Design for-services-sect1

© Copyrighted Material

om
b.c
http://www.gowerpublishing.com/isbn/9780566089206

rpu
we
go
m
.co
Design for Services

ub
erp
ow
g
om
b.c
rpu
we
go
m
.co
ub
erp
ow
g
om
b.c
rpu
we

Dr Anna Meroni
go
m

Politecnico di Milano, Italy
.co

&
ub
erp

Dr Daniela Sangiorgi
ow
g

Lancaster University, UK
m
.co
ub
erp
ow
g
om
b.c
rpu
we
go


go
we
rpu
b.c
om
g

Section 1
ow
erp
ub
.co
m
gow

Services
erp
ub
.co
m
go
we
rpu
b.c
om
g
ow
erp
ub
.co
m


gow
erp
ub
.co
m
g ow
erp
ub
.co
m
go
we
Introduction to Design for

rpu
b.c
om

1.1
A New Discipline

om
b.c
rpu
we
go
m
.co
Service design, as a new discipline, emerged as a contribution to a changing context

ub
and to what a certain group of design thinkers (notably Morello 1991,1 Hollins and

erp
Hollins 1991, Manzini 1993, Erlhoff et al. 1997, Pacenti 1998) started to perceive and

ow
describe as a new design agenda. In the 1990s the growing economic role of the

g
service sector in most of the developed economies was in clear contrast to the then

m
dominant practices and cultures of design, which still focused on the physical and

.co
tangible output of the traditional industrial sectors.

ub
As Richard Buchanan has asserted ‘design problems are “indeterminate” and

erp
“wicked” because design has no special subject matter of its own apart from what

ow
a designer conceives it to be’ (Buchanan 1992: 16). This means that the objects and
g
practices of design depend more on what designers perceive design to be and not so
m
much on an agreed on or stable definition elaborated by a scientific community.
.co
ub

The subject matter of design is potentially universal in scope, because
erp

design thinking may be applied to any area of human experience
ow

(Buchanan 1992: 16). 9
g
om

The growing relevance of the service sector has affected not only design but
b.c

several disciplines, starting from marketing and management moving to engineering,
rpu

computing, behavioural science, etc.; recently a call for a convergence of all these
disciplines has claimed the need for a new science, a ‘Service Science’ (Spohrer et al.
we

2007, 2008, Pinhanez and Kontogiorgis 2008, Lush et al. 2008), defined as ‘the study
go

of service systems, aiming to create a basis for systematic service innovation’ (Maglio
m

and Spohrer 2008: 18).
.co

This book explores what design brings to this table and reflects on the reasons
ub

why the ideas and practices of service design are resonating with today’s design
erp

community. It offers a broad range of concrete examples in an effort to clarify the
ow

issues, practices, knowledge and theories that are beginning to define this emerging
g

field. It then proposes a conceptual framework (in the form of a map) that provides an
m

interpretation of the contemporary service design practices, while deliberately breaking
.co

up some of the disciplinary boundaries framing designing for services today.
ub

Given the richness of this field, we followed some key principles to build and
erp

shape the contents of this publication:
ow
g

1. We decided to select service projects that have a direct and clear relationship
om

with consolidated design specialisations (such as interaction design,
b.c

experience design, system design, participatory design or strategic design)
rpu
we
go

1 Morello, A. 1991. Design e mercato dei prodotti e dei Servizi. Document for the Doctorate programme in
Industrial Design, Milano: Politecnico di Milano.

or manifesting a designerly way of thinking and doing (Cross 2006), despite
the diverse disciplinary backgrounds;

m
2. We aimed at organising the different contributions into a systemic

.co
framework delineating a field of practice characterised by some clear core

ub
competences, but having blurred and open boundaries. This framework in

erp
particular illustrates the multidimensional nature of contemporary design

ow
practice and knowledge, apparently fragmented in its description, but

g
actually able to identify, apply and assimilate multiple relevant contributions

m
coming from other disciplines;

.co
ub
3. We recognised how services, like most contemporary artefacts (Morin 1993),

erp
are impossible to control in all their aspects, because of their heterogeneity

ow
and high degree of human intensity. In this book we therefore applied

g
the principles of ‘weak thinking’ (Vattimo and Rovatti 1998), meaning

m
accepting the fundamental inability of design to completely plan and

.co
regulate services, while instead considering its capacity to potentially create

ub
the right conditions for certain forms of interactions and relationships to

erp
happen.

ow
g
For these reasons the title of this publication is Design for Services instead of Service
m
Design (or Design of Services). While acknowledging service design as the disciplinary
.co

term, we will focus more on articulating what design is doing and can do for services
ub

and how this connects to existing fields of knowledge and practice.
erp

This reflection is timely and extremely relevant as more and more universities,
ow

design consultancies and research centres are willing to enter the field of design for
1.1: A New Discipline

g

services; we hope that by proposing an orienting framework and a sort of service
om

designers’ ‘identikit’, we will provide a foundation for these growing initiatives while
b.c

stimulating further conversations and research.
rpu

The book introduces a map (described in Chapter 2.5) that illustrates how
designers and design research are currently contributing to the design for services.
we

We generated this map by collecting and reflecting on 17 case studies of design
go

and research projects that have been reported and described in Section 2 of this
m

publication.
.co
ub

SECTION 1 SECTION 2 SECTION 3
erp
ow

EXISTING MAP of FUTURE
PARADIGM DESIGN for SERVICES DEVELOPMENTS
g
m
.co
ub
erp
ow
g
om
b.c
rpu

17 case studies
we
go

Figure 1.1 The structure of this book


As a support and complementation to the case studies, Section 1 links design for
services to existing models and studies on service innovation and service characteristics;
while Section 3 projects design for services into the emerging paradigms of a new

om
economy to help us reflecting on its possible future development.
As Kimbell pointed out (Kimbell and Seidel 2008, Kimbell 2009) design for

b.c
services is still an emerging discipline based on mainly informal and tacit knowledge,

rpu
but it may develop into a more structured discipline if it develops a closer dialogue

we
with existing disciplines such as service management, service marketing, or service

go
operations. We have opened up and engaged in this closer dialogue throughout this

m
book, in particular considering ‘service marketing’ as historically encompassing all

.co
research study in services (Pinhanez and Kontogiorgis 2008). This book represents a

ub
first attempt in that direction that will require further efforts and collaboration across

erp
disciplines. Appendix 1 actually opens up reflection on future research on design for

ow
services by starting a conversation with a selection of key researchers and professionals

g
of the field of services. Finally, Appendix 2 presents a selection of tools as introduced

m
in the case studies.

.co
Before introducing the case studies that will feed into the map of design for

ub
services, we are going to address two key questions that will help us position and

erp
motivate this new field of studies: Why is it necessary to introduce a new subdiscipline in

ow
design? and How has design approached the realm of services so far?
g
As a response to these questions in the next chapters we will briefly consider the
m
role and recognition of services and of design in the current economy and, following a
.co

similar path to service marketing in its original development, we will refer design to the
ub

IHIP (Intangibility, Heterogeneity, Inseparability and Perishability) framework,2 looking
erp

at how design developed alternative strategies in dealing with service characteristics
ow

to traditional design fields and service related disciplines. 11
g
om
b.c

Why Design for Services?
rpu
we

It is widely acknowledged that in recent decades the developed economies have moved
go

to what is called a ‘service economy’, an economy highly dependent on the service
m

industry. In 2007, services represented 69.2 per cent of total employment and 71.6
.co

per cent of the gross value added generated by EU273 (Eurostat 2009).4 This means
ub

that services in their different forms and characteristics have developed a fundamental
erp

role for the growth and sustainability of innovation and competitiveness. This role
ow

has been fully recognised of late with a flourishing of innovation studies and policy
g

debates and programmes specifically aimed at deepening the understanding and at
m

supporting the development of the service sector at different levels. As a consequence
.co

the European Council called for the launch of a European plan for innovation (PRO
ub

INNO Europe) that could include and generate new understandings of innovation in
erp

general and of service innovation in particular.
ow
g
om

2 IHIP is a ‘core paradigm of services marketing, namely, the assertion that four specific characteristics –
intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability, and perishability – make services uniquely different from goods’
b.c

(Lovelock and Gummesson 2004: 21).
rpu

3 EU27 is the European Union in its latest composition of 27 member states.
4 By services we mean the following sectors: financial, real estate, renting and business activities (NACE
we

Sections J and K); distribution, hotels, restaurants and catering (HORECA), communications and transport
go

services (NACE Sections G to I); public administration, health, education, other services and households
(NACE Sections L to P).

Some of the key changes in these late policies have been a growing attention for
the role of design and creativity as well as for user-centred approaches to innovation.
PRO INNO Europe, the focal point of innovation policy analysis and development

m
throughout Europe, dedicated a series of studies within this platform specifically to

.co
‘design and user-centred innovation’ and to ‘design as a tool for innovation’.5 Initial

ub
studies at EU levels are suggesting the need for a more integrated and coherent

erp
measurement of design impact and design policies; recognition is growing on the

ow
role of design for innovation and on the importance to integrate design strategies at

g
higher executive levels as well as to engage users on an early basis as co-designers

m
(Bitard and Basset 2008).

