R:\Bau\Blog >_
Get the balance right! • 1
Three tensions in service innovation
Service providers need to leverage resources effectively to drive innovation and achieve desired outcomes over time. Smart visualizations of the innovation pipeline and portfolio might help leaders and teams drive fruitful discussions, uncover interconnections, make informed choices, build alignment, and ultimately get the balance right.
Before diving into the intricacies of innovation portfolios, we need to expand the scope of innovation beyond the unimaginative, product-centric definitions of innovation that merely pay lip service to services (see, e.g., Keeley et al., 2013; Viki et al., 2019). Let’s do this by unpacking three tensions in service innovation. The first one is below.
Tension 1: Innovation for core businesses vs. innovation for new businesses
Service providers need to get the balance right between investing in core/legacy businesses (to unlock value) and investing in new, transformational endeavors (to create new sources of value). This is ultimately about determining the overarching purpose and desired outcomes of innovation efforts.
Incremental innovation: Service providers can unlock value in core/legacy businesses by identifying and exploiting opportunities to
drive growth (↑ desirability, ↑ inclusion, ↑ differentiation, ↑ loyalty, ↑↓ price, ↑ revenue streams, ↑ channels, ↑ segments, ↑ geographies), and
improve organizational performance (↑ focus, ↓ waste, ↑ service productivity, ↑ service quality, ↑ employee engagement, ↑ customer experience).
Transformational innovation: Service providers can uncover new sources of value by identifying and exploiting opportunities to
adapt, reinvent, and reposition the core businesses (think Netflix),
create adjacent, ‘close-to-the-core-business’ businesses (think Facebook, Virgin, or Easy),
create ‘new-to-the-core-business’ businesses (think Amazon Web Services), and/or
create uncontested market spaces (think Cirque du Soleil).
This tension rhymes with influential frameworks and mental models such as Product-Market Strategies for Business Growth (Ansoff, 1957), Seven Degrees of Freedom for Growth (Baghai et al., 2000), ‘little i’ and ‘Big I’ Innovations (Day, 2007), Hierarchy of New Service Categories (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010), Innovation Ambition Matrix (Nagji & Tuff, 2012), and Transformation A and B (Gilbert et al., 2012).
In my next blog post, I will unpack the second tension of service innovation.
References
Ansoff, I. (1957, September–October). Strategies for diversification. Harvard Business Review, 113–124.
Day, G. (2007, December). Is it real? Can we win? Is it worth doing? Managing risk and reward in an innovation portfolio. Harvard Business Review.
Gilbert, C., Eyring, M. & Foster, R. (2012, December). Two routes to resilience. Harvard Business Review.
Keeley, L. et al. (2013). Ten Types of Innovation: The Discipline of Building Breakthroughs. Wiley.
Nagji, B. & Tuff, G. (2012, May). Managing your innovation portfolio. Harvard Business Review.
Viki, T., Toma, D. & Gons, E. (2019). The corporate startup: How successful companies can develop successful innovation ecosystems. Management Impact Publishing.
Wirtz, J. & Lovelock, C. (2010). Services Marketing: People, technology, strategy (8th ed.). World Scientific.
1/5
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
Four approaches to change management
Innovation drives change. Change requires innovation. Innovation and organizational change are so intertwined it almost feels disingenuous to untangle them. How can service designers empower change leaders in top-down and bottom-up change processes?
Just like design, change can be seen as a verb (the act or process of becoming different, or making something or someone different), a countable noun (the final result or outcome of the change activity or process), and an uncountable noun (the situation or process of change).
Following this train of thought, I have devised a two-by-two matrix to capture four distinctive approaches to change management. While it is admittedly impossible to encapsulate every single change theory in a single matrix, the purpose is simply to facilitate a discussion about how service design can support and drive change. It also serves as a reminder that not all change theories are by nature top-down, sequential, and outcome-driven (see figure below).
Figure 1. Four high-level approaches to change management (Bau, 2020).
One dimension in the matrix explores whether the change process seems inherently planned or is in fact emergent. A planned process implies deliberate, coordinated, and integrated actions across the organisation. An emergent process implies autonomous or semi-autonomous actions within the organisation that may or may not become coordinated and integrated over time.
The other dimension explores whether the change outcome is inherently planned or emergent. Planned outcomes in terms of organizational quests, long-term goals, vision statements, etc., are determined more or less from the outset and imposed over time. Emergent outcomes materialize over time, shaped through the qualities and capabilities of the organisation. Furthermore, planned and unplanned actions will have intended and unintended consequences, and internal and external factors may push change in unknown directions.
Subsequently, each quadrant in the matrix represents a distinctive, high-level approach to change management, with specific metaphors, characteristics, strategies, and benefits. There is no winner or best approach; given context, situational factors, leadership philosophy, and organizational culture, any one of these four approaches (or combinations thereof) might be deemed effective.
The four approaches to change management are:
Directed change – like winning hearts and minds in occupied territories. A top-down, leadership-driven approach to change supported by a compelling vision, deliberate action plans, and ‘scientific’ evidence. Employees are spurred or forced into action through a series of top-down interventions. According to proponents, this is the fastest way to drive first-order and second-order change. Resistance to change is typically high but (ultimately) futile. This approach is based on the Empirical–Rational, Power–Coercive, and Normative–Re-educative change strategies by Chin & Benne (1969) and Thurley & Wirdenius (1973).
Guided change – like wandering into the unknown with sherpas by your side. A bottom-up, systematic effort to improve the problem-solving capabilities of the system as well as to unlock and foster growth in the individuals and groups that make up the system. Employees are empowered to change through expert facilitation in experiential learning and action research. According to proponents, this approach is best suited for first-order change. Resistance is minimized thanks to heavy employee involvement. This approach is based on the Action-centered change strategy by Thurley & Wirdenius (1973), the Normative–Re-educative change strategy by Chin & Benne (1969), and the experiential aspects of Organizational Development (Brown & Harvey, 2006).
Self-directed change – like jazz improvisation, which is all about studious practice and being in the moment (O’Donnell, 2012). Organizations are complex, adaptive systems operating in diverse, dynamic, and interconnected environments. The system continually evolves through a cycle of interactions, emergence, and non-linear feedback loops. Leaders should set teams and employees free to self-organize, interact, adapt, and learn. According to proponents, this approach is the best way to explain how organisations adapt, evolve, and survive in turbulent environments. Resistance is minimal or even non-existent (since everybody is a change agent). This approach is based on complexity and chaos theory (Stacey, 1996).
Darwinian change – like Battle Royale (the 2000 Japanese dystopian thriller). Predetermined quests, visions, long-term goals, and values function as a lighthouse to guide innovation efforts and change initiatives within the organisation (and ecosystem). Autonomous or semi-autonomous units are encouraged to come with fresh perspectives, experiment with new ideas, battle for attention, and fight for resources. The ‘fittest’ ideas make the cut and get adopted. According to proponents, this is the best way to drive first-order and second-order change when the path to desired outcomes is deemed unclear, uncertain, or unpredictable. Resistance to the ideas of others is actively encouraged (to a certain degree). This approach is inspired by van de Ven and Poole’s single and dual-motor change theories (1995).
Service designers can become effective change agents in all four change approaches:
Directed change. Service designers help leaders make the case for change through compelling, human-centered North Stars, stories, concepts, value cases, etc. The most important service design roles in this type of change are The Storyteller, The Navigator, and The Maker.
Guided change. Working side-by-side with expert facilitators in experiential learning and action research, service designers make bottom-up innovation happen through systemic and systematic co-creation. The most important service design roles are The Servant Leader, The Sensemaker, and the Maker.
