Content uploaded by Anita Zehrer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anita Zehrer on Dec 23, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
Service design: Suggesting
a qualitative multistep
approach for analyzing
and examining theme
park experiences
Jakob Trischler
Southern Cross University, Australia
Anita Zehrer
Management Center Innsbruck, Austria
Abstract
This article proposes and applies a multistep qualitative approach for evaluating service experiences,
adapted from the emerging field of service design, in a theme park. It is argued that service design offers
effective methods for analyzing and developing complex service experiences. By applying ‘persona’,
‘observation’, ‘guided interviews’, and ‘visualization’ methods to a theme park at the Gold Coast,
Australia, it is found that the multistep approach delivers comprehensive insights into customer experi-
ences and identifies critical incidents that take place during the service experience. As such, this study
suggests a new method of how to analyze and evaluate service experiences.
Keywords
service experience, service design, persona, customer journey, observation, theme park
Introduction
Today’s so-called ‘experience generation’ on
one side seeks intensity, such as life-hype, impul-
sive, and fast experiences, and on the other side
seeks calmness, authenticity, and ‘soft tourism’
experiences, such as trekking, mountain hiking,
ocean cruising, or beach relaxation (Pikkemaat
and Schuckert, 2006, 2007). Pine and Gilmore
(1999: 12) describe experiences as the fourth
economic offering or, in other words, ‘events
that engage individuals in a personal way’. They
further indicate that ‘while the experience itself
lacks tangibility, people greatly value the offer-
ing because its value lies within them, where it
remains long afterwards’ (Pine and Gilmore,
1999: 12).
In particular, theme parks in various forms
fulfill new leisure and tourism trends and have
therefore become a favorite mode of mass enter-
tainment in recent years all over the world (Liu,
2008; Milman, 2009; Williams and Buswell,
2003). Theme park spending worldwide is
expected to grow at a 4.6%compound annual
rate during the 2007–2011 period, from US
$22.8 billion in 2006 to US$28.5 billion in
2011 (Milman, 2009).
The services provided by theme parks are
multioption, time saving, emotional, and sense
giving and meet the needs of what the current lit-
erature refers to as cocooning, wherein locations
close to home become the basis for leisure activ-
ities (Cooper et al., 2008; Wong and Cheung,
1999). This cocooning behavior results from
social trends, such as late marriages and an
Corresponding author:
Jakob Trischler, Southern Cross Business School, Southern
Cross University, Locked Mail Bag #4, Coolangatta, 4225,
Queensland, Australia
Email: jakob.trischler@scu.edu.au
Journal of Vacation Marketing
18(1) 57–71
ªThe Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1356766711430944
jvm.sagepub.com
increased numbers of childless households, the
adoption of family values, and the search for
safety and security (Cooper et al., 2008).
Growing demand in the service experience sec-
tor exacerbates the importance of developing
knowledge that assists in analyzing and designing
service experiences. However, according to
Gummesson (2005, 2006, 2007), the service
marketing and service quality literature has its
limitations, especially when examining and eval-
uating customers’ experiences. Gummesson
(2006) claims that just picking a few variables
from received theory, hypothesizing some insu-
lated causality between two or three variables,
and testing them with perceptual survey data
using statistical techniques will only result in
superficiality and emptiness: ‘Such research
may offer face validity and reliability but not
genuine validity and relevance’ (Gummesson,
2006: 169). Due to the complexity of service
experiences, the input of real-world data in the
forms of words, pictures, and videos is required
to better understand and express reality.
This article suggests the use of service design
tools for analyzing and visualizing the complex-
ity of service experiences in theme parks. We
argue that the complexity of service experiences
in theme parks derives from the following four
factors: (1) user centricity, because the visitor
is a central part of the service consumption
(Battarbee et al., 2008); (2) experience cocrea-
tion by other visitors (Lovelock et al., 2007);
(3) different target groups with diverse motiva-
tions, behaviors, and expectations (Williams and
Buswell, 2003); and (4) a series of experience
cues during the service process whereby every
cue needs to fulfill the theme in order to enable
the visitor to be immersed within the theme park
experience (Pine and Gilmore, 1999).
This article, therefore, distances itself from
other experience evaluations suggested in a num-
ber of studies on theme parks (e.g. Bigne` et al.,
2005; Hickman and Mayer, 2003; Lewis and
Clacher, 2001; Milman, 2009; Pikkemaat and
Schuckert, 2006; Wanhill, 2002) and instead
suggests a multistep qualitative approach, which
is argued to enable a holistic analysis and evalua-
tion of the service experience. This new method
is applied on a theme park at the Gold Coast,
Australia to test its practicability. Its emphasis
thereby lies in the following steps: (1) the use
of personas as a new method for target group
analysis, (2) the use of observation to identify
experience cues adapted from Berry et al.
(2006), (3) the use of guided interviews to
identify critical incidents adapted from Bitner
et al. (1990), and (4) the visualization of results
to make service experiences manageable (Diana
et al., 2009).
The article is structured as follows. First, the
emerging field of service design is discussed.
Second, after reviewing theme parks in general,
this article emphasizes the theme park product
in combination with experience cues. By doing
so, the characteristics of theme park experiences
are identified. Third, in order to address the com-
plexity of theme park experiences, a multistep
approach is proposed. This article then describes
the application of the proposed multistep
approach on a theme park as a single-case study
and outlines the main findings during the appli-
cation. Next, the application of the service design
methods, as well as the multistep approach as a
whole, is discussed separately. Finally, after out-
lining the limitations, the main results of the
study are summarized in the conclusion.