.co
The Community Innovation Survey (CIS), the most comprehensive European-

ub
wide approach to measure innovation based on surveys, has been gradually improved

erp
to better capture and report service innovation processes. The Oslo Manual (OECD/

ow
Eurostat 2005), on which the CIS surveys are based, has been updated since 2005

g
to include, besides product and process innovations, marketing and organisational

m
innovation, and now considers non-R&D (research and development) sources of

.co
innovation as strategic for the development of service industries. A first attempt to

ub
produce a common measurement for service industry performance at a national

erp
level has resulted in the Service Sector Innovation Index (SSII). Different initiatives

ow
on the national level emerged out of this framework. For example, in the UK, the
g
National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) has coordinated
m
the development of a new Innovation Index (http://www.innovationindex.org.uk) in
.co

response to the Innovation Nation White Paper by the Department of Industries and
ub

Universities (DIUS 2008), which called for a more accurate measure of innovation in
erp

the UK’s increasingly important services sectors, creative industries and in the delivery
ow

of public services.

g

The need for a new Innovation Index emerged based on investigations into
om

UK innovation practices, that revealed a gap between what ‘traditional innovation’
b.c

performance metrics – focused on scientific and technological innovation – were
rpu

measuring and how ‘hidden innovation’ (NESTA 2006, 2007) was not being captured
through them. At the same time it was being recognised that hidden innovation was
we

one of the keys to success for the UK economy. Studies suggested the level of complexity
go

involved in innovation, ill represented by linear models of innovation, the importance
m

of incremental changes, and the role of diffusion. Moreover, further attention was to
.co

be given to the adoption and exploitation of technologies, organisational innovation
ub

and innovation in services (including public services and non-commercial settings).
erp

This example from the UK shows how our understanding of innovation needs to go
ow

beyond the traditional ‘hard’ dimensions of technologies and physical matter. Instead,
g

we need to include the ‘soft’ dimensions that are directly related to people, people
m

skills and organisations (Tether and Howells 2007).
.co

In synthesis, service innovation is ‘more likely to be linked to disembodied, non-
ub

technological innovative processes, organisational arrangements and markets’ (Howells
erp

2007: 11). The main sources of innovation in service industries are employees and
ow

customers (Miles 2001) and new ideas are often generated through the interaction
g

with users (user-driven innovation) and through the application of tacit knowledge or
om

training rather than through explicit R&D activities (ALMEGA 2008). A dedicated study
b.c

on service innovation by Tekes (2007), the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology
rpu
we
go

5 For more information see the INNO-Grips web-pages: http://grips.proinno-europe.eu/key_topics/2/
design-user-centred-innovation, accessed 31 July 2010.

and Innovation,6 confirmed how customers have replaced the role of competitors as
main source for innovation and how ‘customer services’ is the main area of service
improvement (instead of ‘product–service performance’ in the manufacturing sector).

om
Given the interactive nature of services, customer services and in general ‘delivery (or
relationship) innovation’ (Gallouj 2002) have been looked at as the most characteristic

b.c
form of innovation of services; however this practice is still poorly captured and

rpu
understood. Other successful transformations into service companies often concern

we
their organisational and financial models, moving from improving processes to the

go
reformulation of their value networks and business models (Tekes 2007).

m
Service innovation is a complex interdisciplinary effort (Figure 1.2). Even if the role

.co
of design within this process is still not clear, it is starting to gain some visibility. Tekes

ub
for example suggests how design for services can apply design methods to develop a

erp
new offering or improved experiences by bringing ‘many intangible elements together

ow
into a cohesive customer experience’ (2007: 18).

g
m
.co
innovation in the value network

ub
technology

erp
training acquisition

Organisational innovation ow
g
m
.co

staff
ub
erp

RELATIONSHIP INNOVATION
ow

13
g

users
om
b.c

Marketing innovation
rpu

knowledge
we

imitation/
acquisition
diffusion
go
m
.co

Figure 1.2 A representation of the main areas of and sources for service innovation
ub
erp
ow

the transformational potential of services
g

Among service innovation studies, special attention is being paid to the role services
m

have in supporting the development of a knowledge-based economy; moreover
.co

services are often associated with the desired shift from a traditional resource-exploiting
ub

manufacturing-based society to a more sustainable one.
erp

Knowledge-intensive Services (KIS)7 have been identified as an indicator for the
ow

overall ‘knowledge intensity’ of an economy representing a significant source for
g
om
b.c

6 Applying the Ten Types of Innovation framework as developed by Larry Keeley at Doblin, Tekes compared
rpu

the analysis of 12 successful service companies in the USA with a previous investigation into 100 service
projects by Peerinsights.
we

7 KIS can be defined ‘as economic activities conducted by private sector organisations that combine
go

technology, knowledge (such as R&D) and highly skilled employees to provide a service to the market’
(European Commission 2009: 95). Following the NACE classifications KIS are services such as water and

the development and exchange of new knowledge. These special kinds of services
are now considered as connected to the overall wealth and innovation capability of a
nation. As a subset of KIS, Knowledge-intensive Business Services (KIBS) have attracted

m
significant attention. KIBS are services8 that ‘provide knowledge-intensive inputs

.co
to the business processes of other organisations’ (Miles 2005: 39) to help solving

ub
problems that go beyond their core business. Their growth is associated mainly with

erp
the increase in outsourcing and the need for acquisition of specialised knowledge,

ow
related to, among others, technology advancement, environmental regulations, social

g
concerns, markets and cultures.

m
Services have been traditionally looked at as a possible alternative to the

.co
manufacturing driven model of consumption based on ownership and disposal. The

ub
concept of the Product Service System (PSS) developed out of the engineering and

erp
environmental management literature as an area of investigation to balance the need

ow
for competitiveness and environmental concerns. A PSS ‘consists of a mix of tangible

g
products and intangible services designed and combined so that they jointly are

m
capable of fulfilling final customer needs’ (Tukker and Tischner 2006: 1552). Research

.co
has not yet produced evidence that PSS is a win–win strategy in terms of sustainability.

ub
That is, companies employing PSS have not been able to achieve significant or

erp
radical reductions in their environmental impact (Tukker 2004). Despite this, PSS has

ow
helped to show that service-oriented solutions are potentially better in addressing
g
environmental concerns than approaches that focus on the product when combined
m
with dimensions of localisation (Walker 2009), shared strategies and changes in
.co

consumption behaviours (Tukker and Tischner 2006, Marchand and Walker 2008),
ub

community engagement (Meroni 2007) or lightness (Thackara 2005).
erp

In addition to the impact on the economy and employment, service innovation
ow

is increasingly viewed as an enabler of a ‘society-driven innovation’ with policies

g

at national and regional level that are ‘using service innovation to address societal
om

challenges and as a catalyst of societal and economic change’ (European Commission
b.c

2009: 70). Tekes positions service innovation as a core lever for transformative
rpu

changes in areas such as health and well-being, clean energy, built environment and
the knowledge society (Tekes 2008).
we

This transformative potential of services is due to different characteristics: service
go

innovation brings to the fore new ‘soft’ dimensions that help in reframing artefact
m

and technologically focused innovation paradigms (Miles 2005); services don’t
.co

imply ownership and therefore can potentially overcome traditional consumption
ub

patterns (Lovelock and Gummesson 2004); services depend on users’ behaviour and
erp

direct participation in the delivery system that can require changes in lifestyles and
ow

consumption modes (Meroni 2007); and their focus on providing solutions (instead of
g

necessarily products) means that there is an inherent potential for systemic changes,
m

resource optimisation and value-driven offerings (Manzini and Vezzoli 2003, Manzini
.co

et al. 2004).
ub
erp

final considerations
ow

We can see that the perception of services as a means to tackle society and economic
g

challenges is gaining increased attention. In taking this perspective forward certain
om
b.c
rpu

air transport; post and telecommunications; financial intermediation; real estate, renting and business
we

activities; education; health and social work; and recreational, cultural and sporting activities.
8 KIBS services include computer services, R&D services, legal, accountancy and management services,
go

architecture, engineering and technical services, advertising and market research (Miles, 2005). In the
NACE classifications are identified with the Business Services (NACE 70–74).

important factors come into focus. For example, we need to understand more clearly
how services are and can be innovative, how they complement traditional science
and technology based models of innovation, how they can address societal and

om
environmental challenges and finally the role of design and creativity as significant
contributors to such innovation and growth. If the relevance of design for services as

b.c
a field of action and expertise for designers is accepted, then we need to be clear on

rpu
what it is that design contributes, can contribute or cannot contribute to this context.

we
Considering the multidisciplinary nature of a service project and the current building

go
of a ‘service science’, it is not easy to identify the role and identity of a ‘designer’.

m
What is evident however, and is documented in this book, is that design and

.co
design research are practically and necessarily entering into new ‘orders’ (Buchanan

ub
2001) of practice and research as a way to answer new project and society demands.

erp
Buchanan (2001), reflecting on the evolution and future development of design,

ow
talks about ‘places’ or ‘placements’, as areas of discovery and invention that characterise

g
the practice of design; in doing so he suggests a movement from ‘signs’ (graphic and

m
communication design), to ‘objects’ (product design), to ‘interactions’ (interaction