Self-directed change. Service designers create the conditions for change, creativity, and collaborative play by helping change leaders ‘loosen’ or ‘tighten’ the system. The most important service designer roles are The Servant Leader, The Sensemaker, and The Creator.
Darwinian change. Service designers design the rules and set the tone for the organization-wide game of innovation (and, upon invitation, we can also take part as active players). As the ‘game designer,’ the most important service design roles are The Servant Leader, The Navigator, and The Creator.
To learn more about the four approaches to change management and the critical roles service designers play, please check out my article ‘Service Design to the Rescue’ in Touchpoint Vol. 11 No. 3 (Bau, 2020). (Touchpoint is the journal of service design published by SDN; in this issue, you will find plenty of interesting articles about the intersection of service design and change management.)
References
Bau, R. (2020). Service design to the rescue. The critical roles service designers play in organizational change. Touchpoint, 11(3), 74–79.
Brown, D. & Harvey, D. (2006). An experiential approach to Organization Development (7th ed.). California State University–Bakersfield.
Chin, R. & Benne, K. (1969). General strategies for effecting changes in human systems [Research report]. Boston University.
O’Donnell, E. (2012, April 9). Is improvising really improvising?
Stacey, R. (1996). Strategic management and organizational dynamics (2nd ed.). Pitman.
Thurley, K. & Wirdenius, H. (1973). Supervision: A reappraisal. Heinemann.
van de Ven, A. & Poole, M. (1995, July). Explaining development and change in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540.
Climbing to the top • 2
The mountain guide as a metaphor in service design
Photo by Damir Spanic on Unsplash
Metaphors can be used to explain abstract concepts by identifying hidden similarities between two unrelated entities. What can we learn about service design by comparing the certified mountain guide with the seasoned service designer?
In this blog post, I will highlight the final three similarities between the certified mountain guide and the seasoned service designer:
Utilizing tools to tackle complex problems
Simplifying and de-stressing the experience
Committing to life-long learning and continuous improvement
The first two similarities (Planning and thinking ahead, and Managing and mitigating risk) are covered in the previous blog post.
3. Utilizing tools to tackle complex problems
Before each tour, the mountain guide assembles a bespoke toolbox to tackle specific problems that will or may occur. Tools include climbing gear (ropes, slings, carabiners, quickdraws, etc.), climbing techniques, and fall-protection systems. Individual tools may not be that hard to learn, but it takes plenty of knowledge, practice, and experience to know which tool or tools to use in specific situations.
During the tour, the guide will identify viable solutions for the situation at hand and find the best possible one by weighing arguments for and against. Some solutions may create new problems ‘further down the road,’ and some situations may lack satisfactory solutions altogether.
Furthermore, most problems addressed in innovation projects are by their very nature wicked (complex, ambiguous, interconnected, unstable, etc.), which means it is inherently challenging for the team to truly understand the solution space and to fully explore the solution space.*
* See Buchanan (1992) for a solid overview of Rittel’s wicked problem approach (in the context of design thinking)
4. Simplifying and de-stressing the experience
Mountain guides appreciate how important the climbing experience is for clients (who are spending good money and valuable vacation time). The emotional job of the guide is to simplify, de-stress, and augment the experience as much as possible, especially for inexperienced climbers.
Acting as instructors, teachers, and trainers, mountain guides devise courses of action, give concise instructions, test for understanding, and provide encouragement to make the climbing experience easier, smoother, faster, and safer for everyone. This puts less pressure on the climbers and makes the experience more enjoyable.
5. Committing to life-long learning and continuous improvement
Elite fitness levels. Genuine passion for mountaineering and mountain climbing. Years of dedication to the craft. Commitment to life-long learning and continuous improvement. A rigorous certification process that may take years to complete. Becoming a certified mountain guide is certainly no walk in the park.
Mountain guides need to master and balance three types of skills (imbalances may have grave consequences in unforgiving settings):
Physical skills – strength, power, endurance, mobility, balance, etc.
Technical skills – bouldering, sport climbing, traditional climbing, ice climbing, resort skiing, Nordic skiing, backcountry skiing, endurance running, snowmobiling, orienteering, weather-map reading, medical training, self-rescue skills, gear repair, etc.
Psychological skills – performing at your best under intense stress; exercising sound judgment in critical situations; communicating and instructing effectively under pressure; managing expectations, fears, hopes, and desires (yours as well as others); exercising patience (especially with others); eliminating/avoiding individual and team biases (that will cloud judgment and dim perceptions of risk); etc.
To become the best of the best, mountain guides believe in life-long learning and continuous improvement. They are always looking for ways to move faster and safer by simplifying things, cutting out unnecessary steps, removing fancy/unnecessary devices, and reducing weight (‘lightness’). They stay on top of innovative technologies and techniques, experiment with tools, read books, attend clinics/workshops, and learn from fellow climbers and guides.
In service design, it takes comprehensive knowledge, a considerable amount of concentrated practice, and a commitment to continuous learning to fully:
- master the rather extensive toolbox for people-centered research, service innovation, design thinking, HCD, UX, agile, etc.
- master the distinct flavors or genres of service design projects (growth/disruption, customer excellence, employee engagement, operational excellence, ethical circularity, etc.)
- master the idiosyncrasies and intricacies of specific service sectors (healthcare, energy, hospitality, retail, etc.)
- master the process to drive innovation and tackle wicked problems in complex organizations and ecosystems
- master both upstream and downstream projects equally well (upstream = exploring, envisioning, strategizing, conceptualizing; downstream = designing, building, piloting, launching, refining)
- master the art and science of empowering multi-disciplinary teams, co-creating with clients and other stakeholders, and transferring designerly ways of working
Pros and cons
Just like any metaphor, the mountain guide puts the spotlight on certain aspects of thinking and working as a service designer (and neglects or downplays others).
Advantages
Highlights the roles seasoned service designers can perform in projects (guide, facilitator, instructor, teacher, and trainer)
Highlights the need to carefully plan and prepare projects before kick-off
Highlights the importance of constantly identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and mitigating risks during projects
Highlights the importance of assembling the right toolbox to solve complex (wicked) problems
Highlights the need to simplify, de-stress, and augment the experience, especially for inexperienced clients and team members
Highlights the extensive technical and psychological skills required to become masterful
Highlights the commitment to life-long learning and continuous learning
Disadvantages
Does not stress the value of teamwork, open communication, adaptability, self-management, co-creation, diversity, non-hierarchical structures, continuous feedback, retrospectives, etc. (here the metaphor of a high-performing team of experienced climbers would be more apt)
References
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers. The story of success. Little, Brown and Company.
SDN. (2020). SDN Accreditation Programme for service design professionals and masters.
In terms of mountain climbing and mountain guides (two topics I admittedly knew precious little about before collecting my thoughts), I leaned heavily on The Mountain Guide Manual by Marc Chauvin and Rob Coppolillo. I am also indebted to several blogs and websites about mountaineering in general and mountain guides in particular.
2/2
Climbing to the top • 1
The mountain guide as a metaphor in service design
Photo by Damir Spanic on Unsplash
Metaphors can be used to explain abstract concepts by identifying hidden similarities between two unrelated entities. What can we learn about service design by comparing the certified mountain guide with the seasoned service designer?
The core job of a mountain guide is to guide and assist client climbers up and down the mountain in a safe, efficient, and rewarding way. The guide will significantly improve the climbing experience, especially if the climbing party lacks the expertise, equipment, and/or experience required for the terrain ahead.
