product design, there was a development from the role of design as styling and product cosmetics (Mager 2009, p.32), to use design to determine the problems to be solved and develop innovative solution to solve these problems (Brown 2008). Out of the design disciplines, service design has mostly evolved from interaction design (Sangiorgi 2009). A likely reason for this development is the similarity of the design object between interaction and service design, i.e., the intangible nature of the design object (Holmlid 2009a). While some researchers suggest that service design has evolved from two bodies of research and practice, service science and design (e.g., Kimbell 2011; Wetter Edman 2011), other emphasize that service design is still more a design than a service discipline (Segelström 2010). In either case, most researchers seem to agree that service design has a the multi-disciplinary nature (e.g., Maffei et al. 2005). Due to the strong influence of other design disciplines to service design methods, it has even been questioned whether service design can even be considered as a new design discipline (Moritz 2005). While service design as a discipline relatively new, the term service design has been used evolved in service management and marketing before it evolved as a discipline. However, in these disciplines, service design has often been understood as one only phase in development process for a new service (e.g., Scheuing & Johnson 1989). In contrast, in service design as a discipline, the whole process is considered as service design process, as design methods are used throughout the process; thus, the strong use of designer s methods has been defined as the main characteristic of service design that distinguishes it from other approaches to service development, which mostly originate in service management (Holopainen 2010). However, service design and other approaches to service development can be considered as complementary to each other, as Ostrom et al. (2010) propose the usage of designer s methods and design thinking as one contribution of service design to service development. Other practitioners and researchers emphasize as well the importance of designer s methods and design thinking for service design (e.g., Holmlid & Evenson 2008; Segelström 2010). Design thinking refers to an approach to problem solving that distinguishes designers from others disciplines (Liedtka & Ogilvie 2011) and is characterized by a humancentered perspective, use of visualization throughout the design process and involvement of potential users and other stakeholders (Kimbell 2011). Liedtka and 9

20 Ogilvie (2011) propose empathy, invention, and iteration as difference between working with a design mindset in contrast to a business mindset. While design thinking is more a question of the mindset, designer s methods are used to put design thinking into practice. A variety of methods are used, and many of them have their origin in other disciplines. On a high level, there seems to be common understanding on the most important methods for service design. For example, Wetter Edman (2011) suggests that visualizations and prototyping play a central role in service design. While most visualizations can be used as prototypes (Blomkvist 2011), not all prototypes are visualizations. Instead, prototyping may also refer to methods, such as experience prototyping (cf. Buchenau & Fulton Suri 2000), in which designers or potential users enact a service. Holmlid and Evenson (2008) identify human-centered methods and modeling, prototyping, and, enacting methods as common methods in service design, which is in line with the characteristics of Wetter Edman. While the main methods of service design seems to be clear, the design object has been less clearly defined. For example, Pacenti and Sangiorgi (2010) suggest that service design concerns the design of transformation, systems and interactions. Wetter Edman (2011) also suggests transformation, but suggest value creation as the second aspect. Transformation is similar to what Mager (2009) refers to as radical: service design can induce significant change. Manzini (2011) highlights that an action platform is designed that enables various interaction. This also is in line with Koivisto (2009) who emphasizes that customers have varied needs and service design addresses those through discovering different primary behavioral models of the customers. Thus, services cannot be designed according to a one-size-fits-all principle, but should accommodate different customer needs and embrace the variety, rather than try to force customers to act in a certain way. Furthermore, Koivisto (2009) divides a service offering into two components: the service delivery process and the outcome of the service, which both need to be designed. Moritz (2005, p.39) highlights the same points: service design includes both, design of the overall experience and the design of the process and strategy. Mager and Sung (2011) describe the goal of service design as designing services that are useful, usable and desirable from the user s perspective, and efficient, effective and different from the provider perspective (p. 1). Several other publications suggest similar definitions (e.g., Holmlid & Evenson 2008; Mager 2009; Moritz 2005). Stickdorn (2011a) suggests five principles for service design, which should guide the service design process: user-centered, co-creative, sequencing, evidencing, and holistic. User-centered: Focus on the user and user s needs. User-centered or human-centered design is nothing new, as already since 1999 a standard has existed for a humancentered design process in interactive systems (ISO ). Nevertheless, in 10