.co
design) and ‘systems’ (environment and system design). These placements, or ‘design

ub
orders’, which are not rigidly fixed and separated from each other, represent perfectly

erp
the growing of scale and complexity of design objects and problems in the last

ow
two decades. Moreover they represent the interconnectedness of their dimensions,
g
from single products to larger environments of living, working, playing or learning.
m
What Buchanan is suggesting is how the growth of scale and complexity of design
.co

interventions is related to the growth of scale and complexity of contemporary
ub

challenges. Working on higher scales of interventions allows designers to intervene at
erp

an earlier stage and at a more strategic level.
ow

Design for services has been generally identified with the ‘interaction’ order, 15
g

where ‘interaction’ refers to how ‘human beings relate to other human beings through
om

the mediating influence of products’ (Buchanan 2001: 11) and ‘products’ can be
b.c

interpreted as physical artefacts, experiences, activities or services.
rpu

If design is entering into new ‘orders’ of practice, the next question is then how
design, being traditionally linked with tangible artefacts, has approached the realm
we

of services. The next section will adopt an existing framework in marketing literature,
go

as a conceptual tool to relate design practice and research to the main characteristics
m

of services, i.e. intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability and perishability (the IHIP
.co

framework); while acknowledging the limitations implicit in this framework in the
ub

contemporary debate on services (Lovelock and Gummesson 2004), we suggest how
erp

this classification can help to systematise and reflect on the work and knowledge
ow

developed in design for services; while doing so we will also aim to bridge and
g

compare its practice with other service-related studies.
m
.co
ub
erp

Services and Design for Services
ow
g

As we have demonstrated, the global economy is moving towards models in which
om

a ‘service logic’ dominates (Vargo and Lush 2004), challenging traditional ways of
b.c

evaluating productivity, innovation and growth. Along with this change, we can
rpu

identify shifts in the perception and function of services: for example, service marketing
we

in the 1970s through to the early 1980s conceptualised the nature of services as
go

substantially different from that of products.


These initial studies identified four main characteristics (or shortcomings as
compared to products) of services that researchers seemed to agree on. These four
characteristics are intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability of production and

m
consumption, and perishability (Zeithaml et al. 1985, Edgett and Parkinson 1993).

.co
Intangibility refers to the quality of services that escape our physical human touch.

ub
Services are thus described as ‘performances, rather than objects, they cannot be

erp
seen, felt, tasted or touched in the same manner in which goods can be sensed’

ow
(Zeithaml et al. 1985: 33). A further distinction has been made between ‘physical

g
intangibility’ and ‘mental intangibility’, this last related to the difficulty of evaluating

m
the service before buying it (Bateson 1979).

.co
The characteristic of inseparability of consumption and production alludes to the fact

ub
that services require the presence of customers for the service to exist. This means that

erp
most services are highly interactive and depend on people-to-people or person-to-

ow
person interactions. Heterogeneity thus suggests how, in particular for labour-intensive

g
services, the quality of the performance may vary from time to time depending on the

m
situation and service participants.

.co
Finally, a key characteristic identified for services is the fact that services in general

ub
cannot be stored and therefore depend on the service provider’s ability to balance

erp
and synchronise demand with supply capacity. This brings in elements of just-in-time

ow
delivery and relates to perishability as services come into being but can also fall back
into non-existence. g
m
These characteristics, as Lovelock and Gummesson have demonstrated (2004),
.co

have not been grounded in empirical research and can be subject to an ambiguous
ub

interpretation.9 Nonetheless, as the IHIP framework has served as a basis for the
erp

growth of service marketing and the development of dedicated service management
ow

strategies, we chose to use its four widely acknowledged parameters to start our

g

reflection on the peculiar contributions of design for services.
om

Design has been traditionally associated with shaping tangible artefacts. The
b.c

IHIP characteristics, in particular intangibility, explain the resistance in the practising
rpu

design community to accepting and understanding design for services. Moving from
tangibles to intangibles questions what design is actually designing. If services are
we

defined as acts or performances how can design contribute to their shaping? What is
go

the aesthetic of a performance? And what is the designed outcome?
m

Design research and practice have approached services from two main perspectives
.co

that have represented two main distinct research streams: the ‘interaction paradigm’,
ub

which has focused mainly on how services are performed, and the ‘functional paradigm’,
erp

which has instead considered what services represent and can offer. We will introduce
ow

both the perspectives and then relate their arguments to the IHIP framework.
g

The interaction paradigm has considered the interactive nature of services as its
m

main focus, applying design methods and skills to improve the user experience. It
.co

did so, for example, by better designing the service interface (the visible part of the
ub

service through which users can interact and orient their behaviours and choices).
erp

By focusing on the interactivity dimension, design for services has identified service
ow

experiences as an area of design intervention. Elena Pacenti proposed this perspective
g
om
b.c

9 Lovelock and Gummesson recognise that the IHIP framework helped to generate the impetus for
rpu

and legitimacy of studies about the new field of service marketing; also, if taken separately, the IHIP
we

characteristics help explain some of the behaviours of specific services. They suggest devoting attention to
another property that seems to fully represent service nature, which is ‘non-ownership’: ‘services involve a
go

form of rental or access in which customers obtain benefits by gaining the right to use a physical object,
to hire the labor and expertise of personnel, or to obtain access to facilities and networks’ (2004: 34).

for the first time in her Ph.D. research in 1998 where she defined service design as
the design of the area and scene where the interactions between the service and the
user take place. She made an analogy between the design of advanced interactive

om
devices and the design of services to suggest a shift from the interpretation of services
as complex organisations to one that sees services as complex interfaces to the user.

b.c
The introduction of the interaction perspective has enabled a deeper understanding of

rpu
the nature of services and of design for services, opening up a liaison with the research

we
and methodology of human-centred interaction design.

go
This correlation and analogy between interaction design and design for services

m
has been further developed, mainly from a methodological perspective, in a reciprocal

.co
way. For example, Holmlid (2007) points out how the service perspective has become

ub
a challenge to interaction design, while technology usage has become a challenge to

erp
design for services. A set of design tools has been adopted and adapted mainly from

ow
interaction design disciplines and practices, including such things as drama, scenarios,

g
service interface analysis (Mager 2004), storyboards, flow charts, storytelling (Evenson

m
2006), use case (Morelli and Tollestrup 2007), scripts, personas, role play and

.co
experience prototypes. These tools and methods support the design practice and, at

ub
the same time, contribute to the visualisation and testing of the service experience

erp
and interface, from a general description to detailed implementation specifications.

ow
The functional paradigm instead derives from studies about strategies for
g
sustainable consumption and production, conducted by a network of scholars in
m
Europe at the beginning of the Millennium. Among these studies we can mention
.co

SusHouse (1998–2000), an EU-funded10 research project concerned with developing
ub

and evaluating scenarios for transitions to sustainable households (Vergragt 2000); a
erp

series of research projects funded by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
ow

and developed at Lund University (Mont 2000, 2002); studies funded by UNEP 17
g

about Product–Service System sustainability and developed at Politecnico di Milano
om

(Manzini and Vezzoli 2002); the EU-funded11 Thematic Network of industries and
b.c

institutes SusProNet (2002–04) developing expertise on design of product–service
rpu

systems for sustainable competitive growth; HiCS (Highly Customerised Solutions), an
EU-funded12 research project (2001–04) aiming to produce methodologies and tools
we

for designing sustainable solutions (Manzini et al. 2004); and MEPPS (Methodology
go

for Product–Service System; development of a toolkit for industry), a European
m

research project coordinated by PricewaterhouseCoopers N.V. (2001–04) aimed at
.co

developing a methodology for product service systems bringing together design with
ub

sustainability evaluation methods (van Halen et al. 2005).
erp

These initiatives apply the ‘functional thinking’ approach (Mont 2000, 2002),
ow

which claims that to reduce material throughput in the economy, ‘functions’ should be
g

provided, not products. The proposed approach is thinking by functions instead of by
m

products, using a solution-oriented perspective (Manzini et al. 2004). The underlying
.co

hypothesis is that it is possible to create offerings that provide consumers with the
ub

same level of performance of traditional ones, but using less stuff (dematerialisation)
erp

and therefore having a lower environmental impact (Mont 2000: 6). The basis of
ow

this approach is the so-called ‘revolution of efficiency’, that is a change of values,
g

consumption modes and lifestyles related to the selling of services instead of products,
om

which enables an optimisation of logistics and distribution (Mont 2000: 15).
b.c
rpu

10 EU Environment and Climate Research Programme Theme 4, Human Dimensions of Environmental
we

Change.
go

11 EU Fifth Framework Programme (FP5).
12 EU Growth Programme, Fifth Framework Programme (FP5).

Based on these two original focuses on interaction and functions, design for
services dealt with service specificities adopting different tactics. We have used the
IHIP characteristics as a trigger and as a framework to reflect on and systematise these

m
tactics. We will outline our considerations in detail below, relating each service quality

.co
with current research and practice of design for services as summarised in Table 1.1.

ub
erp
ow
Table 1.1 A summary of design for services approaches in relation to the main IHIP service

g
characteristics

m
.co
Service characteristics Description Design for Services contribution

ub
Intangibility Services cannot be seen, felt, tasted or • ‘Evidencing’ the service offering and

erp
touched in the same manner in which service experience

ow
goods can be sensed • Making the intangible tangible
• ‘Empathic’ design

g
m
• ‘Dematerialisation’ as an innovation lever

.co
Inseparability Most services require the presence of • Users as sources and not as problems

ub
customers for the production of services • Co-design approaches
• Collaborative services

erp
ow
Heterogeneity The quality of the performance may vary • Services as ‘situated actions’
from time to time, depending on the • Design the conditions for possible
g
m
situation and service participants behaviours and interactions to emerge
• System design
.co