Climbing parties may face quite a few hazards during the tour: the terrain itself; inclement weather; extreme temperatures; performance anxiety; stress; dehydration; fatigue/exhaustion; illness; physical injuries; equipment failure; getting lost; and fellow climbers (who may be overconfident or underconfident in their abilities, often due to inexperience).
This means that the guide is constantly handling complex situations and making life-or-death decisions, based on extensive experience, tons of practice, rigorous planning, solid problem-solving capabilities, and a sound approach for on-the-spot decision-making (to avoid personal and team biases).
In two blog posts, I will highlight five similarities between the certified mountain guide and the seasoned service designer:
Planning and thinking ahead
Managing and mitigating risk
Utilizing tools to tackle complex problems
Simplifying and de-stressing the experience
Committing to life-long learning and continuous improvement
1. Planning and thinking ahead
The mountain guide is responsible for the safety of the climbing party. Before each tour, the guide is planning and thinking ahead by:
Reviewing weather forecasts and snowpack conditions
Collecting data about the location, frequency, and severity of objective hazards
Obtaining advice, tips, and general information on how to successfully complete (or protect) particular climbing routes
Gauging the experience and capabilities of the climbing party
Planning reasonable routes for conditions and climbers
Determining options and bailout possibilities
Making hard choices about food, water, clothing, and equipment (it would be nigh impossible to carry everything you want)
Gathering the climbers, providing information, determining ground rules, setting realistic expectations, and strengthening bonds
- What is the overarching need (or rationale) for the project? What type of solution is envisioned?* What are the desired outcomes?
- Who are we targeting, and why? Who will be affected, and how? Who are we intentionally including and excluding, and why?
- What explicit and implicit assumptions are we making in this project? How do we reveal hidden biases and illuminate blindspots?
- What external and internal forces are driving change and resisting change respectively?
- How will organizational quests, strategies, beliefs, sub-cultures, and processes shape the project (or vice versa)?
- How does the project fit into the innovation portfolio? What level of risk and uncertainty is the organization willing to accept?
- What interdependencies exist with other solutions and/or components in the business ecosystem?
- What constraints do we need to take into consideration?
- What are our knowledge gaps about market segments and target audiences?
- What is the right approach/process for the challenge or problem at hand? What tools and spaces do we need for our process?
- When and how often should we engage users and other stakeholders throughout the process?
- What is the right timing and timeframe?
- What obstacles are we facing in this project and how do we overcome them?
- What does success look like and how do you measure it?
- What type of capabilities do we need? Who should we recruit or partner with?
- How can we empower and engage team members, especially if the team is inexperienced or newly formed?
* For a discipline-neutral classification of potential solution areas (rather than predetermined solutions), see Richard Buchanan’s four broad areas in which design is explored (1992) and GK VanPatter’s process model Design 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 (Jones, 2009).
2. Managing and mitigating risk
The mountain guide is constantly identifying, assessing, and prioritizing risks and constantly finding ways to control or mitigate them. As the climbing party is ascending or descending, the guide controls the situation at hand by:
seeing and assessing the terrain above and below the group
observing current and changing conditions (inclement weather, avalanche danger, rock fall potential, etc.)
weighing all the evidence and exercising sound judgment
identifying the right decision points and routes to scale the terrain in a safe way
choosing appropriate tools, techniques, and fall-protection systems to manage risk effectively
modifying plans on the fly (because of fatigue, changing weather conditions, etc.)
determining contingency paths in case of emergency
providing clear, unambiguous instructions to the group
exercising patience with inexperienced climbers
managing the expectations, fears, hopes, and desires of individual climbers
(to be continued)
References
Buchanan, R. (1992, Spring). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.
Jones, P. (2009, March). Design 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0. The rise of visual sensemaking. NextD Journal. NextDesign Leadership Institute.
In terms of mountain climbing and mountain guides (two topics I admittedly knew precious little about before collecting my thoughts), I leaned heavily on The Mountain Guide Manual by Marc Chauvin and Rob Coppolillo. I am also indebted to several blogs and websites about mountaineering in general and mountain guides in particular.
1/2
Bringing down the house • 3
Theatre as a metaphor in services marketing and service design
Photo by Nikola Bikar on Unsplash
Theater has been used for decades as a metaphor to highlight the differences between services marketing and product marketing. Standing on the shoulders of giants, I am using my version of the 7P framework to draw parallels between theater productions and service experiences.
(Product, Place, Physical Evidence, People, and Process were covered in previous blog posts.)
Promotion: Integrated marketing, sales, customer education, etc.
For theater productions, this means attracting sponsors, selling tickets, balancing demand and capacity, building loyalty, educating the audience (for example through podcasts and talkbacks), etc. For service providers, the equivalent would be carrying out integrated marketing activities before, during, and after the delivery of the service to attract, retain, and grow the right customers. To balance demand and capacity, service providers can either adjust capacity to demand or shape demand patterns (e.g., by shrinking or stimulating demand through innovative pricing strategies) (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016).
Price: Revenue streams, pricing strategies, etc.
For for-profit theaters, the main revenue streams are corporate sponsorships, membership fees, ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, corporate events, etc. An effective pricing strategy for tickets must do two things: attract the right audience(s) to the show and raise sufficient income to make a profit; the difficulty is that these two aims are often at odds. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the theater typically attracts multiple audiences, which may require multiple pricing strategies. (Caird, 2012). Service providers can utilize a wide range of business models, from freemium services to multi-sided platforms. Just like theaters, service providers need to determine the right pricing strategy (or strategies) based on costs, perceived value, and the competition (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016).
Work is theater
Taking the theater metaphor one step further, Joseph Pine and James Gilmore published the influential book Welcome to the Experience Economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage in 1999. To them, theater is not a metaphor (‘work as theater’), it is a model (‘work is theater’). Workers are on stage and must be directed to act accordingly.
The authors argue that companies compete not by making better products or by delivering better services but by staging better experiences. A ‘good’ experience is perceived to be meaningful, memorable, and ultimately transformative (creating a better version of ourselves).
Pine and Gilmore (1999) identified four forms of theater: platform theater, street theater, matching theater, and improv theater. For example, platform theater is the traditional theater where the script does not vary, the performance takes place in front of the audience, and the audience has little to no input into the performance. In improv theater, the actors think on their feet, responding to new and changing demands from the onlookers. According to the authors, all four types of theater have their place in the business world.
Pros and cons
Just like any metaphor, theater puts the spotlight on certain aspects of the production and delivery of services (and neglects or downplays others).
Advantages
Highlights the three-act structure of service experiences (acts and scenes)
Highlights the importance of roles and scripts to plan, manage, and control behaviors
Highlights the importance of place and physical evidence to manage expectations and determine service quality
Highlights the contribution of backstage/invisible aspects to the effective delivery of services
Highlights the need for a visionary and creative artistic director to set the vision and bring all of the elements together
Highlights the importance of cross-capability collaboration to plan, design, stage, and support live performances
Highlights the importance of enabling processes to attract, retain, and grow the right talent (casting and rehearsals)
Highlights the importance of customer education (to understand and enjoy the experience)
Highlights the need to balance demand and capacity (e.g., through innovative pricing strategies)
Disadvantages
Does not work as well for services that are highly personalized and customized (which require customers to become co-creators)
Does not work as well for services based on automation and self-service
The audience typically plays a more passive role in theater performances than in high-contact service experiences
Most service providers do not have the equivalent of the artistic director
References
Caird, J. (2012). Theatre tickets: When is the price right? The Guardian.
Pine, J. & Gilmore, J. (1999). Welcome to the Experience Economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage. Harvard Business School Press.
Wirtz, J. & Lovelock, C. (2016). Services Marketing: People, technology, strategy (8th ed.). World Scientific Publishing.
