Content uploaded by Simon Clatworthy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Simon Clatworthy on Dec 02, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
11. Service design thinking
Simon Clatworthy
This chapter is an introduction to service design. It starts by describing
design thinking and explaining how it recently became adapted by the spe-
cifics of service to become service design. It then uses theory and practice
to convey key terms, competences and approaches to describe what service
design is, and how it is a means of designing for trust. It concludes by
linking to the other chapters in Part 4.
11.1 DESIGN THINKING: HISTORY AND KEY
TERMS
Design thinking has its roots back in the 1950s with the emergence of
industrial design as a separate discipline, but was introduced as a term by
Tim Brown from IDEO in 2008. Brown identifies design thinking as inte-
grating three key aspects: Viability, Feasibility and Desirability (Brown,
2008). Viability relates to the underlying business case and business model,
and the potential that an innovation has in the market for the specific
organization. Feasibility relates to technological potential and the ability
to actually deliver on the innovative idea. Finally, desirability relates to
how the market, and particularly individual customers, will emotionally
connect to the innovation.
11.1.1 Design as Synthesis, a Way of Thinking, a Process and an
Outcome
The balance of Viability, Feasibility and Desirability is unique to each
and every project and designers have an important role in integrating all
three areas. The competences and skills of integration, using an explora-
tive customer-centric process, makes design particularly useful in this
respect. Design integrates across multiple disciplines and functional areas
in a company, at all times with a focus on customer value. It is therefore a
synthesis of multiple aspects.
M4263-LUDERS_9781785369476_t.indd 167 04/05/2017 10:35
168 Innovating for trust
Design often creates beautiful objects, and can easily be misunder-
stood as something that can be included at the end of a project, as a
veneer of beauty. This is design as an outcome, a resultant product (or
service). This kind of thinking is far from the truth in understanding
how designers work, and hides the designers’ central role at the early
stages of a project in defining the what of a product (what it does), the
how of a product (how it will be made) and the who of the product (who
will want it). This is why you will find designers working more and more
at the start of a project, where the opportunity to innovate is greatest.
Design is therefore also a process, as well as an outcome and works best
when introduced at the start of a project. In Chapter 15, we will see how
design is not only designing products, service and interactions but also
organizations.
11.1.2 Design and its Importance at the Front End of a Project
It is important, particularly with design for service, to introduce design
early in the project process – during the fuzzy front end (Clatworthy, 2014).
The ‘fuzzy’ front end of the innovation has three important characteristics.
Firstly, major decisions are made here. According to Berliner and Brimson
(1988), over 80 percent of life cycle costs are decided during this phase
of a project, whilst less than 5 percent of development costs are utilized.
The front end is where the major innovations can occur, where the major
decisions are made, but also where a project knows least about what it is
developing.
Secondly, the front end is the start-up phase of a project and involves the
team getting to know each other, to know the brief and to plan the details.
Smith and Reinertsen (1998) describe the phase as a bargain basement,
since they consider that greater focus on the start-up phase of a project has
very little cost effect upon the project but gives great returns.
Thirdly, the front end is the phase in which customer input is beginning
to become vital. Belliveau et al. (2004) describe it in this way:
The NPD (New Product Design) process is probably mistakenly visualized as
a linear process beginning with the FFE (Fuzzy Front End) and ending with
commercialization. Perhaps a more useful picture is a loop showing a linkage
between the market-place and the FFE. (p. 165)
In design thinking, the front end is often visualized as a linear struc-
tured process that moves through clear phases. However, the reality
is that it is a messy process, which is non-linear and involves jumping
between phases and zooming in and zooming out of the problem
M4263-LUDERS_9781785369476_t.indd 168 04/05/2017 10:35
Service design thinking 169
context. Zooming in to the detail of perhaps a single customer inter-
action to understand the experience a customer might have, to then
zooming out to understand what that might imply for the whole service
system that it influences. The argument for this messy approach reveals
a key aspect of design thinking; designing is as much a way to gain
understanding as it is to resolve a project brief. The front end can
therefore be seen as an exhaustive set of iterations to explore and under-
stand and resolve a problem, like illuminating something from multiple
angles, throughidea generation and making, continually evaluating how
this potential solution shapes up in terms of Viability, Feasibility and
Desirability.