• Customisation and modular service
ub

architecture
erp

Perishability Most services can’t be stored and • Replication strategies
ow

therefore depend upon the ability to • Distributed and interconnected service
balance and synchronise demand with solutions

g

supply capacity • Enabling platforms
om
b.c
rpu

design for services and intangibility
we
go

Intangibility: services cannot be seen, felt, tasted or touched in the same manner
m

in which goods can be sensed.
.co
ub
erp

From an interaction design perspective design for services has been dealing with the
ow

intangible dimension of services by mainly working on its opposite, that is endeavouring
g

to make service more tangible by way of ‘evidencing’ the service offering and service
m

experience. When dealing with intangible performances and interactions that are
.co

hard to communicate and anticipate, designers apply one of their key competencies,
ub

i.e. the capacity to make things and ideas visible and tangible. In design for services
erp

this capacity has proved significant in the design of service evidences (also known as
ow

touch-points) or service interface to better guide the interaction process (usability),
g

anticipate service outputs and rules (transparency) and create a coherent service
om

identity. Adopting a theatre metaphor, service designers are described as ‘directors’
b.c

that ‘manage the integrated and coherent project of all elements that determine the
rpu

quality of interaction’ (Pacenti 1998: 123). Live|work (the first service design studio
we

based in London) describes design for services as the ‘design for experiences that
go

reach people through many different touch-points, and that happen over time’ (www.
livework.co.uk).

In order to achieve this design for services starts at the service interface, applying
methodologies that augment the capacity to deeply understand (empathise with) users
and service participants’ needs and evaluate existing or imagine future interactions

om
(i.e. storytelling, video-based ethnography, observations, interviews, shadowing,
emotional mapping, users’ diaries).

b.c
At the same time in a design process designers use different kinds of visualisations

rpu
and prototypes to make ideas tangible and let people explore possible future

we
experiences: this helps experimenting with new service models and behaviours,

go
reducing perceived risk for organisations and communities and enhancing the capacity

m
for multidisciplinary teams to engage in co-design processes.

.co
From a functional perspective ‘intangibility’ recalls the concept of dematerialisation,

ub
which means lightening the solution in both a physical and cognitive way. Solutions

erp
based on ‘access’ instead of ownership (Rifkin 2000) can actually reduce the human,

ow
social and environmental burden of owning and managing products. Design for

g
services has a crucial role in making this change possible: ‘thinking by functions’ in a

m
creative way can help to imagine everyday life activities and consumption behaviours

.co
in completely different ways. It is about what a solution offers and not only how it

ub
works. In this case ‘intangibility’ is seen as a strategic quality to stimulate innovation.

erp
Design capacities to generate visions via scenarios and to redefine service life cycles

ow
are relevant here.
g
m
design for services and inseparability
.co
ub
erp

Inseparability: most services require the presence of customers for the
ow

production of services. 19
g
om
b.c

Design for services has, since its origins, considered the role and presence of users in
rpu

the service delivery process as its main focus. Design for services generally conceives
users as a resource rather than a burden or a problem. Besides being a source of
we

insights and ideas, users have been engaged in design processes to generate more
go

desirable and usable solutions, and to explore new collaborative service models. The
m

relevance of co-production in design for services has been explored in particular in
.co

two interconnected fields of study, one oriented to explore more sustainable ways of
ub

living (Meroni 2007, Jégou and Manzini 2008, Thackara 2007) and one specifically
erp

concerned with the redesign of public services (Cottam and Leadbeater 2004, Parker
ow

and Heapy 2006, Parker and Parker 2007, Bradwell and Marr 2008, Thomas 2008).
g

Research on sustainability has been looking at existing examples of inventiveness
m

and creativity among ‘ordinary people’ to solve daily life problems related to housing,
.co

food, ageing, transport and work. Such cases represent a way of ‘living well while
ub

at the same time consuming fewer resources and generating new patterns of social
erp

cohabitation’ (Manzini 2008: 13). The idea behind this research was to consider
ow

these as promising signals for a sustainable society and examples of systemic change
g

at a local level that could be replicated and diffused on a larger scale. All solutions
om

were based on collaborative service and business models giving birth to new forms
b.c

of community and new ideas of locality. Defined as ‘collaborative services’ they have
rpu

the potential to develop into a new kind of enterprise, a ‘diffused social enterprise’,
we

which needs a supporting environment to grow (Stø and Strandbakken 2008). The
go

designers’ role here is to contribute to the development of these promising cases by
designing ‘enabling solutions’ – ‘a system of products, services, communication and

whatever is necessary, to improve the accessibility, effectiveness and replicability of a
collaborative service’ (Manzini 2008: 38).
The emphasis on collaborative solutions and co-production – and therefore on

m
a more active citizenship – is strongly linked to the contemporary debate on the

.co
redesign of public services. At the centre of this debate is the emphasis on co-design

ub
as a strategic approach to innovation that brings together the need to identify new

erp
sources and modes for innovation (user-driven innovation) with that for radical

ow
transformation of service models. A common statement within these studies is the

g
requirement to move beyond simple citizens’ consultation toward more participatory

m
design approaches (Bate and Robert 2007), where citizens become co-designers of

.co
their services; in this sense design for services has been looking at the longer tradition

ub
of Scandinavian studies and practice of participatory design (Greenbaum and King

erp
1991, Schuler and Namioka 1993); what is different from traditional participatory

ow
approaches is the addition of the ‘co-creation’ concept where users are now looked

g
at as the biggest untapped resources in the public service delivery system. The co-

m
creation model, suggested by Cottam and Leadbeater (2004), looking at the open

.co
source paradigm as main inspiration, implies the use of distributed resources (know-

ub
how, tools, effort and expertise), collaborative modes of delivery and the participation

erp
of users in ‘the design and delivery of services, working with professionals and front-

ow
line staff to devise effective solutions’ (Cottam and Leadbeater 2004: 22).
g
With this perspective the role of designers is moving toward the one of facilitator
m
of multidisciplinary design processes, forging connections among people and
.co

organisations, bringing users to the centre of each project and defining the platforms
ub

and tools needed to enable and encourage participation (Cottam and Leadbeater
erp

2004).
ow

g

design for services and heterogeneity
om
b.c

Heterogeneity: the quality of the performance may vary from time to time,
rpu

depending on the situation and service participants.
we
go
m

Design for services has been considering the heterogeneity of service performance
.co

looking at service encounters not as abstract processes, but as ‘situated actions’
ub

(Sangiorgi 2004, Maffei and Sangiorgi 2006); meaning that service performances
erp

are affected by the conditions of the service situation, but also shaped by the wider
ow

sociocultural and organisational contexts.
g

Service heterogeneity depends on the interaction among different factors that
m

can’t be predicted in advance, but that manifest only during each service encounter;
.co

that is people interpret the service situation based on their experience, motivations and
ub

personal characteristics, while their actions are shaped by the way the service interface
erp

supports or inhibits certain tasks. At the same time the way people behave during
ow

the service performance is also influenced by factors that transcend the situation at
g

hand. Klaus (1985) developed an ‘interaction framework’ representing the service
om

encounter in between two circles, one representing the user’s sociocultural context
b.c

and the other representing the organisational context, both determining behavioural
rpu

norms, conventions, values, meanings and roles.
we

Developing models and tools to understand the conditions that influence the
go

quality and heterogeneity of service interactions has become a key issue within
design for services: the focus is on not attempting to control or standardise service

practice but rather to design better conditions for possible behaviours to emerge.13
This acknowledges that the analysis and the design of service interactions cannot be
separated from the overall service system and organisation; nor can it be separated

om
from the user context. As Morelli describes it, reinterpreting Manzini’s definition of
service design (1993),14 designers of services need to enter new domains of knowledge

b.c
(see Figure 1.4): ‘the domain of the organizational and design culture and the domain

rpu
of the social construction of technology’ (Morelli 2002: 5).

we
go
m
ENCOUNTER

.co
ub
CLIENT AGENT

erp
C C A O

ow
g
socio-cultural personality personality Organisational

m
context characteristics characteristics environment

.co
ub
S
erp
service

ow
situation
g
m
Figure 1.3 The service encounter
.co

Source: Czepiel, J.A., Solomon, M.R. and Surprenant, C.F. (eds) 1985. Lexington, MA: Lexington
ub

Books. Reprinted by permission, 1985.
erp
ow

21
g
om
b.c
rpu
we
go
m
.co
ub
erp
gow
m
.co
ub
erp

Figure 1.4 Multidimensional values implied in design for services activities
ow

Source: Morelli (2002).
g
om
b.c

13 This is particularly true for services relying on human interactions where it is fundamental to create the
rpu

conditions for service participants to empathise with each other (Forlizzi and Battarbee 2004).
14 Manzini (1993) described the design of new services as an activity that should be able to link the techno-
we

productive dimension (what is the realm of the possible?) to the social (what are the explicit areas of
go

demand and what the latent ones?) and cultural dimensions (what behavioural structures should one seek
to influence? What values and qualitative criteria should we base our judgments on?).