Literature review
Service design
The field of design has changed dramatically
during the last decade (Koivisto, 2009; Mager
and Gais, 2009; Moritz, 2005). Previously,
design was seen as a profession that operates in
specialized areas, such as graphic design, prod-
uct design, and fashion design (Moritz, 2005).
During the last 10 years, the field changed its
scope from ‘Design Centered Design’ to ‘User
Centered Design’ (Mager, 2009). As such, ser-
vice design goes beyond designing artifacts and
is no longer limited to the design of tangible
products only but designs complex and interac-
tive experiences, processes, and systems. These
developments lead to the emergence of ‘service
design’, which builds on service-dominant logic
(Gro¨nroos, 2006a; Vargo and Lusch, 2004) and
services marketing (Gro¨nroos, 2006b; Vargo
and Lusch, 2004). Service design uses participa-
tory design, which makes clients part of the
project (Battarbee et al., 2008) and adapts spe-
cial tools and methods from service marketing
such as blueprinting and service mapping
(Design Council, 2004; Hollins and Shinkins,
2006; Zehrer, 2009).
The key characteristic of service design is
argued to be the visualization of experiences
conferring tangibility by considering the emo-
tional context, which consists of the five senses
and the personal meaning held by the customer
58 Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(1)
during the design process (Aaltonen, 2010; Oja-
salo, 1999; Parker and Heapy, 2006; Stickdorn
and Zehrer, 2009; Zomerdijk and Voss, 2010).
Furthermore, service design presupposes that
customers do not live isolated lives; instead, they
consume a mix of many goods and services in all
sorts of combinations (Gummesson, 2005).
Because service designers work visually, the
transformation of ideas and processes into visible
dimensions throughout all phases of the design
process makes processes manageable and ideas
comprehensible (Mager, 2009). Service design,
therefore, can be described as a multidisciplinary
and systematic approach that copes with the
functionality and complexity of services by
visualizing their systems and processes as well
as by placing the client at the heart of the process.
By doing so, potential problem areas can be iden-
tified as a starting point for creating favorable
interfaces/experiences for both the user and the
service provider.
Service design tools offer an alternative
to conventional approaches for analyzing and
evaluating service experiences. Apart from the
centrality of user-centered design and cocreation
in service design thinking (Stickdorn and
Schneider, 2010), service design gives profound
insights into how customers experience the ser-
vice, and visualizes the processes that may be
effective for handling the complexity and variety
of service experiences (Segelstro¨m, 2009;
Zomerdijk and Voss, 2010).
Theme parks
The 1955 opening of Disneyland in Anaheim,
California was a turning point in the attraction
industry, wherein a gated facility emphasized
themes or stories coordinatedwitharchitecture,
landscaping, costumed personnel, rides, shows,
food services, and merchandizing (Milman,
2001; Richards, 2002; Wanhill, 2002). Accord-
ingtotheInternationalAssociationofAmuse-
ment Parks and Attractions (2010), there were
more than 400 amusement parks and traditional
attractions operating in 2006 in the United
States alone, with all kinds of attractions
and themes as well as more than 300 million
visitors and approximately US$11.5 billion of
revenue.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010)
identified 30 theme parks that operate within
Australia. The theme park industry attracts more
than 8.9 million visitors, has a gross income of
AUD$287 million, and employs more than
4150 people. In terms of attendance levels, Aus-
tralian theme parks had an average of 0.5 theme
park visits per person. This is the third highest
rate in the world, behind only the United States
and Japan, which experienced similar levels
of demand at 0.6 theme park visits per person
(Nelson, 2006). These numbers indicate a high
demand for visiting theme parks for recreational
and travel needs in Australia.
In theme park experiences, the user-centered
viewpoint of service design is argued to be of
particular importance because customers are
deeply involved in the consumption process
(Johns and Gyimothy, 2002). It is not about
entertaining customers; it is about engaging
them. Derived from Pine and Gilmore’s (1999)
‘experience realm’, theme park experiences are
mainly escapist experiences in which the cus-
tomer actively participates in an immersed envi-
ronment. This means that the visitor influences
the performance, either actively or passively
(Johns and Gyimothy, 2002).
In order to create escapist experiences, theme
parks need to establish ‘cues’ that consistently
support the theme (Pine and Gilmore, 1999). Each
cue must fulfill the theme in order to enable the
visitor to immerse himself within a dream world
(Pine and Gilmore, 1999). An effective theme
must be concise and compelling, as well as a
driver of the experience’s design elements and
staged events, working toward a unified storyline
that entirely captivates the customer. Without
such a theme, a theme park would merely be a
Table 1. Summary of theme parks in Australia.
Businesses June 2001 Total Visitors Employment June 2001 Gross Income
State (n) (in thousands) (n) (in million AUD$)
Queensland 7 4,590 2,442 203.6
New South Wales 12 2,360 1,496 70.0
Victoria 4 320 72 4.6
Other States 7 1,050 140 8.9
Australia 30 8,320 4,150 287,2
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010).