Design thinking happens in the making, and it is the constant focus
upon making, and the understanding that making gives, that is central
to design thinking. Design thinking integrates analytical and skill-based
approaches to innovation within a customer-centric framework.
Notes: A design thinking approach cycles through phases of understanding, idea
generation, prototyping and reflection. It is often described as a linear process (above), but
in reality is a rapid, messy and non-linear cycling, jumping between these stages (below).
Figure 11.1 A design thinking approach
M4263-LUDERS_9781785369476_t.indd 169 04/05/2017 10:35
170 Innovating for trust
11.1.3 The Core Competences of the Design Thinker
There is no agreed definition of design thinking, nor an agreement of
its core characteristics. Brown identified the competences of the design
thinker as empathy, integrative thinking, optimism, experimentalism and
collaboration (Brown, 2008). Since then, design thinking has received
both research attention (Leifer et al., 2013; Lockwood, 2010) and more
focus in business (Kolko, 2015; Martin, 2009). However, design thinking is
repeatedly described as combining design doing, with the mindset of the
innovator (or design thinker) in a human-centered and creative approach
for solving complex and strategic problems (Brown, 2008, 2009; Dunne
and Martin, 2006; Kimbell, 2011; Martin, 2009). In many ways, this shows
that design thinking is dependent upon design doing, and this is key to
understanding design – design has rapid cycles of thinking and doing. This
approach and set of competences has been seen as valuable for innovation
and innovation processes.
It makes sense therefore that organizations would like to capture and
use design thinking within the organization (Ignatius, 2015; Muratovski,
2015). The transformation of an organization such that it utilizes design
thinking is viewed as central in many organizations and this is covered in
Chapter 15.
11.2 SERVICE DESIGN AS AN APPLICATION OF
DESIGN THINKING TO SERVICE
Service design may be described as a service-specific application of design
thinking, and has the following definition: ‘Designed offerings to provide
experiences that happen over time and across different touch-points’
(Clatworthy, 2012). It suggests that what an organization designs and
proposes to customers are offerings that are accessed through touch-
points along a timeline, and that through use, provide desired experiential
outcomes. Time in a service design perspective can be short term, such
as purchasing a ticket at a train station, or long term, such as a life-long
relationship with an insurance company. In service design, the time aspect
is described as a customer journey, and along this journey, the customer
interacts with the touch-points of a service. Touch-points are often tan-
gible or human, such as a building or a service assistant, but can also be
intangible such as the smell of coffee at a coffee bar. The three aspects of
design thinking – Viability, Feasibility and Desirability – are still core, but
the object of design is different. It is not a product, but rather an offering,
delivered through a series of interactions with touch-points over time. This
M4263-LUDERS_9781785369476_t.indd 170 04/05/2017 10:35
Service design thinking 171
means that the designer is bridging high level, zoomed-out concepts, such
as the offering (and how it might fit the market and the provider), with
zoomed-in details, in terms of interactions with specific touch-points (the
experience of using the service). Using the lenses of Viability, Feasibility
and Desirability, the service designer is working not just with the offering,
the touch-points and the experience but also the organization’s ability to
deliver this. Service design, therefore is as much about the ability of the
organization to deliver an offering, as the design of the offering itself. The
service designer cannot not do this alone, and works together with multiple
disciplines and representatives from many functional areas. The service
designer, like the design thinker, integrates multiple aspects into a whole,
and has strong co-design skills and tools.