In the same way interaction design has developed studies and theories to
contextualise and locate interactions within wider systems and practices (Bødker
and Sundblad 2008), design for services has explored the contextual and systemic

m
dimension of services in different ways and adopted different theories in order to build

.co
conceptual models and theoretical frameworks that support designers. These models

ub
and frameworks enable the designer to observe, understand and visualise complex

erp
social systems of service organisations and to understand their manifestations.

ow
One such research project has explored the application of activity theory15 to

g
the analysis and design of services (Sangiorgi 2004, Sangiorgi and Clark 2004). In

m
a similar way to interaction design (Kaptelinin and Nardi 2006), activity theory has

.co
provided a framework to go beyond one-to-one (user-service interface) and sequential

ub
interaction models (service scripts) to include wider systems of action and interactions.

erp
The benefit of this approach is that the encounters and potential conflicts among

ow
service participants can be better understood when their behaviour is situated within

g
their wider context of action. The success of designing good services can therefore

m
be increased by synchronising the perspectives, goals and existing practices of service

.co
participants.

ub
With the similar intent to understand the wider context influencing service

erp
interactions, designers have adopted and adapted the concept of ‘information ecology’

ow
by Nardi and O’Day (1999) to services, introducing the idea of ‘service ecology’. An
g
‘information ecology’ is defined by Nardi as ‘a system of people, practices, values and
m
technologies in a particular local environment’ (Nardi and O’Day 1999: 49); Live|work
.co

defines a ‘service ecology’ as a ‘system of actors and the relationships between them
ub

that form a service’ (www.livework.co.uk) considering both direct service participants
erp

and people indirectly affected by the service. Understanding and mapping out service
ow

ecologies, including artefacts and practices that form them, becomes a way to identify

g

unnoticed opportunities and/or resources to be able to reframe service configurations
om

and interactions; at the same time, as Morelli suggests, adopting interpretations
b.c

coming from social constructivist accounts of technology (Pinch and Bijker 1984,
rpu

Bijker 1995), services are the convergence between ‘the social, technological and
cultural frames of the actors participating in the development system’ and the
we

‘technological knowledge embedded in the artefacts used for the service’ (Morelli
go

2002: 6). Understanding these factors helps ‘to determine the paradigmatic context
m

in which new technologies, products and services can be accepted or refused’ (Morelli
.co

2002: 6).
ub

When designers aim to reframe service systems or ecologies to generate new ideas
erp

and improve service interactions and behaviours, they necessarily touch wider issues
ow

of organisational change and community development. Studies have explored the
g

role of design inquiries into service organisations as a way to facilitate radical change
m

(Junginger and Sangiorgi 2009, 2011); while a further research strand is applying
.co

transformational approaches for socially progressive ends (Burns et al. 2006, Thackara
ub

2007) looking at communities and their resources as part of the design team and as
erp

part of the solution as well.
ow

Finally, service heterogeneity can be interpreted as a resource for customisation;
g

the aim is not to reduce heterogeneity, but to valorise and develop service differences
om

to personalise solutions. Services have an intrinsic flexibility that products lack due
b.c

to the localisation of provision and the variety of contexts and people engaged. This
rpu

flexibility potentially allows to fit different users’ preferences and needs according
we
go

15 Activity theory refers to an interdisciplinary approach to human sciences and to a set of concepts and
perspectives for the study of human activity that has its roots in Russian psychology of the 1920s.

to the service situation. Customising the solution requires a change to the actors
system and their reciprocal relations; this can be achieved by designing modularity
into services, thus supporting economies of scope and scale for the producers, while

om
enabling personalisation for users (Manzini et al. 2004).

b.c
service design and perishability

rpu
we
go
Perishability: most services can’t be stored and therefore depend on the ability

m
to balance and synchronise demand with supply capacity.

.co
ub
erp
Designers have considered the balance between demand and supply capacity, starting

ow
from different perspectives, without necessarily focusing directly on efficiency and

g
productivity issues. Rather reflections are related to the need to replicate, scale up

m
or transfer services and service ideas, maintaining the qualities that characterise the

.co
original service model, or to generate new solutions that provide a response to an

ub
increased or varied service demand in radically new ways.

erp
The scaleability and diffusion of new solutions as well as the need for radical

ow
innovation are key issues in innovation studies, with a particular focus on the redesign
g
of public services (Harris and Albury 2009). Here an increase in productivity is a
m
pressing requirement, but there is an increasing awareness that drivers to increase
.co

efficiency are not enough any more (Mulgan and Tucker 2007).
ub

To replicate and successfully diffuse new or good solutions is a challenge. Scaled
erp

up or replicate service solutions need to consider the interactive nature of services and
ow

their local dimensions. 23
g

As an example, cultural diversity is a crucial factor when replicating services: in
om

an investigation on case studies of internationalisation of trade services,16 Morelli and
b.c

Sangiorgi (2006) report how the immaterial and interactive nature of services requires
rpu

a transfer process that is flexible enough to adapt the service solution to the specificity
of the new context. To transfer services to new contexts both knowledge sharing
we

and codification strategies are required (Rullani 2004a, 2004b). Designers can act as
go

observers, interpreters and mediators (in collaboration with anthropologists) of local
m

and foreign cultures; they work to codify knowledge into the design of signs, kits,
.co

manuals, web platforms and space layouts. They can also facilitate the transfer of tacit
ub

knowledge (such as skills, competences, values) via sharing strategies mainly thanks
erp

to the activity of trained trainers and to the organisation of on-site workshops and
ow

pilot activities.
g

Along with this replication process, interaction qualities can be compromised.
m

Ritzer explains the concept of nothing as ‘a social form that is generally centrally
.co

conceived, controlled and comparatively devoid of distinctive substantive content’
ub

(Ritzer 2007: 36). Distinctiveness and authenticity are intentionally or accidentally
erp

sacrificed for the benefit of the globalisation of service procedures, and for the
ow

convenience of users who can repeat well-known interaction patterns and recognise
g

brand provisions. The relational qualities that belong to people’s dialogical capabilities
om

and to the ‘intimacy’ that a relationship can establish because of a certain degree of
b.c
rpu

16 Morelli and Sangiorgi investigated how an Italian design studio (Logotel) supported the introduction of
we

the Italian phone company TIM within the Brazilian market acting as observer and interpreter of a foreign
go

culture, and the introduction of the French car accessories retail network, Eurorepar in Italy acting as
mediator of its own Italian culture and market.

spontaneity (Cipolla 2006), are impossible to replicate or plan in advance. After the
initial enthusiasm, or because of different circumstances, these qualities can perish,
just like the service. Engagement and enthusiasm can hardly be replicated. Design for

m
services cannot avoid this limitation, but can work to support responsive and trustful

.co
interactions, recognising the person behind each individual (Cipolla 2006).

ub
From a similar perspective Manzini (2008) describes a possible way to diffuse

erp
promising solutions17 trying not to compromise their relational qualities. In his opinion

ow
this kind of diffusion can be obtained, rather than scaling up single organisations, by

g
connecting small and diverse initiatives via networks and platforms. This strategy is

m
possible thanks to the convergence of emerging trends, such as distributed systems,

.co
social networks and collaborative services. The combination of these three phenomena

ub
has the potential to provide small enterprises and local initiatives with the support

erp
they need to develop their ideas, gain visibility, acquire tools, knowledge and skills and

ow
have a stronger presence in the market.

g
A radically new model of welfare, defined as open welfare by Cottam and Leadbeater

m
(2004), follows a similar direction. Cottam and Leadbeater suggest that the problem

.co
of an inbalance between demand and supply capacity, particularly true for the public

ub
sector, cannot be solved by improving the efficiency of existing services. Instead of

erp
stretching the productivity of existing organisations, open welfare relies on mass

ow
participation in the design and delivery of services, while reconfiguring the existing
g
service system by introducing new innovation actors (Harris and Albury 2009).
m
Designers contribute to these innovation and replication strategies, bringing
.co

their capacity to interpret local contexts, design enabling tools and platforms and
ub

generate scenarios that provide a vision for different stakeholders to converge and
erp

work together.
ow

g

toward a new paradigm
om

This overview has summarised some of the approaches and focuses design has been
b.c

considering when approaching the service realm: making the intangible tangible and
rpu

exploring the concept of dematerialisation when dealing with service intangibility;
engaging users in co-creating services when valuing the inseparability of service
we

production and consumption; understanding and designing the factors influencing the
go

quality of service interactions and facilitating service customisation when considering
m

service heterogeneity; and defining replication strategy or radically new collaborative
.co

service models when dealing with service perishability.
ub

This categorisation of design contributions is still valid today and we suggest that
erp

it could be used to facilitate a conversation between design research and the different
ow

disciplines that are now to converge into a wider ‘service science’. What is changing
g

is that the distinction between products and services, as suggested by the IHIP model,
m

is blurring together with the traditional supplier and user distinction. Information
.co

technology has multiplied possibilities for service delivery via the Web and ubiquitous
ub

computing is reducing the inseparability of production and consumption, and, in
erp

some ways, service heterogeneity and perishability. Social technologies and emerging
ow

collaborative solutions have generated the conditions for people to interact and
g

collaborate in new ways that can hardly be described as services. Products themselves
om

are increasingly entangled with services as an additional offering, or integrated with
b.c

service functionalities by becoming smarter and interconnected (see for example
rpu

digital appliances or GPS).
we
go

17 We consider solutions promising when they are potentially more sustainable and when they are capable
of generating social capital.