3/3
Bringing down the house • 2
Theatre as a metaphor in services marketing and service design
Photo by Nikola Bikar on Unsplash
Theater has been used for decades as a metaphor to highlight the differences between services marketing and product marketing. Standing on the shoulders of giants, I am using my version of the 7P framework to draw parallels between theater productions and service experiences.
(Product, Place, and Physical Evidence were covered in the previous blog post.)
People: Customers, frontline employees, backstage teams
The audience. For service experiences, the equivalent would be customers and other participants. Far from playing a passive role, customers are often (heavily) engaged in the co-production and co-delivery of the service; in essence, customers become partial employees (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016).
Actors/performers. For service experiences, the equivalent would be frontline employees interacting with customers to co-produce and co-deliver the service over time. Needless to say, frontline employees are extremely important for the overall perception and performance of the service (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016).
The artistic director. In the world of theater, the director interprets the playwright’s script; sets the creative vision for the production; hires the right artistic and technical talent; plans the production together with dramaturgs, choreographers, designers, and technicians; runs rehearsals and provides critique; and ultimately coordinates all elements into the finished production. In service organizations, the equivalent is arguably hard to find – perhaps the visionary, people-centered CX leader, CMO, or CEO?
Many other people are involved in planning, designing, staging, and supporting live performances – such as the producer, the production manager, the stage manager, the music director, the choreographer, the dramaturg, the costume designer, the lighting designer, the set designer, the sound designer, the technical director, the master electrician, the master carpenter, the sound engineer, the props master, the build crew, and the run crew. In service organizations, the equivalent would be multidisciplinary innovation & design teams (for envisioning, designing, and piloting new or revamped services), cross-functional technology teams (for building digital products and digitally-enabled services), and cross-functional service delivery teams (for co-producing and co-delivering services with the customers).
Process: Enabling and core processes for service production & delivery
Production and delivery processes. From the customer’s perspective, live performances and services are experiences. From the provider’s perspective, theatrical productions and services are processes that need to be designed and managed to deliver the desired customer experience. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016) These co-production and co-delivery processes can be designed (or redesigned) using techniques/tools such as value stream mapping, flowcharting, service blueprinting, and process mapping. Identifying potential fail points at the design stage and designing ‘fail-proof’ services can greatly reduce the frequency and severity of service failures (Shostack, 1984).
Onstage/visible and backstage/invisible components. Back in 1982, Lynn Shostack (1984) introduced the service blueprint, emphasizing the need to include the invisible or hidden aspects of the service delivery which may impact the overall performance (in terms of service productivity and quality). While she did not explicitly use the theater metaphor, the blueprint was split into two sections divided by the ‘line of visibility.’ In 2007, Mary Jo Bitner showed the evolution of Shostack’s original service blueprint into five interconnected components (imagine layers, stacks, or swimlanes): Physical Evidence, Customer Actions, Onstage Contact Employee Actions, Backstage Contact Employee Actions, and Support Processes (Bitner et al., 2007).
Roles and scripts. Taking a leaf from theater production and performers, employees and customers take on specific roles, act out their parts, and stay in character following scripts, conventions, social norms, unwritten rules, etc. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016). Service scripts determine the sequences of behavior employees (and customers) are expected to learn and follow during service production and delivery. To reduce variability and ensure uniform quality, many service dramas are tightly scripted. Highly customizable services typically require heavy customer involvement and more flexible scripts. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016) On the flip side, scripts might (a) encourage ‘mindless’ and ‘habitual’ behaviors, and/or (b) make employees less attentive to non-verbal cues from customers (Harris et al., 2003).
Since high-contact services and experiences are so dependent on face-to-face interactions between customers and employees, two enabling processes worth highlighting are casting and rehearsals.
Casting. The artistic director works with the casting director to find the right people for the roles. They pay attention to training, experience, and past accomplishments; physical characteristics and vocal technique; personality traits, personal liveliness, and stage presence; ability to understand the play; suitability for the style of play; and general attitude, cooperativeness, and ‘directability.’ In service organizations, the equivalent to casting would be attracting, recruiting, and onboarding the right talent as well as staffing the service delivery teams with the right people across the organization.
Rehearsals. In rehearsals, actors interpret the script, rehearse their parts, memorize lines, discover new avenues of interpretation, etc. In service organizations, the equivalent to rehearsals would be team building, training, feedback, recognition, incentives, etc., to motivate and engage employees.
(To be continued)
References
Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L., & Morgan F.N. (2007). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. Center for Services Leadership, Arizona State University.
Harris R., Harris K. & Baron S. (2003). Theatrical service experiences: Dramatic script development with employees. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14, 184–99.
Shostack, L. (1984). Designing services that deliver. Harvard Business Review.
Wirtz, J. & Lovelock, C. (2016). Services Marketing: People, technology, strategy (8th ed.). World Scientific Publishing.
2/3
Bringing down the house • 1
Theatre as a metaphor in services marketing and service design
Photo by Nikola Bikar on Unsplash
Theater has been used for decades as a metaphor to highlight the differences between services marketing and product marketing.
According to my research, Stephen Grove and Raymond Fisk (1983) were the first to publish an in-depth research paper about services as theater; more papers and articles were to follow in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s (Grove & Fisk, 1983, 1989, 2004; Grove et al., 1992). The theater metaphor is considered particularly apt for restaurants, hotels, airlines, hospitals, and other high-contact service providers serving many people simultaneously (Grove & Fisk, 1983; Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010).
In the world of services marketing, services are co-produced and co-delivered over time in a sequence of encounters between customers and service providers. (These encounters are often called ‘moments of truth’ – a bullfighting term and a metaphor in its own right.) Because of the intangible nature of services, both mentally and physically, it is deemed important to provide tangible cues or evidence to help customers manage their expectations and determine the effectiveness of the experience. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010)
Standing on the shoulders of giants (Grove & Fisk, 1992; Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010; Morgan et al., 2008; Fanning, 2020), I will use my version of the 7P framework (the extended marketing mix for services) to draw parallels between theater productions and service experiences. The irony is not lost on me – the original scholars of services and relationship marketing in the 1980s and 1990s wanted to mount a serious challenge to the product-focused marketing mix paradigm (Grönroos, 1994).
Product: Customer offering and customer experience
The performance. In the world of theater, the core product is arguably the play/show/performance itself. Supplementary services wrapped around the product such as online reservations, seating areas, and talkbacks make it easier for the audience to discover, book, pay for, enjoy, and digest the experience. (Adapted from Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016.)
Acts. The performance can be divided into a number of acts, typically three. While service experiences do not necessarily follow the three-act structure of plays (e.g., The Setup, The Confrontation, The Resolution), it is common to divide the end-to-end customer experience into three stages or phases: the pre-delivery experience, the delivery experience, and the post-delivery experience (e.g., the pre-flight experience, the inflight experience, and the post-flight experience) (Bau, 2013). A five-stage alternative is Doblin’s landmark Compelling Experience Model (Attraction, Entry, Engagement, Exit, Extension) from 1997 and the subsequent 5E’s model (Entice, Enter, Engage, Exit, Extend) (Doblin Group, 2020).
Scenes. Each act can in turn be divided into a number of scenes. For service experiences, the equivalent would be customer activities (e.g., discussing with family members potential holiday destinations), customer–provider interactions (e.g., booking the flight online), and customer–employee interactions (e.g., being served dinner onboard the flight).