Trischler and Zehrer 59
collection of rides, games, and refreshments
(Wong and Cheung, 1999). The breakdown of the
theme park product as illustrated in Figure 1,
therefore, suggests that the theme itself is at the
core of the theme park product. The experience
cues thread the theme through the whole service
experience.
The complexity of the theme park product
derives from experience cocreation by other
customers, differing target groups with diverse
motivations, behaviors and expectations, and
a number of experience cues during the visit.
These cues are comparable with touchpoints
and occur in the service interface, which is
where the customer interacts with the organiza-
tion by being part of the service process (Berry
et al., 2006; Moritz, 2005). The service interface
is the platform from which the service experi-
ence is developed.
Building on user-centered thinking, Berry
et al. (2006) claim that customers always have
a service experience when interacting with
an organization. The authors describe these inter-
actions as experience cues, distinguished into
three categories: (1) functional cues regarding
the technical quality or the ‘what’ of the service
experience, (2) mechanical cues coming from the
actual objects or environments and mainly con-
cerning the experience’s sensory design, and
(3) humanic cues derived from the behavior, atti-
tude, and appearance of the service provider.
Thereby, functional cues are argued to influence
the customers’ cognitive or calculative percep-
tion of quality, whereas mechanic and humanic
cues influence the customers’ emotional or
affective perceptions of quality (Berry et al.,
2006). By reviewing the experience cues in the
understanding of Berry et al. (2006) in relation
to theme parks, ‘the theme’ and ‘cocreation’ are
suggested as additional components (Figure 2)
due to the centrality of the theme and the cocrea-
tion of experiences by other visitors.
Proposing a multistep qualitative
approach
It is suggested that service design tools can
manage the complexity and intangibility of service
experiences by applying qualitative research meth-
ods and visualization techniques. The following
Figure 1. The theme park product.
Source: Adapted from Wanhill (2002: 129).
Figure 2. Experience clues in theme parks.
Source: Adapted from Berry et al. (2006: 46).
60 Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(1)
section describes a multistep qualitative approach,
adapted from the emerging field of service design.
Proposed is the combination of personas, observa-
tion, guided interviews, and visualization tech-
niques used to gain comprehensive insight into
customer experiences and identify critical inci-
dents that take place during the service experience.
The proposed combination originates from the
service design literature, which discusses the indi-
vidual tools of ‘personas’, ‘observation’, ‘guided
interviews’, and ‘visualization techniques’ in the
context of analyzing and evaluating services (Kim-
bell and Seidel, 2008; Segelstro¨m, 2009; Stickdorn
and Schneider, 2010).
Persona
In simple terms, a persona is ‘a technique
that employs fictitious users to guide decision
making regarding features, interactions, and aes-
thetics’ (Lidwell et al., 2010: 182). The strength
of the persona technique is argued to be the user-
sensitizing impact, adapted from user-centered
design, which may help designers understand
the user better for further analysis and research
(Burdon, 2006; Lidwell et al., 2010). Personas
are suggested to not only make the target audi-
ence more real to designers but also ensure that
requirements are prioritized to specifically meet
the needs of the users (Stickdorn and Schneider,
2010). The creation of the personas is based on a
small number of archetypal users, and each pro-
file should represent a composite of a subpopu-
lation of users (Lidwell et al., 2010). Each
persona is typically represented with a photo-
graph, name, description, and details about spe-
cific interests and relevant behaviors (Burdon,
2006; Massanari, 2010).
Like most tools of service design, the persona
technique is a new approach. However, it is
increasingly recognized, especially in user-
centered design, because it offers insight regard-
ing customers’ attitudes, behaviors, and interests
(Burdon, 2006; Massanari, 2010; Sanders, 2007).
Observation
The background information gained by using the
persona technique is claimed to give a more com-
prehensive understanding during the analysis
process. Consequently, by using observation or
‘shadowing’ as a second step, the observer may
have a clear picture of the persona in mind when
following the visitor through the service experi-
ence (Stickdorn and Zehrer, 2009). Thereby,
special attention should be paid to body lan-
guage, emotions, and reactions as well as to
influences by other guests and interactions with
employees (Gummesson, 2007).
Guided interviews
In order to understand visitors’ behaviors and
experiences, guided interviews or in-depth inter-
views are suggested as a next step. Conducting
interviews in addition to observation can have
the advantage of allowing research participants
to express ideas in their own words, which may
be essential in order to holistically understand
the customers’ experiences (Gummesson,
2005).
The importance of gaining a holistic view-
point of service experiences is supported by
Edvardsson (1992: 18), who stresses the impor-
tance of identifying critical incidents. In this
study, he uses the ‘Critical Incident Technique’
(CIT) to create an understanding of how cus-
tomers perceive the quality of a given service.
Critical incidents can be defined as ‘specific
interactions between customers and service
firm employees that are especially satisfying
or especially dissatisfying’ (Bitner et al., 1990:
73). Similarly, this article suggests using guided
interviews as a qualitative approach to identify
situations where the service, or any part of
the service process, including the outcome of
that process, clearly differs from the desired ser-
vice experience, which, according to Rust
and Oliver’s (1994) expectancy-disconfirmation-
paradigm (EDP), would be equivalent to negative
disconfirmation.
Visualization
As a final step, the findings should be visualized
by using a customer journey map (Stickdorn and
Schneider, 2010) together with the experience
cues categories adapted from Berry et al.
