places of design

A lot of the presentations and perspectives on “service design” seem to spring out of a materialist understanding of what a service is. The service blueprint tool is one example of how services (“touchpoints,” or “moments” as others call them) are explored and analyzed in this perspective (it is also used in the Transactions/Engagements perspective that services consist of actors on a performance stage). Hence, it is not surprising that the practice of service design has been compared to the field of operations research.

Although it’s interesting to see how operations research complements the current understanding of service design, I wonder if there are other ways to talk about services. Here are some of my thoughts, borrowing and adapting D. Buchanan’s way of differentiating qualities of interactions:

Services as Interfaces/”Touchpoints”

I won’t comment on this since the bulk of the service design literature and practice seem to fall into this view (operations research and logistics). People and services are things with defined boundaries and can be moved with certain forces to bump into each other and placed strategically. It seems like the assembly line is a great metaphor for thinking about services this way.

Services as Transactions and Engagements

I think in this view, one is not able to say that services are inherently good or bad (or any other quality). It’s ultimately about what is perceived as a service. A service is a neutral phenomenon that serves a utilitarian purpose among and between people (between two or among a community). The stage and theatre as metaphors for a service environment are strong in this perspective – there is a stage, actors, and their respective roles. People are agents that come on stage at appointed times to interact and leave when the script requires them to leave. This timed performances of people is critical in understanding a service experience. There are certain dynamics in this perspective that are not present in the Interface view, such as power and control between actors and the acted upon as well as different groups of actors upon other groups. The vocabulary of “service provider/giver” and “receiver” seems to resonate well here.

Services as Service-ing and Character/Human Interaction

In this view, there is something real/objective/essential about the service itself – as something that arises as people interact with each other in an environment. Maybe this is where the idea of services as co-production starts to take shape and value judgments about a service are possible. Seems like the idea of “service” is less ephemeral than the previous perspectives since it can come into existence/conceived through the interaction of people and quite possibly sustained or developed (as opposed to touchpoints or moments which don’t seem the language that is appropriate for prolonged experiences). The quality of service may or may not have dependencies on time (and possibly space). One can say that a service is good/bad depending on how well it serves the purposes of those it intends to serve (too many serves in this sentence!). Just as there are quality experiences, there are quality services (as well as poor services) within proper situations (i.e. physical areas, political domains, ethnic cultures) – there are certain universals. (Thanks to Carl DiSalvo who brought up the idea of “Services/service-ing and its character”).

Services as Approximations of An Enduring Idea

The idea of service focuses on the idea service itself as having certain universal qualities outside of human experience. Services have certain immutable qualities. So, in this perspective, services can by their very nature be good. For example, I don’t think this view of service is limited to human language. If people fuss over definitions of what a service is, it really doesn’t matter because irrespective of what people say about the nature of a service, it is real and absolute. So when one says that a service is by its nature an idea of something good because it contains within it the essential idea of “the other” (i.e. serving another. So the Golden Rule would be an example of a universal “service design principle”), it works in this perspective. I guess if the idea of “service” is essentially good, then the word “bad/poor service” in this perspective is an oxymoron.

Wow, it was difficult just trying to articulate this not-so-articulate reflection. Will have to revisit this some time.