Comparing Service Design Approaches

1. Comparing Service Design Approaches Peter J Wild Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom pw308@cam.ac.uk With Giuditta Pezzotta University of Bergamo, Italy giuditta.pezzotta@unibg.it

2. “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).”

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Systematic Mapping……. S4T Outputs D-FAPP Classification Practitioner Approach 1 Practitioner Approach 2 Practitioner Approach N Direct Exploitation (Consultancy)

7. 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…

8. 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

9. 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

10. Service Environment Social, Political, Cultural, Physical Values Reflect Service System Effectiveness Function of Desired Service Quality against Resource Costs to achieve Value / Benefit Held by Service Goals Service Actants (with Structures & Behaviours) Performed by Affect or Maintain Scoped to Performed by Service Activities Service System Boundary Artefacts (with Structures & Behaviours) Service Domain (composed of Intangible & Tangible objects)

11. At least two systems

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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 )

16. 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

17. 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

18. Service IN Product OUT Edvardsson, 1996 IDEO Magnusson, 2003 SDL Sakao and Shimomura, 2007 V-Model SM Hall 1969 Bullinger et al 2003 Alonso-Rasgado et al 2004 Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006 Fast-track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006 Engine Smith et al., 2007 MEPSS Morelli 2002 Aurich et al., 2006 Yang et al, 2009 Waterfall Royce 1970 Spiral Boehm 1986 Unified Process Lifecycle Schmidt 2008 Hartson and Hix 1989 dCOR Goldstein et al., 2002 Herrmann et al., 2000 GDL CMMI Software Supply Chain Mng Mng Legend Systems Engineering MKT Functional Products Service Engineering Service Design PSS Service As communication

19. Service IN Product OUT Edvardsson, 1996 IDEO Magnusson, 2003 SDL Sakao and Shimomura, 2007 V-Model SM Hall 1969 Bullinger et al 2003 Alonso-Rasgado et al 2004 Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006 Fast-track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006 Engine Smith et al., 2007 MEPSS Morelli 2002 Aurich et al., 2006 Yang et al, 2009 Waterfall Royce 1970 Spiral Boehm 1986 Unified Process Lifecycle Schmidt 2008 Hartson and Hix 1989 dCOR Goldstein et al., 2002 Herrmann et al., 2000 GDL CMMI Legend Applied Science Engineering Design Craft Service As communication

20. Service IN Product OUT Edvardsson, 1996 IDEO Magnusson, 2003 SDL Sakao and Shimomura, 2007 V-Model SM Hall 1969 Bullinger et al 2003 Alonso-Rasgado et al 2004 Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006 Fast-track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006 Engine Smith et al., 2007 MEPSS Morelli 2002 Aurich et al., 2006 Yang et al, 2009 Waterfall Royce 1970 Spiral Boehm 1986 Unified Process Lifecycle Schmidt 2008 Hartson and Hix 1989 dCOR Goldstein et al., 2002 Herrmann et al., 2000 GDL CMMI Legend Applied Science Engineering Design Craft Service As communication

21. 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)

22. 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

23. 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

24. Service IN Product OUT Codesign = Service IN Edvardsson, 1996 IDEO Codesign = SDL Magnusson, 2003 SDL Sakao and Shimomura, 2007 Codesign =No in Product OUT V-Model Bullinger et al 2003 Alonso-Rasgado et al 2004 Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006 Fast-track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006 Engine Smith et al., 2007 MEPSS Morelli 2002 Aurich et al., 2006 Yang et al, 2009 Spiral Boehm 1986 dCOR Goldstein et al., 2002 Herrmann et al., 2000 GDL CMMI Legend Co-Design Subject-Co-Design Dialog Information Service As communication Co-producer

25. 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

26. Future Work • Fuller evidence trace • Confirmation with independent subject experts • Expand the range of HCI approaches used • Attack methods / techniques, not just methodologies

27. Open Questions • Are five dimension enough? • What additional cross comparison do you need?