This has caused design for services to start changing and questioning itself and
its main focus of practice. By looking at the emergence of a new kind of underground
communities enabled by networking technologies, Singleton (2009) questions

om
traditional definitions of services derived from management science that tries to
‘define services purely negatively – in terms of what they lack, that material products

b.c
do’ (Singleton 2009: 3), not contributing much to a real understanding of what a

rpu
service is. He suggests looking at services as ‘regulated forms of exchange’ to explore

we
the range of motivations and apparatuses of obligations that bring people to do

go
something for someone else. In a similar way Penin and Tonkinwise (2009) recalls

m
the political dimension of design for services being related to the design of ‘relations

.co
of servility’ and therefore in need of methods able to explore the ‘plausibility’ and

ub
‘ethicality’ of service interactions. Manzini considers the growth of community-based

erp
services that rely on reciprocal exchanges of benefits as a reason to rethink services.

ow
He suggests how the products of what he calls the Next Economy are ‘mainly systems

g
based on interlinking services: technical and social networks where people, products

m
and places interact to obtain a common result (i.e. a value that can be recognised as

.co
such by all the actors involved)’ (see Introduction).

ub
Focusing similarly on the dimensions of exchange and interactions, but adopting

erp
a different rhetoric, marketing scholars (e.g. Vargo and Lush 2004) have suggested

ow
that a service logic (instead of services) offers a new way to approach marketing and
g
indeed the economy more generally, thus arguing for a paradigm shift in the discipline.
m
At the core of this is a renewed interpretation of value (Normann and Ramirez 1993,
.co

1994). This is achieved by developing two distinct models: the good dominant logic
ub

and the service dominant logic. The former is characterised by tangible resources,
erp

embedded value and transactions. The latter involves a shift from the exchange of
ow

‘goods’ (interpreted as operand resources) to the exchange of ‘benefits’ obtained 25
g

through the application of ‘knowledge and skills’ (interpreted as operant resources).
om

In this framework a service is generally conceived as ‘the application of competences
b.c

for the benefit of others’ (Spohrer et al. 2008, Vargo and Lush 2004) and goods
rpu

‘serve as appliances for service provision rather than ends in themselves’ (Vargo and
Lush 2004: 13). In this approach there is no more separation between products and
we

services because products are also interpreted as ‘embodied knowledge or activities’
go

(Normann and Ramirez 1993). The focus on benefits, knowledge and skills and value
m

co-creation in interaction with users helps to reframe the way we look at systems
.co

of production and delivery, blurring the distinctions between users and suppliers.
ub

Service systems are interpreted here as ‘value co-creation configurations of people,
erp

technology, value propositions connecting internal and external service systems,
ow

and sharing information (e.g. language, laws, measures, and methods)’ (Maglio and
g

Spohrer 2005: 40).
m

These considerations suggest a paradigm shift in the fundamentals of value
.co

creation in the contemporary economy that we will explore further in the last section
ub

of the book. It is enough here to say that from a design perspective the service
erp

dominant logic suggests a shift of focus and scale that is already happening in design,
ow

but not in a systematic way. The exponential increase in interactivity, connectivity and
g

co-production of current offerings (being single artefacts or service solutions) requires
om

designers to work in a more integrated, collaborative and systemic way; this doesn’t
b.c

necessarily mean that designers are currently equipped with the required conceptual
rpu

frameworks and methodologies to do so. Marketing studies suggest a move from a
we

‘marketing to’ toward a ‘marketing with’, that is to adopt a more collaborative approach
go

and philosophy to businesses (Lush et al. 2008). Design is exploring transformations
in its identity, reflecting on its own role and practice, when inquiring for example into

the emergence of the open source paradigm (Leadbeater 2008) or valuing the innate
creativity of people in their daily life and within co-design processes (Meroni 2007).
Observing designers’ practice in Dott07 public design commission projects,18 Lauren

m
Tan, for example, identifies seven emerging roles: designers as facilitator, researcher,

.co
co-creator, communicator, strategist, capability builder and entrepreneur (Yee et al.

ub
2009). This research is part of a wider debate into the future of design industry (Inns

erp
2007).

ow
We have chosen to explore these emerging roles and ‘geographies of design’

g
(Inns 2009) in practice, looking at existing research and design projects related to the

m
service realm. The next chapter will introduce the case studies and their relation to

.co
design for services as a bridge to the next section where they will be described and

ub
commented on in more detail.

erp
ow
g
m
Design for Services in Practice

.co
ub
In the previous paragraphs we have explored the reasons why services and design for

erp
services have a significant role in today’s economy and society; moreover we have

ow
applied the IHIP framework to describe some of the contributions design has brought,
in theory and in practice, when dealing with services. g
m
Notwithstanding this existing work design for services is still a young discipline
.co

where research and theory appear to be still weak and dispersed; in addition the
ub

nature and definitions of services are, as we have anticipated, already changing. We
erp

decided then to build this book around a collection of 17 case studies, adopting
ow

a phenomenological and grounded theory approach, meaning observing and

g

interpreting these case studies to further reflect and theorise on the role and
om

contributions of design within the emergent ‘service science’. As a result a map
b.c

summarising these observations will follow at the end of Section 2.
rpu

In particular we have asked six design companies – thinkpublic, UK: STBY, Holland;
Participle, UK: Strategic Design Scenarios, Belgium; Experientia, Italy; Domus Academy,
we

Italy – eight academic research centres – Carnegie Mellon University, USA; Linköping
go

University, Sweden; ImaginationLancaster and Computing Department, Lancaster
m

University, UK; Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, UK; Department INDACO,
.co

Centro Metid and Dept. BEST, Politecnico di Milano, Italy; Melbourne University,
ub

Australia – and one company – IBM Research USA and IBM Corporation, Canada – to
erp

write about their project experiences. These case studies were chosen as representing
ow

significant areas of research and practice such as social innovation, public services,
g

science and technology-based services, interaction and experience design for services.
m

Having collected the case studies, we carefully read through the project experiences
.co

to mark out and group the emergent roles and contributions of design for services in
ub

order to identify the main areas of interventions and core competences of designers;
erp

these areas have been used to organise the case studies in four groups as they appear
ow

in Section 2.
g

We will here briefly introduce the four areas of intervention and the related case
om

studies before moving to the next section of the book.
b.c
rpu
we

18 Design of the Time (DOTT) is a ten-year programme of public design commissions co-funded by the UK
go

Design Council and local regional development agencies. Dott07 is the 2007 edition conducted in the
north-east of England.

designing interactions, relations and experiences
The projects within this area report on the capacity of designers to understand
experiences through empathic conversations and research methodologies.

om
Understanding experiences helps to inform the design of service interactions,
relationships and interfaces, to facilitate the engagement of users in the redesign of

b.c
their experiences (co-design), and to generate service ideas consistent with existing

rpu
behaviours. The case studies of this area are:

we
go
• Co-designing services in the public sector: Szebeko (thinkpublic) describes

m
the use of an experience-based approach to redesigning health services

.co
in a collaborative way;

ub
erp
• Developing collaborative tools in international projects: the PoliDaido project:

ow
Sancassani and Fabris (Politecnico di Milano) report on the design of an

g
e-learning service platform to enable students from distant universities to

m
co-design;

.co
ub
• Designing empathic conversations about future user experiences: Raijmakers

erp
(STBY) describes how empathic conversations with citizens can inspire

ow
the design of meaningful services for the regeneration of a region;
g
m
• Driving service design by directed storytelling: Evenson (Carnegie Mellon)
.co

describes the use of storytelling as a way to inform the redesign of health
ub

services;
erp
ow

• Exploring mobile needs and behaviours in emerging markets: Vanderbeeken 27
g

(Experientia) describes a project on the use of mobile phones to deliver
om

services in emerging markets.
b.c
rpu

designing interactions to shape systems and organisations
The projects within this area illustrate how designing and redesigning interactions
we

between users and the service system are the core activities of design for services; at the
go

same time they also demonstrate how, in order to improve user–service interactions,
m

designers often reach into the organisation, participating in deeper transformation
.co

processes and suggesting new business configurations and service models. The case
ub

studies of this area are:
erp
ow

• There is more to service than interactions: Holmlid (Linköping University)
g

investigates into the Swedish Customs’ service operations to show how
m

service designers need to deepen their understanding of the service
.co

system that is behind user–service interactions;
ub
erp

• How service design can support innovation in the public sector: Pacenti
ow

(DARC) reflects on how the application of interaction design guidelines at
g

the service operation level can bring to deeper transformation, processes
om

of an organisation service culture;
b.c
rpu

• From novelty to routine: services in science and technology-based enterprises:
we

Kimbell (Oxford University) reports how designers work across boundaries
go

of knowledge domains, therefore helping to reframe business models and
service configurations;

• Enabling excellence in service with expressive service blueprinting: Spraragen
and Hickey (IBM) explore service design methods to understand
employee’s behaviours and inform internal service processes.

m
.co
exploring new collaborative service models

ub
This area reports on the role of designers to generate new service ideas, interpreting

erp
emerging behaviour patterns and technological potential, whilst dealing with societal

ow
challenges. Here projects reflect on the role of participation, on the conditions and

g
methodologies to explore and develop collaborative solutions where users become

m
co-producers of their services, and where resources are accessed and managed in a

.co
more distributed way. The case studies in this area are:

ub
erp
• Service design, new media and community development: Bury et al.