(2006). Visualization techniques can transform
ideas and processes into visible dimensions that
may create greater clarity about the service
experience (Mager, 2009). A study by Segel-
stro¨m (2009) found that the three main reasons
for service designers using visualizations during
their service design process were as follows: (1)
to articulate insights gained from the collected
data, (2) to communicate insights to clients, and
(3) to retain empathy as a way of keeping the
data ‘‘alive’’ during the process. The most com-
mon visualization techniques used in service
Trischler and Zehrer 61
design include customer journey mapping
andblueprinting(ZomerdijkandVoss,2010).
This study also suggests using customer journey
mapping for illustrating and communicating
findings.
The proposed multistep method as illustrated
in Figure 3 is argued to provide an in-depth and
holistic analysis of service experiences. The
approach proposes the application of different
service design tools and qualitative research.
Qualitative methods are claimed to be more
appropriate than quantitative methods research
when analyzing and examining service experi-
ences. Important in-depth insights may not be
possible through the use of current quantitative
techniques, in which individual companies and
customers are reduced to masses and described
as averages and distributions (Gummesson,
2006; Lidwell et al., 2010). This is supported
by Babbie (2009), who argues that qualitative
methods as used in service design seem to
achieve a higher validity than survey and experi-
mental measurements, especially due to the
very detailed analytical data regarding people’s
attitudes and behaviors. By building on the
described strengths of service design and outlin-
ing the importance of managing theme park
experiences, this article applies the suggested
multistep approach to a theme park at the Gold
Coast, Australia.
Methodology
This study applies the service design tools of
‘personas’, ‘observation’, ‘guided interviews’,
and ‘visualization’ on a theme park as a single-
case study. Single-case studies, it is argued, do
not assume away complexity, chaos, ambiguity,
uncertainty, and dynamic forces for the conveni-
ence of the researcher and his or her analysis
(Stake, 1995).
Complexity and uncertainty play a major role
within service experiences because they consist
of interactions between customers and employ-
ees, employees and employees, and customers
and other customers, making it difficult to main-
tain consistency in processes (Sparks, 2001).
These difficulties are reinforced by the subjec-
tively perceived manner of service experiences,
which creates one of the major challenges in ser-
vice management: In this context, services are
described by customers with words such as ‘expe-
rience’, ‘trust’, and ‘feeling’, which are difficult to
evaluate because it is difficult to give a distinct
value to ‘trust’ or to a ‘feeling’ (Gro¨nroos, 2007;
Lovelock et al., 2007).
Figure 3. Multistep approach for analyzing service experiences
62 Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(1)
Hence, applying service design tools to a
theme park as a single-case study may help one
understand the specific case, solve a practical
problem, and generate new knowledge and
understanding of the methods used (Perry and
Gummesson, 2004). The next section describes
and discusses the application of ‘personas’,
‘observation’, ‘guided interviews’, and ‘visuali-
zation’ to a theme park at the Gold Coast,
Australia.
Selecting and developing personas
Children and teenagers usually act as opinion
leaders in their families regarding leisure activi-
ties (Baker, 2001; Botha et al., 2004; Kerin,
2008). Therefore, this article suggests children
and teenagers as target groups. The selected
theme park defines its domestic target group
‘children’ by an age of between 3 and 12 years
and ‘teenagers’ by an age of between 12 and
19 years, all coming from Australia. The persons
chosen for this study were randomly selected
from the theme park’s database with the follow-
ing stipulations: (1) they own an annual pass to
the examined theme park, (2) they visited the
theme park at least once during the year 2010,
and (3) they live in one of the two Australian
states of New South Wales and Queensland, as
these two states account for 70%–80%of park
visitors. Based on these three requirements, the
database identified an entity of 45,6250 visitors
of whom 17,3375 or 38%are children and
28,2875 or 62%are teenagers. Five children
between 5 and 8 years of age and seven teenagers
between 15 and 19 years of age were randomly
selected for this study (Figure 4). The data points
for the persona profiles were derived from user
interviews. The results were clustered into infor-
mation about daily routines, favorites, motiva-
tions and frustrations, and typical sources of
information used by the selected persons.
It was found that all participants in the target
group ‘children’ are active and competitive per-
sons who place a strong emphasis on sports.
Furthermore, the main sources of information are
their parents, who also act as major influencers.
While prohibitions, uncertainty, and inactivity
frustrate them, fictional heroes as well as older
siblings take role model positions in their lives.
The defined target group ‘teenagers’, however,
is characterized by social personalities who set
a high value on socializing and sports. All parti-
cipants gain their information from friends and
the Internet. Their specific motivations are
defined quite differently; however, bad perfor-
mance in sports often triggers frustration. The
information selected from the interviewees is
summarized into two fictive personas, namely,
‘Julia’, representing the target group children,
and ‘David’, representing the target group teen-
agers. The generation of personas, ensuing data
analysis, and interpretation were done by the two
authors separately and controlled for interrater
reliability. The two fictive personas are
described in Figures 5 and 6.
Observing the service experience
The insights into the everyday lives of the 12
participants give a comprehensive background
understanding for the subsequent customer
observation. Every participant was observed
individually during the timespan between the
Figure 4. Randomly selected personas.
Note: NSW ¼New South Wales; QLD ¼Queensland.
Trischler and Zehrer 63
arrival at and departure from the theme park.
