Published: 2012-09-19
ISBN: 978-91-7519-771-5
ISSN: 1650-3686 (print), 1650-3740 (online)
Service design practice; discourse and education are still nascent in Australia where most designers are trained in fields such as industrial design; architecture; communication design; and to a lesser degree; interaction design (a field that is equally nascent). Academic research on service design has so far been limited (Kimbell and Seidel 2008) and much of the knowledge generated from business contexts has been proprietary (Tether 2008). These factors have led to a lack of critical engagement in examining and investigating the complex contexts that surrounds service design projects. This also adds to the challenging obstacles for designers seeking to establish and embarking upon a service design-led practice in Australia.
The paper critiques service design case studies that are often documented and reported in a manner that abstracts and generalises the realities of this field as obstacles to understanding the ’real’ practice of service design. Through attempts to clarify; systematise and advocate the benefit of service design; authors might gloss over the messy realities and the contextual knowledge grounded in action. This has resulted in practice-based knowledge being ’lost in translation’. This is a critical shortfall. It becomes a disadvantageous factor in developing learning frameworks for designers in similar contexts to Australia who are seeking models; methods; case studies and discourse on service design from established agencies and research institutions on service design across Europe. These case studies can; by default; construct an idealistic scenario of service design that omit issues such as relationship building; resources; skill-sets and disciplinary boundaries that are integral to the realisation of projects and the adoption of a service design-led practice.
Within this context; the paper offers learnings drawn from a case study of a team of communication designers in Australia who attempted to undertake a project from a service design perspective. As practice-based research; reflection and critique was emphasised to reveal knowledge generated and situated in action. Numerous questions rather than answers have emerged from reflecting on the case study; which are presented as ’lessons learnt’. These lessons highlight logistical obstacles; issues of losing disciplinary identity and change management barriers that project stakeholders faced when embarking on service design projects. The discussion in this paper argues for the importance of documenting and reporting case studies that captures the grounded contexts as a way to facilitate knowledge generation and transfer. It also highlights the need to integrate knowledge from organisational theory and change management that examines; documents and addresses human-related challenges that are often omitted from service design discourse. These learnings are offered to the community of potential service designers who are broadening their current disciplinary practice and are seeking opportunities to create a service design practice. The aim is to provide ’signposts’; particularly for communication designers intending to apply service design methods and thinking in their current or future projects.
One of the values of generating knowledge in service design and disseminating this as research is to assist and enable more designers to enter in this field. Our responsibility as design researchers is to apply service design thinking in the way we disseminate this knowledge to others. The unique knowledge situated and generated from service design context is complex; yet typical of practice-based design research. In comparison to those who argue for a ‘clear consensus or an over-arching unifying framework’ for service design (Saco and Goncalves 2008; p. 12); the paper argues that it can never be; nor should it be framed in such a way. If service design practitioners truly believe in its value and agency to companies; organisations and public institutions; then; accounts of the practice needs to be captured and articulated in ways that reflect the lived world.
Ainamo; A. (2008). Services innovation and operations: learning from services marketing. In L. Kimbell & V. P. Siedel (Eds.); Designing for Services - multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 10- 11). Oxford: University of Oxford.
Akama; Y. (2007). Designers’ Agency: Human-centred Design in Communication Design Practice. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal; 1(2); pp. 1-6.
Akama; Y. (2008). Politics makes strange bedfellows: addressing the ‘messy’ power dynamics in design practice. Paper presented at the Undisciplined – Design Research Society Conference; Sheffield; UK.
Best; K. (2006). Design Management: Managing Design Strategy; Process and Implementation. Lausanne: AVA Publishing SA.
Bruner; J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge; Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Holmlid; S. (2005; 12th September 2005). Service Design methods and UCD practice. Paper presented at the Interact; Rome; Italy.
Holmlid; S. (2007). Interaction design and service design: expanding a comparison of design disciplines [Electronic Version]. Design Inquiries; pp. 1-8;
Jégou; F.; & Manzini; E. (2008).‘Collaborative Services: Social Innovation and Design for Sustainability’; Edizioni POLI; Milano; pp. 29 – 41.
Jones; M.; & Samalionis; F. (2008). ‘From small ideas to radical service innovation’; Design Management Review; Winter; 19; 1; pp. 20-26.
Jones; P. (2003). Embedded values in process and practice: Interactions between disciplinary practices and formal innovation processes. Design Management Journal; 2; pp. 20-36.
Kimbell; L.; & Seidel; V. P. (Eds.). (2008). Designing for Services - multidisciplinary perspectives. Oxford: University of Oxford.
Koskinen; J. (2009). Service Design - perspectives on turning-points in design. Retrieved 6th August 2009; from http://www.jarikoskinen.org/
Meroni; A. (ed) (2007). ‘Creative Communities’; People Inventing Sustainable Ways of Living; POLI. design Milano.
Parker; S.; & Heapy; J. (2006). The journey to the interface. London: Demos.
Poynor; R. (2008). Rick Poynor responds to ‘New Views 2’: ‘It’s the end of graphic design as we know it.’ (Vol. 69). Eye blog.
Saco; R. M.; & Goncalves; A. P. (2008). ‘Service Design: An Appraisal’; Design Management Review; Winter 2008; 19; 1; pp. 10-19.
Sanders; E. B. (2002). Scaffolds for Experiencing in the New Design Space. Information Design.
Schein; E. H. (1996). Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Systems Practice; 9(1); pp. 27-47.
Schein; E. H. (2002). Models and tools for stability and change in human systems. Reflections; 4(2); pp. 34-46.
Snowden; J. (2004). The landscape of management: Creating the context for understanding social complexity. The landscape of management: Creating the context for understanding social complexity; 6(1-2); pp. 140-148.
Solomon; R. C.; & Flores; F. (2001). Building Trust in Business; Politics; Relationships; and Life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tassi; R. (2009). Service Design Tools. Retrieved 5th July 2009; from www.servicedesigntools.org
Tether; B. (2008). Service design: time to bring in the professionals? In L. Kimbell & V. P. Siedel (Eds.); Designing for Services - multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 7-8). Oxford: University of Oxford.
ThinkPublic. (2007). thinkpublic - we help people make things better. Retrieved 10th August; 2009; from http://thinkpublic.com