21 practice software development is often still technology-driven. MSS is a good example, as first a technical prototype was built. A good concept for staying usercentered is to think about why users want to use the service. This is what Christensen et al. (2007) refer to as job-to-be-done, which also enables to look beyond demographic criteria to understand users needs and motivation. Co-creative: Involve users and other stakeholders in the design process. Co-creation is one of the basic principles of service design. Especially in the development of digital services, it is based on the tradition of participatory design (Holmlid 2009b). Sequencing: Consider the whole customer journey and focus on the service moments critical for the customer. This includes on the one hand to acknowledge differences in the customer journey for different customers as well as analyze unnecessary or missing service moments (Koivisto 2009). As important is to focus not only on optimizing each service moment, but improve the customer journey as a whole (Rawson & Duncan 2013). Evidencing: Make the backstage process of the service visible to the customer. This principle seems to focusing still more on G-D logic, as it refers to the intangibility of services. While service design concern the design of the experience, which is indeed intangible, the suitable amount of evidencing depends on the amount of intangible and tangible elements in a service and thus, depends on the type of service. Holistic: Consider the context of usage and do not just focus on the service itself. Holistic thinking extends the concept of sequencing further towards service ecosystems and relationships and interactions in these ecosystems as well as the design of a consistent experience across different channels (Koivisto 2009; Mager 2009). Mager (2009) also proposes principles for service design. She also suggests the principles holistic and co-creative. Furthermore, she highlights human-centered as one principle. Human-centered is similar to Stickdorn s principle of being usercentered, but human-centered might also include stakeholder other than users. In addition to those three, she proposes visual and radical as two principles. With visual, she refers to creation of visualization throughout the design process. Radical refers to service designers challenging the status quo and not being afraid of fundamental change. In conclusion, service design as a discipline is still evolving. Nevertheless, some common principles can be identified. Service design focuses not only on the interests of the users, but combines them with the business strategy of the service provider and all relevant stakeholders are actively involved in the design process Furthermore, service design starts from the user and customer needs and might involve the design of service ecosystems across company borders. Visualization and prototypes are 11

22 actively used in the design process. While there seems to be no clear understanding concerning the design object of service design, there seem to be some agreement that service design can induce significant changes and the aim is to accommodate various customer needs Service thinking: bringing S- D logic to service design As described in the previous section, service design has its root in a time, when services were mostly defined based on the IHIP-characteristics, and thus, were considered inferior to products. Likewise in more recent service design literature, these characteristics are used for reasoning why designing services is more challenging than designing products (e.g., Moritz 2005). Overall, it seems that, in contrast to other service disciplines, such as service management and marketing, service design is still dominated by a view that services are different from product rather than a higher level concept, as in S-D logic (Segelström 2010). Thus, service design is often considered as the design of traditional services, in a similar way as products are designed. Nevertheless, most principles of service design and S-D logic are overlapping (Wetter Edman 2009) and many practitioners already apply a S-D logic in the design of traditional services as they move between designing tangible and intangible elements (Kimbell 2011). Thus, service design is one possible approach to put the theoretic principles behind the S-D logic into practice (Wetter Edman 2009). Interestingly, even though service design still mostly follows G-D logic, it is relatively seldom made explicit: the term service is rarely defined in service design literature and a link to topics related to service management and marketing is seldom made. Nevertheless, some authors have discussed the relation between service design and service marketing and management and, in particular, the role of service-dominant logic in service design (Meroni & Sangiorgi 2011; Sangiorgi 2012; Segelström 2010; Wetter Edman 2009; 2011). For example, Wetter Edman (2009) considers service design as one out of many design disciplines when designing services based on S-D logic. She argues that services in S-D logic might contain both good and services as defined in G-D logic. Other disciplines include product design and interaction design. In order to make a difference, some authors refer to designing services driven by S-D logic as design for service instead of service design (Kimbell 2011; Meroni & Sangiorgi 2011). Kimbell (2011) considers designing for service as one way of designing services (p. 41). She identifies two tensions in the understanding of service design. One refers to whether services are understood based on goods-dominant or service-dominant logic. The other refers to the understanding design either as problem-solving or as enquiry. The former refers to using design to solve a known problem. The latter refers to the application of design thinking. Kimbell s quadrant of approaches to service design is shown in Figure 2. The vertical axis divides the approaches to 12