Place + Physical Evidence: Service channels, service environments, tangible evidence
Onstage is the part of the theater on which the acting takes place, in full view of the audience. The set design shows the audience where the action takes place, but can also communicate abstract concepts such as themes and symbols. A wide range of scenic devices such as backdrops, projections, flats, furnishings, props, lighting, sound effects, music, temperature, and aroma are used to convey a sense of place, time, mood, and atmosphere. The equivalent of the onstage area in high-contact service experiences is the service environment (serviscape) in terms of exterior design, interior design, layout, customer flows, wayfinding, merchandising, ambient conditions, thematics, etc. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016). Some service experiences may take place in multiple, interconnected environments or settings (like an airport or shopping mall).
Backstage is the area of the theater hidden from the audience’s view. This is where the technicians operate equipment to control lighting, sound, and other aspects of the set during the performance. Other backstage areas include dressing rooms, green rooms, and storage areas. For service experiences, frontline employees are enabled and empowered by data, information, tools, etc., powered by backstage teams, intangible processes, and ‘hidden in plain sight’ systems.
Other places and physical evidence for theatrical productions are branded and non-branded touchpoints such as social media, apps, websites, marketing collateral, printed programs, tickets, uniforms, press/media campaigns, and sponsorships.
(To be continued)
References
Bau, R. (2013, October). What it takes to become a superb service designer. SX 2013 [Adaptive Path’s Service Experience conference], San Francisco, CA.
Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L., & Morgan F.N. (2007). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. Center for Services Leadership, Arizona State University.
Doblin Group. (2020). Doblin’s journey.
Fanning, S. (2020). The circle of satisfaction. The metaphor business as theatre. The Marketing Concept.
Grove S.J. & Fisk R.P. (1983). The dramaturgy of services exchange: An analytical framework for services marketing. In: Berry, L.T., Berry, L.L., Shostak, G.L., & Upah, G.D. (Eds.), Emerging perspectives in services marketing. American Marketing Association.
Grove S.J. & Fisk R.P. (1989). Impression management in services marketing: A dramaturgical perspective. In: Giacalone, R. & Rosenfeld, P. (Eds.), Impression management in the organization. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grove S.J., Fisk R.P. & Bitner M.J. (1992). Dramatizing the service experience: A managerial approach. In: Swartz, T.A., Brown, S., & Bowen, D. (Eds.), Advances in services marketing and management. JAI Press.
Grove S.J. & Fisk R.P. (2004). Service theater: An analytical framework for services marketing. In: Lovelock, C.H. & Wirtz, J., Services marketing (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Grönroos, C. (1994). From marketing mix to relationship marketing. Management Decision, 32(2), 4–20.
Morgan, M., Watson, P., & Hemmington, N. (2008). Drama in the dining room: Theatrical perspectives on the foodservice encounter. Journal of Foodservice, 19, 111–118.
Wirtz, J. & Lovelock, C. (2016). Services Marketing: People, technology, strategy (8th ed.). World Scientific Publishing.
1/3
Comparing & contrasting innovation & change roles
How designers drive innovation & change
Based on my consulting and teaching experience, service designers perform seven critical roles on complex, multi-faceted innovation projects: The Empathizer, The Sensemaker, The Creator, The Maker, The Navigator, The Storyteller, and The Servant Leader (Bau, 2013, 2020). A specific mix of roles is required for each phase of (or mode of activity in) the innovation process.
As mentioned in a previous blog post, the core roles for explorative, generative, and evaluative research are The Empathizer, The Sensemaker, The Maker, and The Storyteller. The core roles for ideation, concepting, prototyping, and piloting are The Creator, The Maker, and The Storyteller. The core roles for strategy development, value case development, and implementation planning are The Navigator, The Servant Leader, and The Storyteller. Finally, the core role for project initiations, recruitment, onboarding, process coaching, project tracking, post-mortems, etc., is The Servant Leader.
Let’s compare and contrast the 7 roles of service designers with the ‘designerly’ innovation and change roles identified by Kelley & Littman (2005), Yee et al. (2017), and IIT Institute of Design (2020).
Kelley & Littman (2005) identify ten roles people can play in organizations to foster innovation: The Anthropologist, The Experimenter, The Cross-Pollinator, The Hurdler, The Collaborator, The Director, The Experience Architect, The Set Designer, The Caregiver, and The Storyteller. For example, The Anthropologist ventures into the field to observe how people interact with products, services, and experiences to come up with new innovations. According to the authors, individuals should be encouraged to take on multiple roles and constantly switch between them as required.
Yee et al. (2017) identify seven roles to drive innovation and change within organizations: Cultural Catalyst, Framework Maker, Humanizer, Power Broker, Friendly Challenger, Technology Enabler, and Community Builder. For example, the Humanizer injects empathy into the process, creating a human dimension to the work and making business challenges easier to relate to and engage in. All seven roles use design to drive organizational transformation at three levels: (1) changing products and services, (2) changing the organization, and (3) changing the nature of organizational transformation.
IIT Institute of Design (2020) identifies four design roles to lead the organization from setting the intent to realizing the effect (the so-called Intent-to-Effect Pathway). The Executive Vision Partner is a visionary, business-oriented design leader who helps the executive leadership articulate its vision. The Vision Interpreter is a strategic design leader who translates the high-level vision into strategic opportunities, problem statements, and action plans. The Action Aligner is a strategic design leader who builds internal alignment around specific opportunities or problems. The Producers create the solutions, offerings, experiences, etc., required to realize the desired effect.
Kelley & Littman (2005), Yee et al. (2017), and IIT Institute of Design (2020) all emphasize the larger change journey organizations embark on, and the substantial impact innovation and design can make to drive change. In summary, this means that organizations need to create a compelling, purpose-driven North Star that people and teams can rally around; clarify the organizational need for innovation; determine the principles and desired behaviors underpinning all initiatives; define roles, responsibilities, and decision-making powers; establish ways to initiate, orchestrate, and balance initiatives across the organization; determine how to assess initiatives, measure performance, and reward desired behaviors; boost organization-wide innovation and design capabilities; smash silos and encourage cross-capability collaboration; and create the right environment (including physical spaces) for continuous collaboration and innovation.
See table 1 for a side-by-side comparison of ‘designerly’ innovation and change roles. These roles are mapped to the Double Diamond design process (Design Council, 2019) and the seven modes of the design innovation process (Kumar, 2013). I have added the pre-phase (or Phase 0) ‘Envision & Enable’ to the Double Diamond to emphasize the need to foster a culture of innovation and empower innovation teams across the organization (before framing and kicking off specific innovation projects).
Table 1. Comparing and contrasting ‘designerly’ innovation & change roles.
Additional takeaways:
Kelley & Littman (2005), Yee et al. (2017), and IIT Institute of Design (2020) all underline the importance of putting people at the heart of the transformation as well as putting users at the heart of the innovation process. This relentless focus on human needs brings a renewed sense of purpose across the organization, works as an antidote to corporate naysayers and devil’s advocates, and helps smash internal silos and diffuse tribal tensions.
IIT Institute of Design (2020) in particular seems to support the ‘directed change’ approach (Bau, 2020) – the top-down, leadership-driven and/or expert-led approach to change, supported by a compelling vision, deliberate action plans, and ‘scientific’ evidence. Employees are spurred or forced into action through a series of planned interventions (whether design-driven or not).
While Kelley & Littman (2005) and Yee et al. (2017) touch upon grassroots initiatives, it would be valuable to specifically discuss the role of design leaders and designers in bottom-up change processes (see Bau, 2020).
Kelley & Littman (2005), Yee et al. (2017), and IIT Institute of Design (2020) all downplay the contribution of specific design disciplines to innovation. While Kelley & Littman (2005) and Yee et al. (2017) highlight the need for researchers, experimenters, and storytellers on innovation projects, many other design competencies/disciplines seem to be missing. IIT Institute of Design (2020) puts the spotlight on design leadership roles.