Service design is a young domain, and spans areas from service devel-
opment (Koivisto and Miettinen, 2009; Stickdorn and Schneider, 2010)
to the designer participating in the transformation of service organiza-
tions (Gloppen, 2012; Sangiorgi, 2012). This is not surprising since there
is a tighter connection between service development and organizational
development when concerning innovation within the service sector than
the product sector. Indeed, this is commented on by Kimbell (2009), who
describes how service designers link the strategic and operational levels of
a service organization. This seems to be a core aspect of service design, and
it fits well with both an understanding of design as being both the whole
and the parts (e.g. Schön, 1983) and with the specifics of service innova-
tion (e.g. Miles, 2008).
Kimbell (2009) argues that the service designer’s creative input occurs in
three explicit areas: (1) human-centered approach and methods; (2) itera-
tive processes of idea generation through modeling and prototyping; and
(3) competence in aesthetics and visual forms. In a later publication, she
observes that service design approaches services as entities that are both
social and material, noting that designers ‘approached designing a service
through a constructivist enquiry in which they sought to understand the
experiences of stakeholders’ (Kimbell, 2011, p. 41). Designing for service is
described by her as an exploratory process that aims to create new kinds
of value relation between diverse actors within a socio-material configura-
tion. This brings design thinking to service (and also service-dominant
logic) since services are socio-material configurations, with experiential
outcomes. Wetter Edman (2011) describes two main characteristics of
service design: designing transformation (which may be on an individual,
organizational or societal level) and designing for value creation by ‘moving
from seeing the outcome as products or single interactions and instead
understanding service as value creation’ (p. 70). Sangiorgi (2012) takes this
further and links service design with service-dominant logic (Vargo and
M4263-LUDERS_9781785369476_t.indd 171 04/05/2017 10:35
172 Innovating for trust
Lusch, 2004) describing the service designers’ role as being strategic and
transformational. Sangiorgi, however, also shows the importance of how
value is produced through interactions: ‘when value is recognized in the
process of use, the focus shifts from the units of output to the interactions’
(Sangiorgi, 2012, p. 97). Touch-points therefore become central as they are
the means of interaction, and a link can be seen between touch-points,
value and customer experience.
11.2.1 The Value Proposition as a Designed Offering
One of the key aspects of service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004)
is that value arises for actors in the value ecology through use of the offer-
ing, so-called ‘value-in-use.’ This value can take many forms, for example,
status, data, trust and money. Service designers are interested in the value
exchange as part of any offering (Clatworthy, 2014) and aim to ensure a
strong value ecology, with a focus on the customer experience.
An offering is intangible and difficult to describe. It is perceived and
experienced before, during and after using a service, and is an extension of
the brand, expressing benefits at the functional, emotional, self-expressive
and idealistic levels. Linking this to the integrative role of the designer,
we can say that the designer integrates multiple aspects to develop a value
proposition that promises and delivers on emotional, self-expressive and
idealistic levels.
Trust is obviously a central part of any offering since trust requires a
willingness to be vulnerable to another party’s actions, based upon expec-
tations communicated through the service offering. This expectation is
then compared with the actual experience of using the service to form a
customer’s opinion of value-in-use. Benevolence is a key part of this as it
is the perception that the service provider has your best interests at heart.
Benevolence is something that is communicated as part of the offering
through the ‘fit’ of the service to a customer’s needs, and then through the
detail of the interactions through the feeling that someone ‘designed this
to fit me.’ Trust can therefore be designed for in a service.
To design for trust, the designer works to develop and express character-
istics of the service that convey trustworthy intentions and behavior, and
then designs each and every interaction with the service such that the cus-
tomers experience the service as trustworthy. Design, by its innate under-
standing of people, can therefore be seen as a central way of developing
a trustworthy offering and then delivering it through service interactions,
such that a relationship between a service provider and the customer devel-
ops. But this can only happen if trust is a core part of the service brand; in
other words, if trust is part of the DNA of the organization (and therefore
M4263-LUDERS_9781785369476_t.indd 172 04/05/2017 10:35
Service design thinking 173
the DNA of the brand). Chapter 13, about brand experience, explains how
the designer translates the brand into an experiential promise and designs
to deliver on this promise.