23 service design into whether goods-dominant logic (on the left) or service-dominant logic (on the right) is applied. The horizontal axis divides whether design thinking is applied (bottom), i.e. based on understanding of design as taught in art or design schools, or design tradition based on engineering tradition is applied (top). Figure 2. Approaches to conceptualizing service design (source: Kimbell 2011, p.45) In service design literature, design thinking and designer s methods are emphasized as the core characteristics that distinguish service design from other service disciplines. Thus, service design as a discipline can be placed in the bottom line of the quadrant. Most service design studies focus on traditional service and thus, can be placed in the bottom-left quadrant. In contrast, service disciplines, such as service management and marketing, can mostly be placed top-right quadrant as usually S-D logic is applied. In contrast to Kimbell s framework, Sangiorgi (2012) claims that design for service is the next step in the evolution of service design (Figure 3). She defines service thinking as this way of thinking, which focuses more on interactions, benefit and exchanges rather than tangible or intangible goods (Sangiorgi 2012, p.99). The same term is also used by the service design consultancy Live work (Reason et al. n.d.). They suggest that through the combination of service design and service thinking service can become a platform that benefits both the customer and service provider (Live work n.d.). When compared to Kimbell s (2011) framework, Sangiorgi s (2012) framework only covers the bottom half of the quadrant and thus, not covering the engineering perspective on service design. 13

24 Figure 3: The evolution of service and value (source: Sangiorgi 2012, p.98(redrawn)) In summary, service design as disciplines is still dominated by a definition of services based on G-D logic, but some approaches exist to bring S-D logic into service design. Considering that S-D logic is often seen as an evolution from G-D logic (Vargo & Lusch 2008), one can argue that design for service is indeed the next step in the evolution of service design. Both frameworks, by Kimbell (2011) and Sangiori (2012) can be considered as helpful to clarify the relationship of these terms and how the term service design has been used with different meanings Design of digital services Even though digital services are a popular topic among practitioners (Tinworth 2012), little research has focused on the design of digital services. As service design literature is mostly still following the principles of G-D logic (Segelström 2010), the focus is on traditional services. However, digital services have gained importance in the economy. Digital services, such as online banking, have to a large extend replaced some former traditional services and new businesses have emerged, whose core offerings are digital (Lovelock & Gummesson 2004). Software has always been challenging to categorize as product or service based on the IHIP-characteristics. While software is intangible, the other three characteristics of service heterogeneity, inseparability, and perishability only apply partially (Lovelock & Gummesson 2004; Meroni & Sangiorgi 2011). Revenue models have been one approach to categorize software as either service or product (Cusumano 2004). However, to develop a service based on S-D logic requires more a change in the mindset than a change in the business model. Thus, due to the inherent challenges in categorizing software as either service or product, it might be beneficial for the 14

25 development of digital services to consequently apply the S-D logic and focus on providing a solution to problem of the customers. Williams et al. (2008) define a digital service as an activity or benefit that one party can give to another, that is, provided through a digital transaction (p. 507) and further define digital transaction as information, software modules, or consumer goods (p. 506). This definition is similar to Vargo and Lusch s (2008) definition of service according to the S-D logic, but Williams et al. limit the service provision to digital channels. In contrast, Tinworth (2012) suggests to focus on the service experience and consider digital channels as only one option in a range of different channels. His understanding of services follows the S-D logic, as it emphasizes the importance of focusing on the customer problem that the service provider intends to solve and he acknowledges that the approaches for solving the problem might change over time. For example, if a service is provided as an app today, a different channel might be more suitable at some point in the future. Most case examples presented in service design literature focus on traditional services. Hence, they emphasize the role of the front stage employees and their interaction with the customers. However, while the interaction between the front stage employees and customers is crucial for the service experience of most traditional services, users of digital services might never get into personal contact with the service provider (Williams et al. 2008). Moreover, many digital services provide a platform for social interaction between their users (Meroni & Sangiorgi 2011). Examples for these platforms are online social networks and online marketplaces, such as ebay 2. On these digital platforms, the service experience depends significantly on the behavior of other users, instead of on the behavior of the front stage employees (Cho 2011). The actions of the users cannot be planned in the same manner as the actions of front stage employees of the service provider. Furthermore, users of digital services might use a service in different roles: as service provider for other users and as service receiver (Cho 2011). For example, a specific user of an online marketplace might use the platform as seller, and thus, providing a service to other users, as well as buyer. Likewise, in a meeting scheduling service, a user might use the service as meeting organizer as well as meeting invitee. Overall, the same service design principles and method can be applied to digital services as to traditional services. Nevertheless, these principles and methods might need to be adjusted for different kinds of services. For example, a digital meeting scheduling service might require different methods for visualizing and prototyping than the service of a restaurant. Blomkvist (2011) emphasizes the need for a categorization of services in order to better support the design process of different kinds of services. 2 ebay Inc., [Online] [Accessed ]] 15