ow
(Lancaster University) observe the emergence of community network-

g
based services and initiatives by providing a rural village with access to

m
broadband;

.co
ub
• Designing the next generation of public service: Winhall (Participle) describes

erp
and reflects on the application of co-creation principles to rethink the

ow
welfare state model;
g
m
• A service design inquiry into learning and personalisation: Sangiorgi, Gillen,
.co

Junginger and Whitham (Lancaster University) describe a design inquiry
ub

into issues of personalisation and participation within a secondary school
erp

in the UK;
ow

g

• Mobile and collaborative. Mobile phones, digital services and sociocultural
om

activation: Pillan et al. (Politecnico di Milano) comment on students’
b.c

projects exploring more collaborative solutions to issues related to
rpu

immigration, identity and social inclusion.
we

imagining future directions for service systems
go

The projects within this area explore the role of designers in helping communities
m

and organisations to imagine future scenarios for their regions and businesses while
.co

exploring how these visions could transform their activities and lifestyles on a daily
ub

basis. In this area services are used as tangible manifestations of wider and systemic
erp

transformations. The case studies of this area are:
ow
g

• Using scenarios to explore system change: VEIL, Local Food Depot. Moy and
m

Ryan (Melbourne University) describe the design of food service scenarios
.co

for Melbourne to guide producers and consumers’ expectations of the
ub

future;
erp
ow

• Designing a collaborative projection of the ‘Cité du Design’: Jégou (Strategic
g

Design Scenario) reports on a collaborative design process to imagine,
om

with the local government and the community, possible futures for the
b.c

Cité du Design in Saint-Etienne.
rpu
we
go


• Supporting social innovation in food networks: Meroni et al. (Politecnico di
Milano) describe how service design proposals have been used to build a
scenario and activate social and economic resources of a peri-urban area

om
of Milan (Italy) and support its sustainable development.

b.c
• Enabling sustainable behaviours in mobility through service design: Meroni

rpu
(Politecnico di Milano) and Sangiorgi (Lancaster University) describe

we
service scenarios as a way to support a company, working in the intelligent

go
transport system sector, to imagine business opportunities for the Italian

m
market.

.co
ub
erp
References

ow
g
m
ALMEGA (2008). Innovation in Service Companies, a Survey of 778 Swedish Service

.co
Companies on Innovation and Research. Available at: http://www.almega.se/Files/

ub
ALMEGA/Caradoc_Members/Rapport/Innovativa_tjänsteföretag_2008_B.PDF.

erp
Bate, S.P. and Robert, G. 2007. Bringing User Experience to Health Care Improvement:

ow
The Concepts, Methods and Practices of Experience-based Design. Oxford: Radcliffe
Publishing. g
m
Bateson, J.E.G. 1979. Why we need service marketing. In Conceptual and Theoretical
.co

Developments in Marketing, edited by O.C. Ferrell, S.W. Brown and C.W. Lamb.
ub

Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 131–46.
erp

Bijker, W.E. 1995. Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical
ow

Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 29
g

Bitard, P. and Basset, J. 2008. Mini Study 05 – Design as a Tool for INNOVATION. Pro
om

Inno Europe Innogrips. Global Review of Innovation Intelligence and Policy Studies.
b.c

Available at http://grips.proinno-europe.eu/knowledge_base/view/550/design-as-
rpu

a-tool-for-innovation-mini-study-05/, accessed 7 January 2010.
Bødker, S. and Sundblad, Y. 2008. Usability and interaction design – new challenges for
we

the Scandinavian tradition. Behaviour & Information Technology, 27(4), 293–300.
go

Bradwell, P. and Marr, S. 2008. Making the Most of Collaboration: an International
m

Survey of Public Service Co-design. London: Demos.
.co

Buchanan, R. 1992. Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.
ub

Buchanan, R. 2001. Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23.
erp

Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C. and Winhall, J. 2006. Transformation Design. RED
ow

paper 02, London: Design Council.
g

Cipolla, C. 2006. Sustainable freedoms, dialogical capabilities and design. Cumulus
m

Working Papers. Nantes, edited by E. Salmi and L. Anusionwu. Helsinki: University
.co

of Art and Design, 59–65.
ub

Cottam, H. and Leadbeater, C. 2004. Open Welfare: Designs on the Public Good.
erp

London: Design Council.
ow

Cross, N. 2006. Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer-Verlag.
g

Czepiel, J.A., Solomon, M.R. and Surprenant, C.F. (eds) 1985. The Service Encounter.
om

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
b.c

DIUS (Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills) 2008. Innovation Nation.
rpu

White Paper presented to Parliament March, Cm 7345. Norwich: Tso.
we

Edgett, S. and Parkinson S. 1993. Marketing for service industries – a review. The
go

Service Industries Journal, 13 (July), 19–39.


Erlhoff, M., Mager, B. and Manzini, E. 1997. Dienstleistung braucht Design, Professioneller
Produkt- und Markenauftritt für Serviceanbieter. Herausgeber: Hermann Luchterhand
Verlag GmbH.

m
European Commission 2009. Challenges for EU Support to Innovation in Services

.co
– Fostering new Markets and Jobs through Innovation. Commission Staff Working

ub
Document, SEC(2009)1195 final. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European

erp
Union.

ow
Eurostat 2009. European Business. Facts and Figures. Luxembourg: Eurostat Statistical

g
Books. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-BW-

m
09-001/EN/KS-BW-09-001-EN.PDF, accessed 7 January 2010.

.co
Evenson, S. 2006. Directed storytelling: interpreting experience for design. In A.

ub
Bennett and S. Heller (eds), Design Studies: Theory and Research in Graphic Design.

erp
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press.

ow
Forlizzi, J. and Battarbee, K. 2004. Understanding experience in interactive systems.

g
Paper to the conference: DIS – Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices,

m
Methods and Techniques 2004, Cambridge, MA, 1–4 August.

.co
Gallouj, F. 2002. Innovation in services and the attendant old and new myths. Journal

ub
of Socio-Economics, 31, 137–54.

erp
Greenbaum, J. and King, M. (eds) 1991. Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer

ow
Systems, Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA Publishers.
g
Harris, M. and Albury, D. 2009. The Innovation Imperative. Why Radical Innovation is
m
Needed to Reinvent Public Services for the Recession and Beyond. Discussion paper.
.co

London: The Labe, Nesta.
ub

Hollins, G. and Hollins, B. 1991. Total Design: Managing the Design Process in the Service
erp

Sector. London: Pitman.
ow

Holmlid, S. 2007. Interaction Design and Service Design: Expanding a Comparison of

g

Design Disciplines. Nordic Design Research Conference: Design Inquiries, 27–30
om

May, Stockholm, Sweden.
b.c

Howells, J. 2007. Fostering Innovation in Services. A Report of the Expert Group on
rpu

Innovation in Services. Brussels: Commission of the European Union.
Inns, T. (ed.) 2007. Designing for the 21st Century: Interdisciplinary Questions and
we

Insights. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Ltd.
go

Inns, T. 2009. New geographies of design: exploring the strategic use of design
m

thinking. In Connexity, 8th European Academy of Design Conference, 1–3 April,
.co

Aberdeen, Scotland.
ub

Jégou, F. and Manzini, E. 2008. Collaborative Services. Social Innovation and Design for
erp

Sustainability. Milan: Edizioni Polidesign.
ow

Junginger, S. and Sangiorgi, D. 2009. Service design and organizational change:
g

bridging the gap between rigour and relevance, Conference Proceedings of the
m

IASDR09 Conference, 18–22 October, Seoul.
.co

Junginger, S. and Sangiorgi, D. 2011. Public policy and public management:
ub

contextualising service design in the public sector. In Handbook of Design
erp

Management, edited by R. Cooper, S. Junginger and T. Lockwood. Oxford: Berg
ow

Press.
g

Kaptelinin, V. and Nardi, B.A. 2006. Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and
om

Interaction Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
b.c

Kimbell, L. 2009. The turn to service design. In Design and Creativity: Policy, Management
rpu

and Practice, edited by J. Gulier and L. Moor. Oxford: Berg, 157–73.
we

Kimbell, L. and Seidel, V.P. (eds) 2008. Designing for Services in Science and Technology-
go

based Enterprises. Oxford: Saïd Business School.


Klaus, P.G. 1985. Quality epiphenomenon: The conceptual understanding of quality
in face-to-face service encounters. In The Service Encounter, edited by J.A. Czepiel et
al. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

om
Leadbeater, C. 2008. We Think: The Power of Mass Creativity. London: Profile Books
Ltd.

b.c
Lovelock, C. and Gummesson, E. 2004. Whither services marketing? In search of a

rpu
new paradigm and fresh perspectives. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 20–41.

we
Lush, R.F., Vargo, S.L. and Wessels, G. 2008. Toward a conceptual foundation for

go
service science: Contributions from service-dominant logic. IBM Systems Journal,

m
47(1), 5–14.

.co
Maffei, S. and Sangiorgi D. 2006. From communication design to activity design.

ub
In Designing Effective Communications: Creating Contexts for Clarity and Meaning,

erp
edited by J. Frascara. New York: Allworth Press, 83–100.

ow
Mager, B. 2004. Service Design. A Review. Köln: Köln International School of Design.

g
Maglio, P. and Spohrer, J. 2008. Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the Academy

m
of Marketing Science, 36, 18–20.

