This review identifies that two areas in which we might expect to find research on service design – within design literature and within services literature – have not produced a developed body of knowledge. Rather, what emerges are two important tensions. The first is between understanding design either as problem-solving that aims to realize what has already been conceived of, or as an exploratory enquiry involving constructing understanding about what is being designed, involving end users and others in creating meaning. The second is a tension between the view that the distinction between goods and services matters significantly, or that service is better understood as a fundamental activity with multiple actors within a value constellation. Figure 1 summarizes these perspectives.
Figure 1. Approaches to conceptualizing service design
The framework in Figure 1 has two axes: one concerns how service is understood, the other concerns the nature of design. Together, the quadrants propose distinct ways of understanding service design. In the top left quadrant, design is seen as problem-solving and the conventional distinction between goods and services is maintained, a view that underpins work in some management fields (…) This quadrant is labeled “engineering” as its focus is the design of new products and services that can be specified in advance using systematic procedures; services are one particular category of artefact to be designed. Below, design can be understood as an exploratory process of enquiry that can be applied to different kinds of artefact such as products or services and where the distinctions based in industrial manufacturing between types of designed things matter (…). Within this quadrant sit the conventional fields or sub-disciplines of design in the art or design school traditions, with their focus on particular kinds of artefact such as furniture design, interiors or interaction design. This quadrant is labeled “non-engineering design disciplines”.
The top right quadrant sees design as problem-solving, but views service as a fundamental process of exchange (…) influenced by the service-dominant logic (…). This quadrant is labeled “service engineering” since the emphasis is on service, but the underlying design tradition is engineering. Finally, the bottom right quadrant sees design as an exploratory enquiry, but does not make an important distinction between goods and services (e.g, Bate & Robert, 2007). This quadrant is labeled “designing for service” rather than designing services, echoing work by several practitioners and scholars in the use of the preposition “for” (cf Meroni & Sangiorgi, 2011; Kimbell & Seidel, 2008). As Manzini (2011) similarly argues, talking of designing for services rather than designing services recognizes that what is being designed is not an end result, but rather a platform for action with which diverse actors will engage over time. Designing for service, rather than designing services, points to the impossibility of being able to fully imagine, plan or define any complete design for a service since new kinds of value relation are instantiated by actors engaging within a service context. Designing for service remains always incomplete (cf Garud et al, 2008).
This framework makes explicit differences in how people think about design and service, shaping how service design can be understood. It helps illuminate the underlying concepts about design and service that practitioners bring to their work as they engage in service design.
Źródło: Kimbell, L. 2011 Aug 14. Designing for Service as One Way of Designing Services. International Journal of Design [Online] 5:2. Available: http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/938/345
Recent Comments