Hence, an observation typically lasted between
5 and 8 hours. During the observation, notes were
taken regarding what services the observed visi-
tor used, how long he or she spent at the different
theme park attractions, how his or her reactions
and body language changed during and resulted
from the service experiences, and what interac-
tions he or she had with employees. The data
generated from the observation were transcribed
into Excel datasheets by using a time line as well
as by examining and describing the touchpoints
during the service experience journey.
Conducting guided interviews
The guided interviews, conducted after the theme
park visit, enabled a holistic view of how the visit
was experienced by the two target groups. The
interviews were structured, one-on-one interviews
Figure 6. Fictive persona description ‘David’.
Figure 5. Fictive persona description ‘Julia’.
64 Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(1)
in which a single respondent was probed by an
interviewer to uncover underlying motivations,
beliefs, attitudes, and feelings found during the
observation. The questionnaire outline included
probing techniques to ensure that the information
the participant provided had been correctly under-
stood. Moreover, although the questions were
structured, the researcher followed the laddering
technique to ask additional subquestions based
on information provided by the participants
during the interviews. The laddering method of
interviewing is a technique recognized as effec-
tive for eliciting underlying values and feelings
and is claimed as particularly helpful during the
early stages of user experience research (Miles
and Rowe, 2004). Interviews lasted between 45
and 65 minutes. All of the interviews were tran-
scribed verbatim and reviewed to identify patterns
regarding sources of expectations, triggers of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and postservice
actions (for summarized interview results, see
Appendix). Resulting from the guided interviews,
four critical incidents were identified:
(a) The importance of interactions with anima-
tion characters.
(b) A consistent theme through the whole cus-
tomer journey.
(c) Rest areas that are protected from the
atmosphere.
(d) The design of and entertainment within
queuing areas.
Improvement or decline of these critical
touchpoints within the theme park tips the
balance in favor of satisfaction or dissatisfac-
tion. Thus, it is essential to ensure that these
incidents operate seamlessly and are perma-
nently developed to guarantee ongoing service
quality. The first two critical incidents support
the importance of creating experiences that
enable the visitor to escape from daily routines.
Quiet rest areas and queue entertainment are
also identified as critical incidents.
Visualization of the service experience
The observation and interview results as sum-
marized in the appendix were subsequently
incorporated into two customer journeys, as illu-
strated in Figures 7 and 8. The customer journeys
holistically visualize how the two target groups
experienced their theme park visit. The two jour-
neys comprise all touchpoints the visitor had dur-
ing the theme park experience, including
touchpoints during the pre- and postservice
period. The sections rated with two ‘þþ’inthe
customer journey represent good and very good
experiences, ‘+’ ratings represent neutral or
mixed experiences, and the ‘’ represents neg-
ative experiences, resulting in dissatisfaction and
negative reactions. In other words, the ratings
represent the summarized mood and satisfaction
of the observed persons at the respective touch-
point. Furthermore, the satisfaction lines indicate
how satisfied the visitor was at certain stages of
the service consumption.
It was found that while the persona ‘Julia’
(representing children) has a great experience
Figure 7. Customer journey ‘Julia’—how children experienced their theme park visit.
Trischler and Zehrer 65
at the theme park and is delighted about her stay,
the persona ‘David’ (representing teenagers) gets
bored after a few hours and is dissatisfied at the
end. It was additionally found that children get
frustrated about height restrictions, required for
thrill rides, which affects their overall satisfac-
tion. Teenagers, however, complain about the
bad music, the laughable atmosphere and
shows, and the long and inconvenient waiting
times at thrill rides.
Discussion
When applying a multistep qualitative approach
on a theme park, emphasis lay on the following
steps: (1) the use of personas as a new method for
target group analysis, (2) the use of observation,
(3) the use of guided interviews to identify critical
incidents, and (4) the visualization of results to
make service experiences manageable. Further-
more, by using a theme park at the Gold Coast,
Australia as a single-case study, it was confirmed
that the theme park experience is complex and
diverse in terms of how it is taken in by different
target groups. This complexity is enforced by the
user centricity and subjectivity of visitors’ service
experiences perceptions as well as other custom-
ers’ cocreation of the experience. The following
section discusses the findings from the application
of the multistep approach.
First, by developing personas not only based
on sociodemographic but also on psychographic
and behavioral data such as daily routines,
favorites, motivations, and frustrations, this
method provided a holistic picture of target
groups. Detailed persona descriptions helped
the researcher gain a better understanding in the
next steps (e.g. when customers were observed
during their service experience).
Second, participant observation was success-
ful in surfacing where the observed persons spent
their time as well as their expressions, body lan-
guage, reactions, and emotions during the service
consumption. However, difficulties emerged in
the capture of spoken words and interactions
with employees. The reason for that was the
crowded and noisy atmosphere, which hinders
precise observation at some stages. Furthermore,
during rides and shows, it turned out to be almost
impossible to observe the selected persons due to
special effects, darkness, and distances. The find-
ings during the observation therefore were not
significant enough for a clear understanding of
the theme park experience. Hence, it is argued
that meaningful insights may not be gained from
merely observing the customer during the theme
park experience.