Despite the emphasis on realizing the executive vision, IIT Institute of Design (2020) covers the post-production/implementation phase (piloting, launching, maintaining, and scaling solutions) in a rather cursory fashion.
The framework for the 7 roles of service designers might be missing a senior design leadership role to foster a culture of systematic innovation across the organization; explore and craft alternative futures; frame high-level innovation opportunities and manage the innovation portfolio; and provide oversight to implementation efforts. Perhaps this role could be a hybrid of The Executive Vision Partner and The Vision Interpreter.
References
Bau, R. (2013, October). What it takes to become a superb service designer. SX 2013 [Adaptive Path’s Service Experience conference], San Francisco, CA.
Bau, R. (2020). Service design to the rescue. The critical roles service designers play in organizational change. Touchpoint, 11(3), 74–79.
Design Council UK. (2019). What is the framework for innovation? Design Council’s evolved Double Diamond.
IIT Institute of Design. (2020). Lead with purpose. Design’s central role in realizing executive vision.
Kelley, T. & Littman, J. (2005). The ten faces of innovation: IDEO’s strategies for beating the devil’s advocate and driving creativity throughout your organization. Currency/Doubleday.
Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. Wiley.
Yee, J., Jefferies, E., & Michlewski, K. (2017). Transformations: 7 roles to drive change by design. BIS.
10/10
Mixing & mapping the 7 roles
The critical roles service designers play on innovation projects
Based on my consulting and teaching experience, service designers perform seven critical roles on complex, multi-faceted innovation projects: The Empathizer, The Sensemaker, The Creator, The Maker, The Navigator, The Storyteller, and The Servant Leader (Bau, 2013, 2020). A specific mix of roles is required for each phase of (or mode of activity in) the innovation process.
The core roles for explorative, generative, and evaluative research are The Empathizer, The Sensemaker, The Maker, and The Storyteller. In addition, The Navigator can help unpack complex ecosystems, organizational needs, and competitive landscapes. The Servant Leader might be needed for participatory design and co-creation/co-design in research endeavors (see, e.g., Sanders & Stappers, 2013).
The core roles for ideation, concepting, prototyping, and piloting are The Creator, The Maker, and The Storyteller. The Sensemaker updates and reframes insights, hypotheses, outcomes, futures, etc., based on feedback and learnings throughout the process. The Servant Leader is needed for participatory design and co-creation/co-design.
The core roles for strategy development, value case development, and implementation planning are The Navigator, The Servant Leader, and The Storyteller. The Servant Leader might also be needed for participatory design and co-creation/co-design.
Finally, The Servant Leader is ultimately responsible for project initiations, recruitment, onboarding, process coaching, project tracking, post-mortems, and the like.
We can easily map the seven roles to Kumar’s model of the design innovation process (2012), IDEO’s Hear-Create-Deliver process (2009), and Design Council UK’s framework for innovation (2019). These models and frameworks show that innovation projects jump back and forth between modes of activity in a non-linear and iterative fashion, and that the innovation team should constantly switch between thinking in abstract ways and making something concrete and tangible. See table 1 below.
Table 1. Mapping the 7 roles of service designers to three common models/frameworks of the innovation process.
References
Bau, R. (2013, October). What it takes to become a superb service designer. SX 2013 [Adaptive Path’s Service Experience conference], San Francisco, CA.
Bau, R. (2020). Service design to the rescue. The critical roles service designers play in organizational change. Touchpoint, 11(3), 74–79.
Design Council UK. (2019). What is the framework for innovation? Design Council’s evolved Double Diamond.
IDEO. (2009). Human Centered Design Toolkit.
Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. Wiley.
Sanders, L. & Stappers, P.J. (2013). Convivial Toolbox: Generative research for the front-end of design. Laurence King Publishing.
9/10
Role 7: The Storyteller
The critical roles service designers play on innovation projects
Based on my consulting and teaching experience, service designers perform seven critical roles on complex, multi-faceted innovation projects: The Empathizer, The Sensemaker, The Creator, The Maker, The Navigator, The Storyteller, and The Servant Leader (Bau, 2013, 2020). For the sake of brevity, each role is explained using three capabilities. For each capability, the service designer carries out specific activities, applies specific methods and tools, and makes specific deliverables/assets.
Let’s take a deep dive into the role of The Storyteller
Three core capabilities to build and master:
Crafting, dramatizing, and telling the right stories (to create shared meaning and drive action)
Collecting, curating, and sharing the right stories
Defining and developing the right ways to engage and interact with audiences
Four valuable toolkits to dip into:
Format: Author(s) > Project phase(s)
Lupton (2017) > Action + Emotion + Sensation
IDEO (2020) > Implementation
LUMA Workplace (2010) > Making
Hines & Bishop (2015) > Acting
Eight useful methods and tools to apply (not exhaustive by any means):
Narrative Arc
Hero’s Journey
Rule of Threes
Emotional Journey
Concept Poster
Video Scenario
Elevator Pitch
Design Fiction
References
Bau, R. (2013, October). What it takes to become a superb service designer. SX 2013 [Adaptive Path’s Service Experience conference], San Francisco, CA.
Bau, R. (2020). Service design to the rescue. The critical roles service designers play in organizational change. Touchpoint, 11(3), 74–79.
Hines, A. & Bishop, P. (2015). Thinking about the future. Guidelines for strategic foresight (2nd ed.). Hinesight.
IDEO. (2020). Design Kit.
LUMA Workplace. (2020). Methods.
Lupton, E. (2017). Design is storytelling. Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum.
8/10
Role 6: The Servant Leader
The critical roles service designers play on innovation projects
Based on my consulting and teaching experience, service designers perform seven critical roles on complex, multi-faceted innovation projects: The Empathizer, The Sensemaker, The Creator, The Maker, The Navigator, The Storyteller, and The Servant Leader (Bau, 2013, 2020). For the sake of brevity, each role is explained using three capabilities. For each capability, the service designer carries out specific activities, applies specific methods and tools, and makes specific deliverables/assets.
Let’s take a deep dive into the role of The Servant Leader
Three core capabilities to build and master:
Planning, facilitating, and leading innovation and collaborative practices
Directing, leading, and empowering innovation and design teams
Defining and building organizational, team and individual capabilities
Four valuable toolkits to dip into:
Format: Author(s) > Project phase(s)
Stickdorn et al. (2018) > Service Design Process and Management + Facilitating Workshops + Making Space
IDEO (2020) > Implementation
Gray et al. (2010) > Games for Opening/Exploring/Closing
Kaner et al. (2014) > Facilitator Fundamentals + Sustainable Agreements + Reaching Closure
Eight useful methods and tools to apply (not exhaustive by any means):
Planning for a Service Design Process
Managing the Service Design Process
Staff Your Project
Start, Stop, Continue
Styles and Roles of Facilitation
Facilitation Techniques
Facilitating in the Groan Zone
Principles for Building Sustainable Agreements
References
Bau, R. (2013, October). What it takes to become a superb service designer. SX 2013 [Adaptive Path’s Service Experience conference], San Francisco, CA.
Bau, R. (2020). Service design to the rescue. The critical roles service designers play in organizational change. Touchpoint, 11(3), 74–79.
Gray et al. (2010). Gamestorming. A playbook for innovators, rulebreakers, and changemakers. O’Reilly Media.
IDEO. (2020). Design Kit.
Kaner et al. (2014). Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Stickdorn et al. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O’Reilly Media.