26 2.2.4 Service design process Several service design process models consisting of three to seven stages have been suggested by practitioners and researchers (Stickdorn 2011b). For example, Oosterom (2009) proposes a five-stage model comprising of discovering, concepting, designing, building, and implementing. Culminatum Innovation (2008) suggests four stages: discovery, creation, reality-check, and implementation. Stickdorn (2011b) proposes a model consisting of the four stages exploration, creation, reflection, implementation. While there are some differences in the various models (Miettinen 2009), they essentially follow the same principles (Stickdorn 2011b): first, different stages can be identified, even though the process is in fact not as linear as shown in most process models. Second, the process is highly iterative and at each stage, it might be necessary to return to one of the previous stages. The iterative nature of the design process is also acknowledged by Miettinen (2009) when stating that [a]n iterative design process is based on a cyclic process of prototyping, testing, analysing, and refining work in progress (p. 11). Liedtka and Ogilvie (2011) propose that divergent and convergent thinking are common to design processes. Diverging thinking refers to an expanding view at the beginning of each stage and convergent thinking refers to reducing the amount of options towards the end of each stage. In this thesis, the service design process model according to Stickdorn (2011b) is applied. It is illustrated in Figure 4 and each of the stages is briefly described below. Figure 4: The iterative service design process (source: adopted from Stickdorn 2011b, p.122). Graphics cc- by- sa 3.0 unported Stickdorn and Schneider. Stage 1 Exploration This stage focuses on the exploration of the service context and is also referred to as discovery (Culminatum Innovation 2008) or discovering (Oosterom 2009). The exploration stage is divided into the task of understanding the business of the service provider and, as a second task, discovering the real problem of current and potential customers (Stickdorn 2011b). The key to designing successful services is to find out what customers don t like about today and identify the trade-offs they d rather not have to be making (Liedtka & Ogilvie 2011, chap. 2). Stickdorn (2011b) adds visualization of the results of the first two tasks as third task to this stage in order to make the results more tangible. 16

27 Stage 2- Creation and Stage 3 - Reflection The creation stage focuses on the creation of ideas and concepts, while the reflection stage focuses on testing these ideas and concepts (Stickdorn 2011b). These two stages are closely interlinked and many iterations are conducted between them (Stickdorn 2011b). In fact, some service design process frameworks combine these two stages into one: For example, Oosterom (2009) refers to this stage as concepting and Culminatum Innovation (2008) as creation. While there are some service design methods, which are more suitable either for creation of ideas and concepts or reflection of them, these stages are in practice often difficult to separate. For example, new ideas might arise and concepts might evolve during the creation of prototypes. Nevertheless, a stage specifically for idea generation is performed during the first iteration of most service design processes. One reason for the large number of iterations in a service design process is that the aims of service design is not to avoid mistakes but explore various options and learn from mistakes (Liedtka & Ogilvie 2011; Stickdorn 2011b). Further, Stickdorn (2011b) suggests the intangibility as the main challenge in this stage of the process since you cannot simply put a service on a table and ask customers what they think about it (p. 132). However, when defining services based on S-D logic, they can contain a significant amount of tangible elements, which could be put on a table in front of the customer, and the tangibility or intangibility depends on the type of service. Nevertheless, we agree that service experience is challenging to prototype. Stage 4 - Implementation In this stage, the new service is implemented in practice. Comparing the different service design process models, the three stages designing, building and implementation in the model of Oosterom (2009), correspond to the implementation phase in the model of Stickdorn (2011b) and Culminatum Innovation (2008). This stage focuses on the development and implementation of process and IT solutions as well as on training the employees providing the service (Culminatum Innovation 2008). Stickdorn (2011b) highlights the importance of involving employees in early in this stage due to their central role in the service experience. However, the importance of the employees for the service experiences varies significantly depending on the type of service. While the front stage employees play a significant role in most traditional services, in other services, such as self-services or services, in which the service provides a platform for interaction among customers, the role of the employees is less important. Even though the implementation stages is the last stage, a service design process continues after this stage with a new iteration of the whole process in order to continuously improve the service (Culminatum Innovation 2008; Stickdorn 2011b). 17