Going for gold • 8
Inspired by an article in Harvard Business Review about the underlying quests for corporate transformation (Anand & Barsoux, 2017), I have identified seven arenas where the power of service design can transform organizations, teams, and people. In this blog post, I discuss the pros and cons of examining service design through a quest-based, transformational lens.
Recap: Service Design for Corporate Transformation
Seven arenas and 35 archetypes
In previous blog posts, I explored each of the seven arenas where service design has the power to drive corporate transformation. This quest-based classification reveals intriguing differences in terms of purpose, project types, project sponsors, methodologies, and desired outcomes – and stands in sharp contrast to the one-size-fits-all approach often promoted in toolkits for innovation management, new product development, design thinking, and service design.
Typology and roadmap
Zooming out, the table below offers both a typology and a roadmap for those eager to integrate service design into organization-wide transformational efforts.
Table 1. Overview of Service Design arenas with associated project archetypes
Note: ‘Service Design for Equitable Experiences’ acts as a connective thread weaving through and enhancing the other six arenas, ensuring that the tenets of diversity, equity, and inclusion are deeply embedded in all aspects of service design.
Alternative typology
Table 2 offers an alternative way to visualize the Service Design arenas and their associated project archetypes.
First, six of the seven arenas are grouped based on their intrinsic and synergistic relationships:
Employee Engagement x Customer Excellence: When employees feel valued and empowered, they go the extra mile to make customers feel valued and empowered too.
Operational Excellence x Ethical Circularity: Efficiency and responsibility work hand in hand when processes and resources are optimized with a circular mindset.
Disruption & Growth x Organizational Change: Innovation drives change, and change requires innovation – they are so intertwined it almost feels disingenuous to untangle them.
The seventh arena, Equitable Experiences, serves as a connective thread running through all other arenas, ensuring that diversity, equity, and inclusion are deeply embedded in every facet of corporate transformation.
Second, the archetypes are grouped into three distinct layers:
Core archetypes establish a solid foundation for corporate transformation.
Complementary archetypes focus on expanding the capabilities and solutions necessary to drive corporate transformation.
Cultural archetypes are centered around fostering the right type of culture to sustain corporate transformation.
Table 2. Alternative typology for Service Design arenas and archetypes
Pros and cons
What are the pros and cons of examining service design through a quest-based, transformational lens?
Advantages
Offers a robust framework for integrating service design into corporate transformation
Broadens the scope (and perception) of service design by highlighting 7 arenas and 35 archetypes
Offers a balanced, well-rounded view of service design by treating all arenas and archetypes as equally important
Supports a flexible, hybrid approach, enabling the blending of two or more archetypes within the same project when appropriate
Clearly defines what a service design mindset brings to the table (compared to, say, industrial design or UX design)
Embeds DEI considerations across all arenas and archetypes, extending the scope into areas that are rarely explored (like operational excellence)
Encourages the use of complementary methodologies and cross-functional teams to tackle challenges and achieve desired outcomes
Promotes long-term thinking by emphasizing systemic changes and cultural shifts (instead of obsessing with short-term fixes)
Stresses the importance of culture in driving and supporting transformational endeavors
Demonstrates how service designers can support both top-down and bottom-up change processes
Outlines the specific skills, knowledge areas, and competencies service design teams need to develop to support transformational endeavors
Disadvantages
Targets corporate transformation, which may exclude contexts where service design is used specifically for community and social impact
Downplays the importance of downstream considerations that are critical to execution and implementation
May not be exhaustive or MECE, potentially leading to missed opportunities and endless debates over categorization
May need to be adapted for industry-specific challenges, opportunities, and regulatory landscapes (e.g., in healthcare)
Carries a risk of superficial understanding and application, leading to lacklustre outcomes
Demands strong leadership commitment and requires buy-in across all organizational levels to work effectively
References
Anand, N. & Barsoux, J-L. (2017, Nov–Dec). What everyone gets wrong about change management. Poor execution is only part of the problem. Harvard Business Review.