Service designers therefore work with a zoomed-out perspective (the
offering) and a zoomed-in perspective (the interactions) to create the link
between these, that is, between the high-level offering and the experience
of use. In terms of trust, they do this by asking the following questions:
1. How is trust a core part of the offering, and how is this communicated
as a whole to the customer, particularly its perceived experiential
value?
2. How is experiential value achieved through individual touch-point
interactions and the customer journey as a whole to deliver on the
trust that is promised in the oering?
Using the brand megaphone model, it is possible to ensure that innova-
tions take account of emotional and experiential perceptions of the offer-
ing, whilst at the same time ensuring that there is an alignment between the
offering and the brand.
Notes: The brand megaphone shows the relation between brand DNA and how this is
transformed into an offering, expressed through a service personality, and experienced
through different touch-points, tone of voice and behaviors which interact along a customer
journey. The outcome is value-in-use through customer experience. When designing for
trust, each and every aspect of the design will take account of how trust can be expressed.
Source: Adapted from Clatworthy (2012).
Figure 11.2 The brand megaphone
M4263-LUDERS_9781785369476_t.indd 173 04/05/2017 10:35
174 Innovating for trust
11.2.2 Actors in Value Ecologies
The combination of actors, and the way they collaborate to deliver service
is key to developing and delivering the offering. In service, value is created
in networks of collaboration, by multiple actors, as part of a value ecology
(Vargo and Lusch, 2004).
Service design has a focus upon how actors together create value
together with the customer and considers who needs to collaborate (and
in what way) to create the compelling experiences that will draw custom-
ers to a service offering (Clatworthy, 2014). The key is to see the potential
that lies in the reconfiguration of roles and relationships among the con-
stellation of actors in order to facilitate the creation of value through the
customer experience.
A service designer will work with actors through mapping and investi-
gating existing service ecologies, through considering users as co-creators
of value, and through reconfiguration of the value network. One of the key
aspects we see from service design practice is that a service designer does
this with a customer-centric view (Kimbell, 2009), whilst an organization
(due to its context and history) often does this from a company-centric
view.
Since almost all projects now are co-designed by a cross-functional
team, often (but not always) including customers, then we find the service
designer designing tools for a project to assist it with understanding,
Notes: Service ecologies are based upon multiple overlapping and sometimes nested
networks of actors in the customer sphere, the joint sphere and the provider sphere
(Grönroos and Voima, 2013). Understanding these networks, and reorganizing them by
either adding or changing actors and roles can create new value for customers and the actors
of the ecology. Service design does this with a customer value focus.
Source: Image adapted from LiveWork AS.
Figure 11.3 Service ecologiesç
M4263-LUDERS_9781785369476_t.indd 174 04/05/2017 10:35
Service design thinking 175
exploration, solution generation and prototyping. Service designers often
spend time designing tools that function as boundary objects (Star, 1990) –
tools that give a shared understanding in a team. According to Mattelmäki,
‘Designers should build scaffolding that supports everyday people’s gen-
erative design thinking’ (Mattelmäki, 2008, p. 65) and Lee considers that
design tools bridge the abstract space inhabited by experts in a design team
together with the concrete spaces of everyday people (Lee, 2008).
11.2.3 Making the Touch-point Experience Work Alone and as a Whole,
Along a Customer Journey
Touch-points are the points of contact between a service provider and
customers and are how the customer experiences the offering. A cus-
tomer might utilize many different touch-points as part of their customer
journey, and each time they use a service they might use different combina-
tions. Touch-points are therefore central to the customer experience and
the creation of value. If value-in-use is central to service (Vargo and Lusch,
2004), touch-points are where the value is exchanged, since they are the
points of use. It is not surprising then that touch-points are a key material
of service design (Clatworthy, 2012) and mentioned as one of the three
pillars of service design (Koivisto and Miettinen, 2009, p. 142).