The guided interviews, conducted after the
theme park visit, closed the information gap and
enabled a holistic view of how the visit was expe-
rienced by the two target groups. Furthermore,
potential misinterpretations by the researcher
were avoided by letting the observed persons talk
about their experiences in their own words. It
was thereby possible to identify critical incidents
which lead to satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Finally, the use of a customer journey as a
visualization technique made the results
Figure 8. Customer journey ‘David’—how teenagers experienced their theme park visit.
66 Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(1)
manageable and understandable. It was possible
to visualize how the two target groups experi-
enced their theme park visit. Moreover, the two
customer journeys outlined and rated all touch-
points the visitor had during the theme park
experience, including the pre- and postservice
period.
In summary, the findings from the observa-
tions, together with the guided interviews that
build on the background understanding of
detailed persona descriptions, give meaningful
insights into how the customer experiences the
theme park visit. By virtue of its application on
a theme park at the Gold Coast Australia, it was
found that the proposed approach offers holistic
insights into customer experiences. It provides
in-depth insights into the customers’ experi-
ences, implies the complexity and uncertainty
of the study itself, and allows visitors to express
their experiences in their own terms. Further-
more, the proposed method recognizes reality
as it is and applies qualitative and user-centered
service design tools to analyze and visualize visi-
tor experiences.
Limitations
Although the study expands our knowledge of
evaluating service experiences, certain limita-
tions must be noted. First, it is suggested that
employees’ viewpoints should be integrated
within the analysis. Whereas interviews with the
management may offer reasons and outlooks for
strategic directions, information from frontline
employees can provide insights into the status
quo. Thus, both the strategic and operational
organizational levels should be integrated into
the analysis steps.
Furthermore, the findings from the single-
case study are derived from a small sample
within only one theme park. This leads to the
frequent criticism of single-case studies being
‘microscopic’ due to the insufficient number of
cases for providing generalizable conclusions
(Yin, 1994). Hence, whereas the application of
service design tools and qualitative research
bring about significant information and insights,
the findings of this study cannot be generalized
to all theme parks.
Conclusion
Service design is an evolving field. Online net-
works such as ‘Service Design Network’ and
‘Service Design Tools’ permanently contribute
to discussions and improvements. The findings
of this study may also contribute to the ongoing
field of service design, especially with regard
to the development of an accepted methodology.
From a leisure and touristic point of view, service
design seems to be effective and applicable due
to its user-centered approach. This article applies
service design tools for the analysis and evalua-
tion of theme park experiences.
The multistep approach suggested in this
single-case study, applied to a theme park on the
Gold Coast in Australia, is successful and signif-
icant due to the identification of problem areas,
critical incidents, and improvement indicators
at the strategic and operational level. This is pri-
marily due to its user-centered and qualitative
approach. It provides information about how the
customer experiences services, which may not be
found by methods so far used on theme parks.
Additionally, by using customer journey map-
ping as a visualization technique, this study
enables a categorization and evaluation of the
experience cues. This leads to the conclusion that
the visualization of results, with the aid of ser-
vice design tools and an analysis of the service
experiences in a customer-centered view, makes
the complex theme park experience transparent,
tangible, and designable.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any
funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.
References
Aaltonen G (2010) Service design: community in,
commodity out. London: The Guardian 1–10.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010) Selected
Amusement and Leisure Industries. Available at:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/
8688.0
Babbie ER (2009) The Practice of Social Research.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Cengage Learning.
Baker J (2001) Marketing: Critical Perspectives on
Business and Management. London: Routledge.
Battarbee K, Botero A, Mattelma¨ki T and Rizzo F
(2008) Designed for Co-designers. Helsinki,
Finland: Aalto University.
Berry LL, Wall EA and Carbone LP (2006) Service
clues and customer assessment of the service
experience: lessons from marketing. Academy of
Management Perspectives 20(2): 43–57.
Bigne` EJ, Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) The theme park
experience: an analysis of pleasure, arousal and
satisfaction. Tourism Management 26: 833–844.
Trischler and Zehrer 67
Bitner MJ, Booms BH and Tetreault MS (1990) The
service encounter: diagnosing favorable and unfa-
vorable incidents. Journal of Marketing 54(1):
71–84.
Botha J, Strydom J and Brink A (2004) Introduction to
Marketing. Cape Town, South Africa: Juta and Co.
Burdon M (2006) The power of personas. Marketing
111(28): 17.
Cooper C, Fletcher J, Wanhill S, et al. (2008) Tourism:
Principles and Practice. Essex: Pearson.
Design Council (2004) Touching the State: What
Does it Mean to be a Citizen in the 21st Century?
London: Design Council.
Diana C, Pacenti E and Tassi R (2009) Visualtiles:
communication tools for service design. 1st Nordic
Conference on Service Design and Service Innova-
tion, Oslo, Norway.
Edvardsson B (1992) Service breakdowns: a study of
critical incidents in an airline. International Jour-
nal of Service Industry Management 3(4): 17–29.
Gro¨nroos C (2006a) Adopting a service logic for mar-
keting. Marketing Theory 6(3): 317–333.
Gro¨nroos C (2006b) On defining marketing: finding a
new roadmap for marketing. Marketing Theory
6(4): 395–417.
Gro¨nroos C (2007) Service Management and Market-
ing: Customer Management in Service Competi-
tion. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Gummesson E (2005) Qualitative research in market-
ing: road-map for a wilderness of complexity and
unpredictability. European Journal of Marketing
39(3/4): 309–327.
