What do we mean if we say that a service design work is an example of good design? This paper presents a provisional typology for the ways in which a service design proposal can contribute to value-in-use. The typology covers instrumentality, technical excellence, usefulness, social significance, mutual advantage, collective welfare, and aesthetic values. Moral implications related to norms, power structures and tensions between stakeholders are also considered. It is argued that the typology can facilitate service designers and researchers in framing and re-framing a design effort and conceptualise a value proposition.
Arvola, M. (2014). Interaction and Service Design as Offering Perspectives in a Space of
Action. In Proceedings of DRS 2014: Design’s Big Debates (pp. 7-15). Umeå: Umeå Institute
of Design, Umeå University.
Arvola, M. & Holmlid, S. (2015). User experience qualities and the use-quality prism. In The fuzzy front end of experience design: Workshop proceedings. Espoo: VTT.
Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. San
Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Boztepe, S. (2007). User value: Competing theories and models. International Journal of Design, 1(2), 55–63.
Brady, M.K., & Cronin, J. Jr. (2001), Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived
service quality: A hierarchical approach. The Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 34-49.
Dahlbom, B., & Mathiassen, L. (1995). Computers in Context: The Philosophy and Practice of Systems Design. Oxford: Blackwell.
Desmet, P. M. A., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57–66.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service
exchange and value co-creation: A social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327–339.
Ehn, P., & Löwgren, J. Design for quality-in-use: Human-computer interaction meets
informations systems development. In M. Helander, T. Landauer, & P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. Second, Completely Revised Edition (pp. 299-313).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Gann, D., Salter, A., & Whyte, J. (2003). Design quality indicator as a tool for thinking. Building Research and Information, 3(5), 318-333.
Holmlid, S. (2014). One approach to understand design’s value under a service logic. In:
Design Management in an Era of Disruption. In Proceedings from 19th DMI Academic Design Management Conference (pp. 2633-2640). Boston, MA: Design Management Institute.
Holmlid, S. (2007). Interaction design and service design: Expanding a comparison of design
disciplines. In Proceedings of the 2nd Nordic Design Research Conference, NorDes 07.
Hult, L., Irestig, M., & Lundberg, J. (2006). Design perspectives. Human-Computer Interaction, 21(1), 5-48.
Krippendorff, K. (2006). The Semantic Turn; A New Foundation for Design. Boca Ratan, London,
New York: Taylor & Francis CRC.
Lim, Y., Lee, S., & Kim, D. (2011). Interactivity attributes for expression-oriented interaction
design. International Journal of Design, 5(3), 113-128.
Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2005). Thoughtful Interaction Design: A Design Perspective on Information Technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vargo, S. L. & Lusch R. F. (2008). Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution. In Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36, 1–10.
von Wright, G. H. (1963). The Varieties of Goodness. Routledge.
Wetter-Edman, K., Sangiorgi, D., Edvardsson, B., Holmlid, S., Grönroos, C., & Mattelmäki,
T. (2014). Design for Value Co-Creation: Exploring Synergies Between Design for
Service and Service Logic. Service Science, 6(2), 106-121.
Whiteside, J., Bennet, J. & Holtzbatt, K. (1988). Usability engineering: Our experience and
evolution. In M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of Human Computer Interaction (pp. 791-817). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