The concept of designing points of contact between the service provider
and the customer is not new. Shostack (1984) introduced thinking around
touch-points as part of services, using the term tangible evidence as part of
what she termed ‘service blueprinting.’ Fortini-Cambell (2003) states how
many different touch-points a customer might interact with: ‘in a more
complex consumer experience . . . there may be literally hundreds of small
elements of experience the consumer notices’ (Fortini-Cambell, 2003, p. 63).
Holmlid (2008) relates this to design, claiming that: ‘For design manage-
ment the challenge becomes one of both coordinating multiple service chan-
nels, and the coordination between service channels’ (Holmlid, 2008, p. 7).
Service design is about choosing the most relevant touch-points for
service delivery and designing a consistent customer experience across
these many touch-points. Clatworthy (2011) describes the many innovation
opportunities that designing with touch-points offer:
●creating consistency across touch-points
●introducing new touch-points
●replacing touch-points
●optimizing individual touch-points
●expanding the service journey by adding touch-points at earlier or
later phases of the journey.
M4263-LUDERS_9781785369476_t.indd 175 04/05/2017 10:35
176
Figure 11.4 The experience journey describes the stages of the customer journey, the experience expected (or reported
upon) and supporting data
M4263-LUDERS_9781785369476_t.indd 176 04/05/2017 10:35
Service design thinking 177
The experience journey describes the journey the customer is expected
to take when using a service, together with the touch-points that they
meet, and the desired (or reported) customer experience. It is a means of
structuring customer points of experience over time and divides the service
encounter into separate stages and gives a customer view into the service
delivery process (Voss and Zomerdijk, 2007). In this way, the experience
journey integrates the whole and the parts.
11.2.4 Seeing, Being and Hearing the Customer
Service design is inherently customer-focused (Gloppen, 2012; Kimbell,
2009) and goes beyond simply identifying customer need. In many
situations, the designer is trying to identify what customers will desire
in the future, but perhaps cannot express now. This brings the designer
into the area of interpreting customers and attempting to best guess their
future needs, wants and desires and how this might form new service offer-
ings. A service designer will therefore work together with customers (and
other actors) to fully understand need, but in many situations will look
beyond the needs that a customer may mention, and approach a project
through three aspects. Firstly, the context of use, secondly, an understand-
ing of what is important to the customer and finally, from an empathic
understanding of how a service feels for the customer. Table 11.1 sum-
marizes the focus that a service designer takes to gain a detailed and rich
understanding of customer need.
Service designers use both quantitative and qualitative means in design
work, but often there is a preference for qualitative. This is because the
understanding needed is often contextual and requires deeper customer
insights than qualitative data alone can give. Therefore, ethnographic tools
are used to see, hear and be the customer.
Table 11.1 Approaches for understanding the customer
What does the designer want to
understand?
Tools used by designers
See the customer Understand the customer as
part of the context of use
Observational tools
Hear the customer Understand what is important
for a customer
Qualitative ethnographic
approaches, cultural
observation. co-design
Be the customer Feel for themselves how it is to
be a customer in a given context
Self-ethnography, service
safari
M4263-LUDERS_9781785369476_t.indd 177 04/05/2017 10:35
178 Innovating for trust
As mentioned earlier, designers are focused upon the new. The under-
standing that a designer gains about a customer is always obtained with a
view to developing something new, based upon this input. Therefore, the
designer is looking for insights and inspiration to create something new
that can be innovative. This inspiration can come from unexpected places,
and therefore the quantitative aspect is less important for a designer than
its potential for opening up new insights and understanding. Design is a
process of multiple iterations of understanding need, transforming into
ideas and evaluating (often with customers). Service designers therefore
use multiple sources for inspiration, including direct customer contact, to
develop new service offerings, and at an early stage evaluate these (through
prototyping) with regard to their value potential.