.co
Manzini, E. 1993. Il design dei servizi. La progettazione del prodotto-servizio. Design

ub
Management, 4, 7–12.

erp
Manzini, E. 2008. Collaborative organisations and enabling solutions. Social innovation

ow
and design for sustainability. In Collaborative Services. Social Innovation and Design
g
for Sustainability, edited by F. Jégou and E. Manzini. Milan: Edizioni Polidesign,
m
29–41.
.co

Manzini, E. and Vezzoli, C. 2002. Product Service Systems and Sustainability. Paris:
ub

United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology Industry and
erp

Economics (DTIE), Production and Consumption Branch.
ow

Manzini, E. and Vezzoli, C. 2003. A strategic design approach to develop sustainable 31
g

product service systems: examples taken from the ‘environmentally friendly
om

innovation’ Italian prize. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11, 851–7.
b.c

Manzini, E., Collina, L. and Evans, S. (eds) 2004. Solution Oriented Partnership, How to
rpu

Design Industrialised Sustainable Solutions. Cranfield: Cranfield University Press.
Marchand, A. and Walker, S. 2008. Beyond abundance. In Changing the Change
we

Conference, Turin, 10–12 July.
go

Meroni, A. (ed.) 2007. Creative Communities. People Inventing Sustainable Ways of
m

Living. Milan: Edizioni Polidesign.
.co

Miles, I. 2001. Services Innovation: A Reconfiguration of Innovation Studies. Manchester:
ub

PREST, University of Manchester.
erp

Miles, I. 2005. Innovation in services. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, edited by
ow

J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery and R. Nelson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
g

Mont, O. 2000. Product-Service Systems. Shifting Corporate Focus from Selling Products
m

to Selling Product-services: A New Approach to Sustainable Development. Stockholm:
.co

Swedish EPA, AFR-report 288.
ub

Mont, O. 2002. Functional Thinking. The Role of Functional Sales and Product Service
erp

Systems for a Function-based Society. Stockholm: Swedish EPA, Naturvårdsverket
ow

Rapport 5223.
g

Morelli, N. 2002. Designing product/service systems: a methodological exploration.
om

Design Issues, 18(3), 3–17.
b.c

Morelli, N. and Sangiorgi D. 2006. Managing Globalisation and Local Issues in Service
rpu

Design. On the Convergence Between the Opposing Demands of Industrialisation and
we

Personalisation of Service Performances. Design2Business Conference, Shanghai,
go

17–19 March.


Morelli, N. and Tollestrup, C. 2007. New Representation Techniques for Designing in
a Systemic Perspective. Nordic Design Conference: Design Inquiries, 27–30 May,
Stockholm, Sweden.

m
Morin E. 1993. Introduzione al pensiero complesso. Milan: Sperling & Kupfer.

.co
Mulgan, G. and Tucker, S. 2007. Scaling up innovation. The ultimate challenge. In

ub
Unlocking Innovation. Why Citizens hold the Key to Public Service Reform, edited by S.

erp
Parker and S. Parker. London: Demos, 156–70.

ow
Nardi, B.A., and O’Day, V.L. 1999. Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart.

g
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

m
Nesta 2006. The Innovation Gap. Why Policy needs to Reflect the Reality of Innovation in

.co
the UK. Research report: October 2006. London: Nesta.

ub
Nesta 2007. Hidden Innovation. How Innovation Happens in Six ‘Low Innovation’ Sectors.

erp
Research report: June 2007. London: Nesta.

ow
Normann, R. and Ramirez, R. 1993. Value chain to value constellation – designing

g
interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review, July–August, 65–77.

m
Normann, R. and Ramirez, R. 1994. Designing Interactive Strategy. From Value Chain to

.co
Value Constellation. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

ub
OECD/Eurostat. 2005. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation

erp
Data, 3rd edition. Paris: OECD/Eurostat, France.

ow
Pacenti, E. 1998. Il progetto dell’ interazione nei servizi. Un contributo al tema della
g
progettazione dei servizi. Ph.D. thesis in industrial design, Politecnico di Milan.
m
Parker, S. and Heapy, J. 2006. The Journey to the Interface. How Public Service Design can
.co

Connect Users to Reform. London: Demos.
ub

Parker, S. and Parker S. 2007. Unlocking Innovation. Why Citizens hold the Key to Public
erp

Service Reform. London: Demos.
ow

Penin, L. and Tonkinwise, C. 2009. The politics and theatre of service design. In Rigor

g

and Relevance in Design, IASDR09 Conference, 19–22 October, Seoul.
om

Pinch, T.J. and Bijker, W.E. 1984. The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how
b.c

the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other.
rpu

Social Studies of Science, SAGE, London, 14, 399–441.
Pinhanez, C. and Kontogiorgis, P. 2008. A Proposal for a Service Science Discipline
we

Classification System, 2008 Frontiers of Service, Washington, DC, 2–5 October
go

2008. Available at: http://www.pinhanez.com/claudio/publications/frontiers08.
m

pdf, accessed 3 January 2010.
.co

Rifkin, J. 2000. The Age of Access. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.
ub

Ritzer, G. 2007. The Globalization of Nothing 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
erp

Rullani, E. 2004a. Economia della Conoscenza. Creativitá e Valore nel Capitalismo delle
ow

Reti. Roma: Carocci.
g

Rullani, E. 2004b. La Fabbrica dell’ Immateriale. Roma: Carocci.
m

Sangiorgi, D. 2004. Il Design dei servizi come Design dei Sistemi di Attività. La Teoria dell’
.co

Attività applicata alla progettazione dei servizi. Ph.D. in industrial design, Politecnico
ub

di Milan.
erp

Sangiorgi, D. and Clark, B. 2004. Toward a participatory design approach to service
ow

design. In Artful Integration. Interweaving Media, Materials and Practices, Participatory
g

Design Conference, Toronto, 27–31 July.
om

Schuler, D. and Namioka, A. (eds) 1993. Participatory Design. Principles and Practices.
b.c

Hillsdale, NJ: LEA Publishers.
rpu

Singleton, B. 2009. Services as technologies. Service design in new territories. In Rigor
we

and Relevance in Design, IASDR09 Conference, 19–22 October, Seoul.
go

Spohrer, J., Magio, P.P., Bailey, J. and Gruhl, D. 2007. Steps toward a science of service
systems. IEEE Computer, 1, 71–7.

Spohrer, J., Vargo, Stephen L., Caswell, N. and Maglio, Paul P. 2008. The service
system is the basic abstraction of service science. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences.

om
Stø, E. and Strandbakken, P. 2008. Social enterprises in modern welfare societies: a
bottom-up perspective. In Collaborative Services. Social Innovation and Design for

b.c
Sustainability, edited by F. Jégou and E. Manzini. Milan: Edizioni Polidesign, 137–43.

rpu
Tekes 2007. Seizing the White Space: Innovative Service Concepts in the United States.

we
Technology Review 205/2007. Available at: www.tekes.fi/en/document/43000/

go
innovative_service_pdf, accessed 3 January 2010.

m
Tekes 2008. People – Economy – Environment. Priorities for the Future. Available at http://

.co
www/tekes.fi/en/document/42671/people_economy_environemnt_pdf, accessed

ub
22 December 2010.

erp
Tether, B. and Howells, J. 2007. Changing understanding of innovation in services.

ow
From technological adoption to complex complementary changes to technologies,

g
skills and organisation. In Innovation in Services, DTI Occasional Paper No. 9, June

m
2007. London: Department of Trade and Industry.

.co
Thackara, J. 2005. In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex World. Cambridge, MA: MIT

ub
Press.

erp
Thackara, J. 2007. Wouldn’t it be Great if … London: Dotto07, Design Council.

ow
Thomas, E. (ed.) 2008. Innovation by Design in Public Services, London: Solace
Foundation Imprint. g
m
Tukker A. 2004. Eight types of product-service-system: eight ways to sustainability?
.co

Experiences from Suspronet. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13, 246–60.
ub

Tukker, A. and Tischner, U. 2006. Product-services as a research field: past, present
erp

and future. Reflections from a decade of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14,
ow

1552–6. 33
g

Van Halen C., Vezzoli C. and Wimmer R. 2005. Methodology for Product Service System
om

Innovation. How to Develop Clean, Clever and Competitive Strategies in Companies.
b.c

Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum BV.
rpu

Vargo, S.L. and Lush, R.F. 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17.
we

Vattimo, G. and Rovatti, P.A. 1998. Il pensiero debole. XII edition. Milan: Feltrinelli.
go

Vergragt, P. (ed.). 2000. Strategies Towards the Sustainable Households. Final Report.
m

SusHouse Project. Delft: Delft University of Technology.
.co

Walker, S. 2009. Integration of scales, mass-produced plus locally made parts. In
ub

Design Studies, Berg, Oxford: Berg, 354–7.
erp

Yee, J.S.R., Tan, L. and Meredith P. 2009. The emergent roles of a designer in the
ow

development of an e-learning service. In Changing the Change Conference, Turin,
g

10–12 July.
m

Zeithamal Valerie A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry Leonard L. 1985. Problems and
.co

strategies in services marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49 (Spring), 33–46.
ub
erp
ow
g
om
b.c
rpu
we
go


Design for-services-sect1

More Related Content

Similar to Design for-services-sect1 (20)

More from Fran Maciel (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Design for-services-sect1