Gummesson E (2006) Qualitative research in manage-
ment: addressing complexity, context and persona.
Management Decision 44(2): 167–179.
Gummesson E (2007) Access to reality: observations
on observational methods. Qualitative Market
Research 10(2): 130–134.
Hickman J and Mayer KJ (2003) Service quality and
human resource practices: a theme park case study.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 15(2): 116.
Hollins B and Shinkins S (2006) Managing service
operations: design and implementation. London:
Sage.
International Association of Amusement Parks and
Attractions (2010) Amusement Park and Attrac-
tions Industry Statistics. Available at: http://www.
iaapa.org/pressroom/Amusement_Park_Industry_
Statistics.asp
Johns N and Gyimothy S (2002) Mythologies of a
theme park: an icon of modern family life. Journal
of Vacation Marketing 8(4): 320–331.
Kerin RA (2008) Marketing: The Core. Sydney,
Australia: McGraw-Hill.
Kimbell L and Seidel VP (2008) Designing for
Services – Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Oxford:
University of Oxford.
Koivisto M (2009) Frameworks for structuring ser-
vices and customer experiences. In: Miettinen S
and Koivisto M (eds) Designing Services with
Innovative Methods. Helsinki, Finland: Savonia
University of Applied Sciences, 136–149.
Lewis BR and Clacher E (2001) Service failure and
recovery in UK theme parks: the employees’ per-
spective. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 13(4): 166–175.
Lidwell W, Holden K and Butler J (2010) Universal
Principles of Design. Beverly, MA: Rockport
Publishers.
Liu Y (2008) Profitability measurement of UK theme
parks: an aggregate approach. International Jour-
nal of Tourism Research 10(3): 283–288.
Lovelock CH, Patterson PG and Walker RH (2007)
Service Marketing: An Asia-Pacific and Australian
Perspective. Sydney, Australia: Pearson Education.
Mager B (2009) Service design as an emerging field. In:
Miettinen S and Koivisto M (eds) Designing Ser-
vices with Innovative Methods. Helsinki, Finland:
Savonia University of Applied Sciences, 28–43.
Mager B and Gais M (2009) Service Design.
Mu
¨nchen: UTB GmbH.
Massanari AL (2010) Designing for imaginary friends:
information architecture, personas and the politics
of user-centered design. New Media & Society
12(3): 401–416.
Miles S and Rowe G (2004) The laddering technique.
In: Breakwell G (ed.) Doing Social Psychology
Research. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 305–343.
Milman A (2001) The future of the theme park and
attraction industry: a management perspective.
Journal of Travel Research 40: 139–147.
Milman A (2009) Evaluating the guest experience at
theme parks: an empirical investigation of key
attributes. International Journal of Tourism
Research 11(4): 373–387.
Moritz S (2005) Service Design: Practical Access to
an Evolving Field.Ko¨ln: Fachhochschule Ko¨ln.
Nelson SA (2006) Making Fun: Work and Organisa-
tional Practices in Australian Aquatic Theme
Parks. Brisbane, Australia: Griffith University.
Ojasalo K (1999) Conceptualizing Productivity in
Services. Helsinki: Hanken Swedish School of
Economics Finland.
Parker S and Heapy J (2006) The Journey to the Inter-
face: How Public Service Design Can Connect
Users to Reform. London: Demos.
Perry C and Gummesson E (2004) Action research in
marketing. European Journal of Marketing 38(3/4):
310–320.
68 Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(1)
Pikkemaat B and Schuckert M (2006) The new
customer in the experience economy – implications
for the management of theme parks with an edu-
tainment focus. In: Weiermair K, Pechlaner H and
Bieger T (eds) Time Shift, Leisure and Tourism.
Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 233–248.
Pikkemaat B and Schuckert M (2007) Success factors
of theme parks – an exploratory study. Tourism
55(2): 197–208.
Pine JB and Gilmore JH (1999) The Experience Econ-
omy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Richards G (2002) Marketing China overseas: the role
of theme parks and tourist attractions. Journal of
Vacation Marketing 8(1): 28–38.
Rust RT and Oliver RL (1994) Service quality:
insights and managerial implications from the
frontier. In: Rust RT and Oliver RL (eds) Service
Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1–19.
Sanders L (2007) Major marketers get wise to the power
of assigning personas; best buy,others name specific
customer groups to align services with those consu-
mers’ motivations. Advertising Age 78(15): 36.
Segelstro¨m F (2009) Communicating through visualiza-
tions: service designers on visualizing user research.
First Nordic Conference on Service Design and Ser-
vice Innovation,Oslo,Norway.
Sparks B (2001) Managing service failure through
recovery. In: Kandampully J, Mok C and Sparks
B (eds) Service Quality Management in
Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure. New York:
Haworth Hospitality Press, 193–216.
Stake RE (1995) The Art of Case Study Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stickdorn M and Schneider J (2010) This is Service
Design Thinking. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
Stickdorn M and Zehrer A (2009) Service design in
tourism: customer experience driven destination
management. First Nordic Conference on Service
Design and Service Innovation, Oslo, Norway.
Vargo S and Lusch R (2004) Evolving to a new domi-
nant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing
68(1): 1–17.
Wanhill S (2002) Creating themed entertainment
attractions: a Nordic perspective. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism 2(2): 123–144.
