Pluralism | places of design

Initial Thoughts on the Pluralistic Dimensions of Service Design

Oct 15, ’10 6:34 PM

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.

Comments (2)

Dialectically If Not Doctrinally

Aug 18, ’10 10:16 PM

Professor Lovejoy remarks that “dialogue, discussion, and the interaction of two or more minds is the very essence of the [dialectical] method” by which philosophy could hope to make progress … I had Professor Lovejoy’s essay in mind when I wrote Dialectic in 1927 and projected a dialectical undertaking on the part of philosophers that would enable them to make progress in the pursuit of truth. This should occur before they engaged in argument with one another about their doctrinal disagreements. They could at least agree dialectically, if not doctrinally; that is, they could agree about the issues that confronted them.

Mortimer Adler, Four Dimensions of Philosophy, in the Prologue, p. xxii

I find it interesting that Adler differentiates looking at the world as a dialectician from a philosopher. He states that to proceed dialectically,

… one must deal with all the differing views one encounters with complete impartiality and neutrality – that is, without favoring one point of view against another. One must be point of viewless in treating all points of view. p. xxiv

Immediately following this thought, he writes,

To be a philosopher, one must make up one’s own mind about where the truth lies on the great issues that have filled the pages of philosophical controversy. p. xxiv

My goals for the next 4 (hopefully just 4 although I’ve heard that the average in my program is 6-8 years. Yikes!) years are as follows:

Be humble and look at the design/management world as a dialectician. Before I can form my own point of view, gain a knowledge of the issues. The beauty of dialectics is that two opposing view points can come together in agreement on an issue (and they can be on opposite ends of the issue).
Formulate a philosophy of design and management.

Another great influence on Adler was his reading of Jacques Maritain’s An Introduction to Philosophy. Adler distilled 4 main insights from this book. What’s interesting for me is the similarity between philosophy (which Adler says is everybody’s business) and design. Substituting “design” for Adler’s usage of “philosophy” seems to bring even more insight for me in these 4 points:

Only in ancient Greece was philosophy (or design) distinct and separate from the religious beliefs and practices of the local culture, and totally unaffected by them.
(This has personal meaning for me because my faith is very important to my identity. Yet, in the realm of design there can be a suspension of my personal beliefs in order to understand other designers, manager and employees, and clients)
In relation to modern empirical science, philosophy (or design) is autonomous in the sense that its principles and conclusions are not in any way dependent on the current state or the advances in the empirical sciences.
(As Adler distinguishes the naturalist framework from philosophy, I too feel the need to differentiate between empirical science from design AND management)
Philosophy (or design) has a method of its own that enables it to answer questions that cannot be answered by the method of the empirical sciences, of historical research, or of mathematics.
(Adler believes the 4 main branches of knowledge are historical research/scholarly research in the field of humanities, empirical sciences, mathematical thought, and philsophy. I also feel that design has methods of its own that demand its own kind of exploration)
While it corrects and refines some of the opinions and convictions held by common sense, philosophy (or design) is nevertheless continuous with common sense and elucidates its deepest convictions by providing their rational basis and elaboration.
(By common sense, Adler is referring to the human experience – hence, philosophy has a role in contemporary human experience. Dewey calls this macroscopic experience. Design, at the end of the day, has something to contribute in this world because it, too, is a fundamental human activity and aligns with human experience – regardless of geography or culture)

Comments (0)

What is an American?

Dec 9, ’08 12:48 AM

I sketched a diagram several months ago but never got to revisit it. It was after hearing a discussion on the radio of what it is to be an American. I think it was a discussion on whether Barack Obama or John McCain was the more “American” of the two. That got me thinking about the general question of who/what is an American? So I made the following diagram:

An American can be thought of in one of the following 4 buckets:

1. ENERGY

An American is someone who contributes to the United States through his/her energy. It’s a view that is all about production. A good example of this view is Rosie the Riveter. Henry Ford and Fredrick Taylor’s ability to harness human energy may be one of the reasons why Americans are who they are today.

2. POWER/CONTROL/WILL

An American is someone who is able to align the masses. One of my favorite historical moments is when Jesse Owens participated in the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Albert Speer (Hitler’s designer gone awry) once said:

“Each of the German victories and there were a surprising number of these made him (Hitler) happy, but he was highly annoyed by the series of triumphs by the marvelous colored American runner, Jesse Owens.”

In this bucket, the experiences of men (the way people think and feel) are given much weight. This is the place in the “Cross of Pain” where various views are contested (i.e. liberal v. conservative), where one contemplates about what the American Dream might mean (i.e. “Is anyone/anything hindering me from achieving the American Dream?”), and where recognizable leaders become possessions to the American who finds personal meaning in various cultural/societal/political agents.

3. ACTION

An American is someone who acts with the right/proper character in his/her environment. Have you ever heard the phrase, “he acts like an American”? This might not mean much to some people, but I remember my grandparents telling me that when they were in the Korean War, some of their fondest recollections are of American G.I.’s giving them candy bars or some U.N. sponsored cornbread. In some ways, an American is the character in Norman Rockwell’s vignettes of America.

What does it mean to act American? Although many people complain about the rest of the world not liking Americans, some of the noblest and kindest people in history have been Americans. From “Southern hospitality” to American volunteers helping out in third-world countries, it is this spirit of service that I’m pointing out in this bucket. The firemen, law enforcement, military, as well as the neighbor who is willing to let you borrow an egg when they’re out of the house are all American. 9/11 saw many Americans come together through their actions.

4. IDEA

Another kind of American is captured by Edward Everett Hale in his short story, The Man Without a Country. It’s a fiction story about a man who hates America and is sentenced to never set foot on U.S. soil ever again. He is to be transported from one Navy ship to another and is never to have any updates about the U.S. Although unrepentant at first, as the years go by, he falls in love with America only to utter the words, “here you see, I have a country!” on his deathbed.

In this bucket, America is an idea that is inseparable from the American. Physical distance does not deteriorate that spirit. Think of Nelson Mandela on Robben Island for all those years – he never stopped being a South African. Or of Jesus in the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights – he never stopped thinking about his fellow man. An American is someone who hopes and believes in America, the idea.

Afterthoughts

It’s not easy to define an American. And I think that’s constantly changing. For example, it took African Americans over a century to be considered an American. The same with women.

The places seem to constantly shift from one bucket to the other. What does that mean? Do we keep on expanding until we reach a threshold where anyone can become an American? Or as some of the buckets show, sometimes, being an American does not necessarily mean that it is about the passports and legal documents (by no means is this a reference the the latest controversy surrounding Barack Obama). For example, Edward Hale’s short story came out during the Civil War when people didn’t even know if there was going to be an official United States of America after the smoke from the artillary finally cleared. These are hard questions. Hard questions, indeed.