11.2.5 Design for Experience: Value Comes through Use
Value-in-use is one of the central axioms of service-dominant logic, and is
described by Vargo and Lusch (2008, p. 7) in the following way: ‘value is
idiosyncratic, experiential, contextual and meaning laden’ and ‘S-D logic
acknowledges that value is always uniquely and phenomenologically deter-
mined by the beneficiary’ (Merz et al., 2009, p. 337).
More recently, this is explained by Lusch and Vargo (2014, p. 44):
Quality moved the focus of the firm from engineering specifications of goods
production to the perceived evaluations of the customers, so that the focus of
value creation moved from the firm to the customer, thus affirming for him a
new and active role in service provision.
Sandström et al. (2008) link value-in-use to customer experience, stating:
‘Value in use is the evaluation of the service experience, that is, the indi-
vidual judgment of the sum total of all the functional and emotional
experience outcomes’ (p. 120). Further, ‘To fully leverage experience as
part of a value proposition, organizations must manage the emotional
dimension of experiences with the same rigor they bring to the manage-
ment of service functionality’ (p.119). This connects value-in-use to the
decisions made during the design process. Clatworthy (2013, p. 101) uses
the following definition of customer experience in a service design perspec-
tive: ‘The Customer Experience is the impression left with a customer from
their interactions with the service offering as presented through the touch-
points of a service over a period of time.’
This identifies the need to design for the customer experience such
that it fits with the value proposition, as presented through touch-points
and links brand identity, touch-points and customer experience in a
service design context. Morrison and Crane (2007) support this, stating:
M4263-LUDERS_9781785369476_t.indd 178 04/05/2017 10:35
Service design thinking 179
‘Effectively managing the customer’s emotional brand experience means
creating an environment in which the “clues” that customers detect, col-
lectively meet or exceed their emotional needs and expectations’ (p. 416).
Since we have shown that service design is strongly centered around
design for experience, we can conclude that service designers are design-
ing for value-in-use, particularly through the design for interactions with
touch-points over time.
If we take a broader perspective on design, that of designing for sym-
bolic meaning, then the connection between design and value-in-use
becomes apparent in terms of designers imbuing meaning to objects and
interactions, a key contributor to value-in-use. Lusch and Vargo describe
the importance of context in value creation: ‘value creation needs to
be viewed in the context of social systems in which value is created and
evaluated’ (2014, p. 23). The importance of the symbolic aspect to service-
dominant logic is described in more detail by Akaka et al. (2014, p. 311):
We argue that symbols guide actors in enacting particular practices that enable
the co-creation of shared meanings, which help actors determine the value of
current and future interactions. In this way, symbols support the coordination
of interaction, the communication of information, the integration of resources,
and the evaluation of value, among actors.
Akaka et al. (2014) further link symbols and meaning to branding,
particularly the cultural negotiation of meaning, recognizing the complex
nature of brand systems, concluding: ‘Thus, it is the continual communi-
cation of information and the enactment of representative practices that
contributes to the representation of a brand’ (p. 319).
In a design context, service design can be understood as supporting the
cultural negotiation of an intended meaning, or brand meaning, through
service interactions. In a broader sense, design relates to meaning. Press
and Cooper (2003, p. 23) describe it as follows:
The designer makes meaning possible.Crafting a design solution is merely
the first part, which is continued by users of consumers as part of their lives
. . . Every designed product, communication or environment provides human
experiences. And, all experiences, whether in the city, kitchen, cinema or else-
wherecarry meaning and forms of representations. By enabling meaning, the
designer is a maker of culture. The designer is a cultural intermediary.
11.2.6 Experience Prototyping as a Way to Experience the Experience
In design, prototyping and modeling are well-defined processes that help
the designer, client and potential user evaluate the concept at an early
phase of development. In service design, the designer is interested in
M4263-LUDERS_9781785369476_t.indd 179 04/05/2017 10:35
180 Innovating for trust
gaining an understanding of how the service ‘feels’ for the customer, and
also for the other actors involved in the service (personnel, providers, sub-
contractors and so on). This is termed experience prototyping (Bucheneu
and Suri, 2000) and attempts to simulate how the customer will experience
the complex ecology of actors, the underlying technological infrastructure
and the organization of people, when delivered through touch-points as
part of a journey. Experience prototypes are developed at a very early stage
to understand if the solution feels right and to be able to understand the
implications the experience has upon the service system. Further down the
development process, a greater degree of fidelity is needed and utilized.