7/10
Role 5: The Navigator
The critical roles service designers play on innovation projects
Based on my consulting and teaching experience, service designers perform seven critical roles on complex, multi-faceted innovation projects: The Empathizer, The Sensemaker, The Creator, The Maker, The Navigator, The Storyteller, and The Servant Leader (Bau, 2013, 2020). For the sake of brevity, each role is explained using three capabilities. For each capability, the service designer carries out specific activities, applies specific methods and tools, and makes specific deliverables/assets.
Let’s take a deep dive into the role of The Navigator
Three core capabilities to build and master:
Setting strategic directions and creating strategic platforms
Defining, tracking, and evaluating business and stakeholder impact
Identifying roadblocks, defining requirements, and mobilizing resources for implementation and sustained success
Five valuable toolkits to dip into:
Format: Author(s) > Project phase(s)
Kumar (2013) > Sense Intent + Know Context + Realize Offerings
Gray et al. (2010) > Games for Exploring/Closing
IDEO (2020) > Implementation
Stickdorn et al. (2018) > Implementation
Hines & Bishop (2015) > Visioning + Planning
Eight useful methods and tools to apply (not exhaustive by any means):
Planning for Human-Centered Implementation
Implementation Roadmap
Vision Statement
Service Blueprint
Explore Scalability
Measure and Evaluate
Capabilities Quicksheet
Funding Strategy
References
Bau, R. (2013, October). What it takes to become a superb service designer. SX 2013 [Adaptive Path’s Service Experience conference], San Francisco, CA.
Bau, R. (2020). Service design to the rescue. The critical roles service designers play in organizational change. Touchpoint, 11(3), 74–79.
Gray et al. (2010). Gamestorming. A playbook for innovators, rulebreakers, and changemakers. O’Reilly Media.
Hines, A. & Bishop, P. (2015). Thinking about the future. Guidelines for strategic foresight (2nd ed.). Hinesight.
IDEO. (2020). Design Kit.
Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. Wiley.
Stickdorn et al. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O’Reilly Media.
6/10
Role 4: The Maker
The critical roles service designers play on innovation projects
Based on my consulting and teaching experience, service designers perform seven critical roles on complex, multi-faceted innovation projects: The Empathizer, The Sensemaker, The Creator, The Maker, The Navigator, The Storyteller, and The Servant Leader (Bau, 2013, 2020). For the sake of brevity, each role is explained using three capabilities. For each capability, the service designer carries out specific activities, applies specific methods and tools, and makes specific deliverables/assets.
Let’s take a deep dive into the role of The Maker
Three core capabilities to build and master:
Designing, executing, and interpreting experiments
Prototyping, validating, and refining concepts
Building, launching, and refining pilots
Five valuable toolkits to dip into:
Format: Author(s) > Project phase(s)
LUMA Workplace (2020) > Making
IDEO (2020) > Ideation + Implementation
Kumar (2013) > Realize Offerings
Stickdorn et al. (2018) > Prototyping
Hines & Bishop (2015) > Forecasting
Eight useful methods and tools to apply (not exhaustive by any means):
Paper Prototyping
Desktop Walkthrough
Behavioral Prototyping (Roleplay)
Cardboard Prototyping
Schematic Diagramming
Wizard of Oz
Interactive Click Modelling
Pilot Development and Testing
References
Bau, R. (2013, October). What it takes to become a superb service designer. SX 2013 [Adaptive Path’s Service Experience conference], San Francisco, CA.
Bau, R. (2020). Service design to the rescue. The critical roles service designers play in organizational change. Touchpoint, 11(3), 74–79.
Hines, A. & Bishop, P. (2015). Thinking about the future. Guidelines for strategic foresight (2nd ed.). Hinesight.
IDEO. (2020). Design Kit.
Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. Wiley.
LUMA Workplace. (2020). Methods.
Stickdorn et al. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O’Reilly Media.
5/10
Role 3: The Creator
The critical roles service designers play on innovation projects
Based on my consulting and teaching experience, service designers perform seven critical roles on complex, multi-faceted innovation projects: The Empathizer, The Sensemaker, The Creator, The Maker, The Navigator, The Storyteller, and The Servant Leader (Bau, 2013, 2020). For the sake of brevity, each role is explained using three capabilities. For each capability, the service designer carries out specific activities, applies specific methods and tools, and makes specific deliverables/assets.
Let’s take a deep dive into the role of The Creator
Three core capabilities to build and master:
Generating ideas and designing concepts for behavior change
Generating ideas and designing concepts for tools, products, and services (to get the job done)
Screening and assessing ideas and concepts for desirability, feasibility, viability, sustainability, differentiation, etc.
Six valuable toolkits to dip into:
Format: Author(s) > Project phase(s)
LUMA Workplace (2020) > Making + Understanding
IDEO (2020) > Ideation
Gray et al. (2010) > Games for Opening/Exploring/Closing
Kumar (2013) > Explore Concepts + Frame Solutions
Stickdorn et al. (2018) > Ideation
Hines & Bishop (2015) > Forecasting
Eight useful methods and tools to apply (not exhaustive by any means):
How Might We
Creative Matrix
Alterative Worlds
Round Robin
Octopus Clustering
Concept-Linking Map
Storyboarding
Impact & Effort Matrix
References
Bau, R. (2013, October). What it takes to become a superb service designer. SX 2013 [Adaptive Path’s Service Experience conference], San Francisco, CA.
Bau, R. (2020). Service design to the rescue. The critical roles service designers play in organizational change. Touchpoint, 11(3), 74–79.
Gray et al. (2010). Gamestorming. A playbook for innovators, rulebreakers, and changemakers. O’Reilly Media.
Hines, A. & Bishop, P. (2015). Thinking about the future. Guidelines for strategic foresight (2nd ed.). Hinesight.
IDEO. (2020). Design Kit.
Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. Wiley.
LUMA Workplace. (2020). Methods.
Stickdorn et al. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O’Reilly Media.
4/10
Role 2: The Sensemaker
The critical roles service designers play on innovation projects
Based on my consulting and teaching experience, service designers perform seven critical roles on complex, multi-faceted innovation projects: The Empathizer, The Sensemaker, The Creator, The Maker, The Navigator, The Storyteller, and The Servant Leader (Bau, 2013, 2020). For the sake of brevity, each role is explained using three capabilities. For each capability, the service designer carries out specific activities, applies specific methods and tools, and makes specific deliverables/assets.
Let’s take a deep dive into the role of The Sensemaker
Three core capabilities to build and master:
Uncovering and contextualizing insights across all research methods and sources
Framing/reframing assumptions, hypotheses, problems, and opportunities
Defining possible service outcomes/futures
Five valuable toolkits to dip into:
Format: Author(s) > Project phase(s)
LUMA Workplace (2020) > Understanding
IDEO (2020) > Inspiration
Kumar (2013) > Frame Insights + Frame Solutions
Stickdorn et al. (2018) > Research
Hines & Bishop (2015) > Forecasting + Visioning
Eight useful methods and tools to apply (not exhaustive by any means):
Observations to Insights
User Journey Map
Generating Jobs-to-be-Done Insights
Semantic Profiles
Frame Your Design Challenges
Design Principles Generation
Align on Your Impact Goals
Foresight Scenario
References
Bau, R. (2013, October). What it takes to become a superb service designer. SX 2013 [Adaptive Path’s Service Experience conference], San Francisco, CA.
Bau, R. (2020). Service design to the rescue. The critical roles service designers play in organizational change. Touchpoint, 11(3), 74–79.
Hines, A. & Bishop, P. (2015). Thinking about the future. Guidelines for strategic foresight (2nd ed.). Hinesight.