Williams C and Buswell J (2003) Service Quality
in Leisure and Tourism. Wallingford: CABI
Publishing.
Wong KK and Cheung PW (1999) Strategic theming
in theme park marketing. Journal of Vacation
Marketing 5(4): 319–332.
Yin R (1994) Case Study Research: Design and
Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zehrer A (2009) Service experience and service
design: concepts and application in tourism SMEs.
Managing Service Quality 19(3): 332–349.
Zomerdijk LG and Voss CA (2010) Service Design for
Experience-Centric Services. Journal of Service
Research 13(1): 67–82.
Trischler and Zehrer 69
Appendix: Interview results-persona ‘Julia’
Persona
‘Julia’
Sources of
Expectation
REntrance RFamily Zone RKids’ Zone ROthers RDeparture RPost-Service
Actions
R
Functional
Clue
TV ad,
Brochure,
Call center,
Homepage
+
+
+
+
Parking
area,
Signage,
Ticket
counter
+
+
+
Signage,
Information counter,
Souvenirs,
Food and Beverage,
First aid,
Cleanliness
+
+
-
+
+
+
Signage,
Rides,
Queuing system,
Safety instructions,
Cleanliness
+
-
-
+
+
Game machines,
Entertainment
venues,
Safety instructions,
Cleanliness
-
+
+
+
Exit gate,
Parking
area,
Signage
+
+
+
Birthday letter,
Entrance pass,
Personal
pictures and
movie clips
+
+
+
Mechanic
Clue
Music &
pictures in
ads,
homepage
and
promotions
+Flags,
Pictures,
Music,
Lightning,
Open
atmosphere
+
+
+
+
+
Theme music,
Light effects,
Artificial design,
Smell of food,
Costumes
+
+
+
+
+
Theme music,
Music effects,
Fantasy design,
Smoke and water
effects,
Costumes
+
+
+
+
+
Theme music,
Music and light
effects,
Smoke and water
effects,
Costumes
+
+
+
+
Flags,
Pictures,
Music
+
+
+
Pictures,
Movies
+
+
Humanic
Clue
− Employee
at entrance
+Employees in shops,
restaurants &
information center
+Employees who
assist at the rides,
Fay who offers face
paintings
+
+
Employees at the
entrance,
Actors
+
+
Employee
at exit gate
+−
Theme Theme is
content of all
promotions
+First
impression
gives a
strong clue
to the
theme
+Names of the shops,
Design,
Pictures,
Animation characters
+Names of the rides,
Fantasy design,
Pictures,
Animation characters
+Pictures,
Animation characters,
Entertainment
program
+Pictures,
Music,
Animation
characters
+Theme is
content of all
promotions
+
Co-
Creation
Word of
mouth,
Suggestions
from friends
+
+
No queues +Children having fun,
Very crowded
+
-
People screaming
while riding,
Children having fun,
Noisy atmosphere in
queuing area
+
+
-
People applauding
and screaming
Noisy atmosphere
-
-
No queues +Word of
mouth
+
Interview results-persona ‘David’
Persona
‘David’
Sources of
Expectation
REntrance RFamily Zone RRides Zone ROthers RDeparture RPost-Service
Actions
R
Functional
Clue
TV ad,
Brochure,
Call center,
Homepage
+
+
+
+
Signage,
Ticket
counter
+
+
Signage,
Information
counter,
Souvenirs,
Food and
Beverages,
First aid
+
+
-
+
Signage,
Rides,
Queuing system,
Safety instructions
+
+
-
+
Game machines,
Entertainment
venues,
Cleanliness
-
+
+
Exit gate,
Parking area
+
+
Homepage,
Birthday letter,
Entrance pass,
Social networks
+
+
+
+
Mechanic
Clue
Music in ads
& while on
hold on
phone,
Design of
homepage
+
+
Flags,
Pictures,
Music,
Open
atmosphere
+
+
+
+
Theme music,
Light effects,
Artificial design,
Smell of food,
Costumes
-
-
-
+
-
Theme music,
Music effects,
Fantasy design,
Smoke and water
effects,
Costumes
-
-
-
-
-
Theme music,
Music and light
effects,
Smoke and
water effects,
Costumes
-
-
-
-
Flags,
Pictures,
Music
-
-
-
Pictures,
Movies
-
-
Humanic
Clue
Employee on
telephone,
Replies on
mails
+
+
Employee at
Entrance
+Employees in
shops, restaurants
and information
center
+Employees who
assist at the rides
+Employees at
the entrance,
Actors
+
-
Employee at
exit gate
+Replies on mails
and feedback
+
Theme Theme is
content of all
promotions
+First
impression
gives a
strong clue to
the theme
+Names of the
shops,
Design,
Pictures,
Animation
Characters
+Names of the rides,
Fantasy design,
Pictures,
Movie trailers at
queuing areas
+Pictures,
Animation
characters,
Entertainment
program
+Pictures,
Music,
Animation
characters
+Theme is content
of all promotions
+
Co-
Creation
Word of
mouth,
Suggestions
from friends
+
-
No queues +Noisy
atmosphere,
Very crowded
-
-
People screaming
while riding,
People’s behavior
while queuing
-
-
People
applauding and
screaming,
Noisy
atmosphere
-
-
No queues +Word of mouth,
Feedback on
homepage and
social networks
-
-