Chapter 14 presents different ways to represent service through prototypes.
11.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The chapter introduces the field of service design and, through its way of
thinking and doing, how it contributes to service innovation and trust. It
shows how trust can be designed into an offering and then designed to be
delivered through customers’ interactions with a service over time. Service
design does this by designing offerings that provide experiences that
happen over time and across touch-points.
The chapter has described multiple facets of service design and dis-
cussed service design as a customer-focused activity (Gloppen, 2012;
Kimbell, 2009) that has a natural approach to designing for value-in-use.
This area is explored in more detail in the following chapters. Service
design is a means of specifically developing value-in-use using two forms
of translation during the design process. Firstly, through brandslation
(see Chapter 13) as a means of translating brand into interaction cues for
use within the organization, and secondly, through designing for touch-
point interactions over time along a customer journey (see Chapter 12).
Further, service designers use prototyping as a central aspect of their
work to continually evaluate their designs and their ability to deliver
value-in-use (see Chapter 14). Finally, linking back to the core design
traits of Viability, Feasibility and Desirability (Brown, 2008) that we
introduced at the start of the chapter, the designer integrates multiple
aspects to develop an offering such that it fits the organization’s purpose,
the customers’ needs and can be delivered. The service design approach
can therefore be seen as a desirable leadership characteristic, since it inte-
grates around a core focus of experiential value (Wetter-Edman, 2011).
This integrative approach around value-in-use (customer experience) is
therefore of relevance to both leadership and organizational development
(see Chapter 15).
M4263-LUDERS_9781785369476_t.indd 180 04/05/2017 10:35
Service design thinking 181
REFERENCES
Akaka, M.C., D. Corsaro, C. Kelleher et al. (2014), ‘The role of symbols in value
cocreation’, Marketing Theory, 14 (3), 311–26.
Belliveau, P., A. Griffin and S. Somermeyer (2004), The PDMA Toolbook 2, for
New Product Development, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons.
Berliner, C. and J. Brimson (1988), Cost Management for Today’s Advanced
Manufacturing, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Brown, T. (2008), ‘Design thinking’, Harvard Business Review, 86 (6), 84.
Brown, T. (2009), Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations
and Inspires Innovation, New York: Harper Business.
Bucheneu, M. and J.F. Suri (2000), ‘Experience prototyping’, in Proceedings of the
3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods,
and Techniques, ACM, pp. 424–33.
Clatworthy, Simon (2011), ‘Service innovation through touch-points: develop-
ment of an innovation toolkit for the first stages of New Service Development’,
International Journal of Design, 5 (2), 15–28.
Clatworthy, Simon (2012), ‘Bridging the gap between brand strategy and customer
experience’, Managing Service Quality, 22 (2), 108–27.
Clatworthy, Simon (2013), ‘Design support at the front end of the New Service
Development (NSD) process’, PhD thesis, Oslo School of Architecture and
Design.
Clatworthy, Simon (2014), How to Design Better Services, Oslo: Arkitektur- og
designhøgskolen i Oslo.
Dunne, D. and R. Martin (2006), ‘Design thinking and how it will change man-
agement education: an interview and discussion’, Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 5 (4), 512–23.
Fortini-Cambell, L. (2003), ‘Integrated marketing and the consumer experience’.
In D. Iacobucci and B. Calder (eds), Kellogg on Integrated Marketing, New York:
John Wiley, pp. 54–89.
Gloppen, Judith (2012), ‘Service design leadership: shaping service innovations at
the intersection of design and strategic management’, PhD thesis, Arkitektur-og
Designhøgskolen i Oslo.