IDEO. (2020). Design Kit.
Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. Wiley.
LUMA Workplace. (2020). Methods.
Stickdorn et al. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O’Reilly Media.
3/10
Role 1: The Empathizer
The critical roles service designers play on innovation projects
Based on my consulting and teaching experience, service designers perform seven critical roles on complex, multi-faceted innovation projects: The Empathizer, The Sensemaker, The Creator, The Maker, The Navigator, The Storyteller, and The Servant Leader (Bau, 2013, 2020). For the sake of brevity, each role is explained using three capabilities. For each capability, the service designer carries out specific activities, applies specific methods and tools, and makes specific deliverables/assets.
Let’s take a deep dive into the role of The Empathizer
Three core capabilities to build and master:
Understanding complex (eco)systems and problems
Understanding organizations and competitive landscapes
Understanding actors and activities in context
Five valuable toolkits to dip into:
Format: Author(s) > Project phase(s)
LUMA Workplace (2020) > Looking + Understanding
IDEO (2020) > Inspiration
Kumar (2013) > Know Context + Know People
Stickdorn et al. (2018) > Research
Hines & Bishop (2015) > Framing + Scanning
Eight useful methods and tools to apply (not exhaustive by any means):
ERAF Systems Diagram
Ten Types of Innovation Diagnostics
Cultural Web
Business Model Canvas
Walk-a-Mile Immersion
POEMS
Abstraction Laddering
Problem-Sizing Canvas
References
Bau, R. (2013, October). What it takes to become a superb service designer. SX 2013 [Adaptive Path’s Service Experience conference], San Francisco, CA.
Bau, R. (2020). Service design to the rescue. The critical roles service designers play in organizational change. Touchpoint, 11(3), 74–79.
Hines, A. & Bishop, P. (2015). Thinking about the future. Guidelines for strategic foresight (2nd ed.). Hinesight.
IDEO. (2020). Design Kit.
Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. Wiley.
LUMA Workplace. (2020). Methods.
Stickdorn et al. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O’Reilly Media.
2/10
The 7 roles
The critical roles service designers play on innovation projects
Based on my consulting and teaching experience, service designers perform seven critical roles on complex, multi-faceted innovation projects: The Empathizer, The Sensemaker, The Creator, The Maker, The Navigator, The Storyteller, and The Servant Leader (Bau, 2013, 2020).
Generally speaking, service design teams will need to perform all seven roles throughout the innovation and design process in order to achieve desired outcomes. On an individual level, some service designers will want to ‘jump back and forth’ between multiple roles, and some may prefer to specialize in two or three. Few designers, if any, can arguably perform all seven roles to a high professional standard.
For the sake of brevity, each role will be explained with the help of three capabilities. For each capability, the service designer carries out specific activities, applies specific methods and tools, and produces specific deliverables/assets. For example, The Empathizer will use specific research tools, techniques and prompts to uncover the hidden motivations behind consumer behavior in a certain context.
We can easily map these seven roles to Kumar’s model of the design innovation process (2012), IDEO’s Hear-Create-Deliver process (2009), and Design Council UK’s framework for innovation (2019). These models and frameworks show that innovation projects jump back and forth between modes of activity in a non-linear and iterative fashion, and that the innovation team should constantly switch between thinking in abstract ways and making something concrete and tangible.
The seven roles will be described in more detail in subsequent blog posts. In addition, I will compare and contrast my roles with similar descriptions in the innovation and design space.
References
Bau, R. (2013, October). What it takes to become a superb service designer. SX 2013 [Adaptive Path’s Service Experience conference], San Francisco, CA.
Bau, R. (2020). Service design to the rescue. The critical roles service designers play in organizational change. Touchpoint, 11(3), 74–79.
Design Council UK. (2019). What is the framework for innovation? Design Council’s evolved Double Diamond.
Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. Wiley.
IDEO. (2009). Human-centered design toolkit. IDEO.
1/10
More about acceleration
Where to learn more about innovation acceleration
Mastering the art of acceleration means knowing how (and when) to change the speed and direction of the innovation process.
Borrowing from the world of physics, acceleration is the name we give to any process where the velocity changes. Since velocity means speed with a direction, leaders can accelerate innovation in one of three ways: by speeding up, by slowing down, or by changing direction. (Inspired by Khan Academy, n.d.)
Five good sources about innovation acceleration to learn more:
Bolton, R. (2020, July 29). Slow down to avoid these three innovation speed traps [blog]. Forbes.
Ford, S. & Rodriguez Tarditi, F. (2017, June 26). Benefits of taking a slower approach to innovation [article]. Harvard Business Review.
Lifshitz-Assaf, H. & Lebovitz, S. (2020, September 15). Embrace a little chaos when innovating under pressure [article]. Harvard Business Review.
re:Work. (n.d.). Guide: Understand team effectiveness. Google.
Rigby, D. (2020, July 20). The agile organization: Balancing efficiency and innovation (even in tough times) [webinar]. Harvard Business Review.
Too fuzzy. Too myopic.
How to tighten up or loosen the innovation process
Mastering the art of acceleration means knowing how (and when) to change the speed and direction of the innovation process.
Borrowing from the world of physics, acceleration is the name we give to any process where the velocity changes. Since velocity means speed with a direction, leaders can accelerate innovation in one of three ways: by speeding up, by slowing down, or by changing direction. (Inspired by Khan Academy, n.d.)
Here are eight strategies to purposefully change the direction of the innovation process to align with organizational needs and purpose:
To ‘tighten up’ the innovation process (if deemed too fuzzy, diffused, or diversified):
Craft overarching, human-centered innovation quest, purpose, or North Star for leaders and teams to rally around
Create innovation principles, guidelines, toolkits, performance indicators, and other guardrails
Refocus innovation portfolios, reprioritize innovation projects, and reallocate resources in a purpose-led way
Kill ideas and terminate projects that no longer fit or align with new learnings, new opportunities, new goals, new needs, etc.
To ‘loosen’ the innovation process (if deemed too myopic, rigid, or one-sided):
Identify portfolio gaps based on long-term consumer trends, emerging technology, and industry disruptions
Challenge assumptions, reframe problems, and revise hypotheses through research, experimentation, and prototyping
Promote crowdsourcing, collaborative play, co-creation, continuous feedback, etc.
Encourage self-organization, self-direction, intrapreneurship, and internal coopetition
Too fast.
How to slow down the innovation process
Mastering the art of acceleration means knowing how (and when) to change the speed and direction of the innovation process.
Borrowing from the world of physics, acceleration is the name we give to any process where the velocity changes. Since velocity means speed with a direction, leaders can accelerate innovation in one of three ways: by speeding up, by slowing down, or by changing direction. (Inspired by Khan Academy, n.d.)
Here are eight strategies to purposefully slow down the process to make sure innovation efforts and projects are on (the right) track:
Uncover long-term opportunities for industry and market disruption (rather than ‘just’ chasing short-term value creation)
Incorporate more inputs, perspectives, and voices to the process (rather than jumping to conclusions and making rash decisions)
Re-analyze and re-synthesize the research data multiple times to uncover insights that are truly actionable (rather than settling for ‘good enough’)
Use lateral thinking to systematically explore the problem and solution spaces (rather than settling for the ‘first best’ problem statement or idea)
Insert ample opportunities for experimentation, prototyping, and stakeholder feedback into the process
Invest more time in building relationships and commitment with project stakeholders throughout the process
Actively promote, assess, and improve the emotional, mental, and physical health of leaders and teams
Identify strategic opportunities to stop, reflect, learn, and adapt throughout the process