Grönroos, C. and P. Voima (2013), ‘Critical service logic: making sense of value crea-
tion and co-creation’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (2), 133–50.
Holmlid, Stefan (2008), ‘Towards an understanding of the challenges for design
management and service design’, Paper presented at the International DMI
Education Conference, Cergy-Pointoise, France.
Ignatius, A. (2015), ‘How Indra Nooyi turned design thinking into strategy’,
Harvard Business Review, September, 80–85.
Kimbell, L. (2009), ‘Insights from service design practice’, Paper presented at
the 8th European Academy of Design Conference, Robert Gordon University,
Scotland.
Kimbell, L. (2011), ‘Designing for service as one way of designing services’,
International Journal of Design, 5 (2), 41–52.
Koivisto, M. and S. Miettinen (2009), Designing Services with Innovative Methods,
Helsinki: Akatemia/UIAH.
Kolko, J. (2015), ‘Design thinking comes of age’, Harvard Business Review, 93 (9),
66–71.
M4263-LUDERS_9781785369476_t.indd 181 04/05/2017 10:35
182 Innovating for trust
Lee, Y. (2008), ‘Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for
designers in the co-design process’, CoDesign, 4 (1), 31–50.
Leifer, L., H. Plattner and C. Meinel (2013), Design Thinking Research: Building
Innovation Eco-systems, London: Springer Science and Business Media.
Lockwood, Thomas (2010), Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer
Experience, and Brand Value, New York: Skyhorse Publishing.
Lusch, R. and S. Vargo (2014), The Service-dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog,
Debate, and Directions, London: Routledge.
Martin, Roger (2009), The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next
Competitive Advantage, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Mattelmäki, T. (2008), ‘Probing for co-exploring’, CoDesign, 4 (1), 65–78.
Merz, M., Y. He and S. Vargo (2009), ‘The evolving brand logic: a service-dominant
logic perspective’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37 (3), 328–44.
Miles, I. (2008), ‘Patterns of innovation in service industries’, IBM Systems
Journal, 47 (1), 115–28.
Morrison, S. and F. Crane (2007), ‘Building the service brand by creating and
managing an emotional brand experience’, Journal of Brand Management, 14,
410–21.
Muratovski, Gjoko (2015), ‘Paradigm shift: report on the new role of design in
business and society’. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation,
1 (2), 118–39.
Press, M. and R. Cooper (2003), The Design Experience, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Sandström, S., B. Edvardsson, P. Kristensson and P. Magnusson (2008), ‘Value in
use through service experience’, Managing Service Quality, 18 (2), 112–26.
Sangiorgi, D. (2012), ‘Value co-creation in design for services’. In S. Miettinen
and A. Valtonen (eds), Service Design with Theory, Lapland University Press,
pp. 96–104.
Schön, D. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner, Farnham: Ashgate.
Shostack, L. (1984), ‘Designing services that deliver’, Harvard Business Review, 62
(1), 39–133.
Smith, Preston G. and Donald G. Reinertsen (1998), Developing Products in Half
the Time (2nd edn), Chichester: Wiley.
Star, S. (1990), ‘The structure of ill-structured solutions: boundary objects
and heterogeneous distributed problem solving’. In G. Les and N. Michael
(eds), Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2, San Francisco, CA: Morgan
Kaufmann, pp. 37–54.
Stickdorn, Marc and Jakob Schneider (2010), This is Service Design Thinking,
Amsterdam: BIS.
Vargo, S. and R. Lusch (2004), ‘Evolving to a new dominant logic of marketing’,
Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 1–17.
Vargo, S. and R. Lusch (2008), ‘Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution’,
Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 1–11.
Voss, C. and L. Zomerdijk (2007), Innovation in Experiential Services – an Empirical
View, London: London Business School.
Wetter Edman, K. (2011), ‘Service design – a conceptualization of an emerging
practice’, Licentiate thesis, University of Gothenburg.
M4263-LUDERS_9781785369476_t.indd 182 04/05/2017 10:35
