Content uploaded by Mieke van der Bijl-Brouwer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mieke van der Bijl-Brouwer on Mar 24, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Mieke van der Bijl-Brouwer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mieke van der Bijl-Brouwer on Mar 18, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
Relational Service Design and New Public Management:
Navigating a Paradox?
Marlieke Kieboom* | Mieke van der Bijl-Brouwer
*corresponding author: marlieke.kieboom@gmail.com
Kieboom, Marlieke & Mieke van der Bijl-Brouwer (2025, forthcoming). Relational
Service Design and New Public Management: Navigating a Paradox? In: Futures in
Public Management. Leeds, UK: Emerald Publishing.
Abstract
Relational public services require a relational service design approach, yet the
complexity of this approach is rarely acknowledged, and examples of its application
in public administration literature are few and far between. This issue challenges the
design of relational public services: designing with the status quo leads to designs
for and of the status quo. To bridge the gap, this book chapter develops a new
typology and practice of relational public service design. The typology distinguishes
between designing for relational services and service designing as relating. The
former emphasises the role of relationships in the service outcome of public service
design processes, while the latter focuses on relating in the role and practices of
designers who are service designing. An auto-ethnographic case study from British
Columbia (Canada - Turtle Island) illustrates this typology, but also depicts the
challenge of designing relationally in a complex, non-relational public administration
context, in this case a (New Public Management, NPM) paradigm. We demonstrate
that public relational service design practice can not take hold as long as designers
and public managers are not aware of NPM’s dominance, precisely because NPM
promotes and requires ‘unrelationality’, creating a complex paradox. To transcend
the paradox of public relational service design, we propose expanding the concept of
relationality in multiple dimensions: within the mindset of the public service designer
and their practice. This involves integrating systemic design to address contextual
complexity and reflexive relational design to counteract non-relational tendencies in
work environments. We conclude by suggesting future research directions.
Preface
‘Nobody lives everywhere; everybody lives somewhere. Nothing is connected to
everything; everything is connected to something.’ Donna Haraway - Staying with the
Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene (2016: 31)
‘Relationality requires that you know about me before you can begin to understand
my work’ writes AnishinaabeKwe (Ojibway woman) Melanie Goodchild (2021: 54). To
adhere to our proposed practice of reflexive relationality in this chapter, we, the
Dutch authors Marlieke Kieboom and Mieke van der Bijl-Brouwer, think it is important
1
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
to first introduce ourselves and our position in society prior to introducing our
thoughts on public relational service design.
We both hail from the same geographical area in the Netherlands - Zeeland -
however a sea arm splits the land apart. This sea arm explains why Marlieke speaks
Dutch with a Flemish accent while Mieke grew up speaking a Zeeuws dialect. We
both live or have lived in countries with a colonial past and acknowledge how
colonisation continues to affect the present and future. We self-identify as cis-gender
women and our skin colour is white. We acknowledge our privileged position in
society without erasing our own experiences with the adversarial effects of misogyny,
socio-economic inequality and other late stage capitalism ills. Our names being very
similar is pure coincidence.
For the past decade we have focussed on writing, teaching and researching about
how systemic thinking and design practice is applied in practical settings in society,
academia and government, albeit Mieke in the context of academia and Marlieke
with(in) governments. Our slight differences in how we view the world and perceive
our work were respectfully explored in dialogue and through writing in the past few
years. This chapter is a result of our coming together on our views and experiences
on applying relational service design in our respective fields of expertise. Within this
chapter, Marlieke’s contribution lies in unearthing the paradox of practising relational
service design within a New Public Management paradigm and bringing in the case
study while Mieke structured our thoughts and further embedded the paradox within
academic design literature. Our discussion and collaboration over relational public
service design and its typologies has strengthened both our work and our thoughts
on the field.
This chapter is written on personal title and in personal time and does not represent
the views or positions of the organisations the authors are affiliated with.
1. Introduction
Relational services require relational service designing. Service design is a
human-centred design approach, aimed at investigating “people’s experiences,
interactions and practices as a main source of inspiration for redesigning or
imagining new services.” (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011: 203). The service design
literature has undergone a significant shift from viewing service design as the design
of services performed by two main actors: service providers (representing an
organisation providing a service) and customers (users of a service) to a perspective
of designing for service that is deeply linked to the quality of interpersonal
relationships between humans as “relational beings” (Cipolla and Manzini, 2009;
Kimbell, 2011). This shift emphasises the creation of new relations within a
socio-material context rather than designing services as static objects. Designing for
service, or what we refer to in this chapter as relational service design, focuses on
2
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
facilitating and nurturing interactions among various actors, rather than simply
designing a service blueprint for a standard, transactional service.
Cipolla and Manzini argue that relational services cannot be designed in a traditional
sense; they can “only be ‘enabled,’” i.e. they need to be designed in such a way as
to “start up, support, and continuously sustain interpersonal encounters between the
participants” (2009: 50). On this particular topic however exists a research-practice
gap, particularly when considering the application of relational service design in
public administration. Public administration is here defined as the study and
implementation of government policies and programs. It involves the management of
public resources to achieve the goals of the government and serve the needs of the
public. Public administration finds expression in areas such as budgeting, planning,
personnel management, policy analysis and service delivery. Its organisational
model has evolved from the traditional bureaucratic compliance model in the 1950s,
to New Public Management (NPM) in ‘Western’ anglophone countries from the
1980’s onwards. In the New Public Management paradigm “attempts to improve the
performance of the state have relied on command and control from above and
choice and competition from outside” and are ruled by a “targets and markets
management technique” (Cooke and Muir, 2012: 7). It is characterised by
measurement and competitiveness to generate cost-efficiency, effectiveness and
fiscal accountability, reducing public service interactions between governments and
citizens to a “strategic transaction” (Wilson et al., 2024).
Some academics claim that NPM has transitioned into newer public administration
paradigms such as New Public Governance (NPG) that emphasise service
effectiveness and outcomes, design of inter-organisational relationships and where
trust, relational capital and relational contracts act as the core governance
mechanisms (Osborne, 2006; Torfing & Sørensen, 2014; Hollstein et al., 2017).
However, this view is contested. In public administrations in the UK, US, Canada and
New Zealand it has been proven that NPM has “zombified” staying power (Wilson et
al., 2024), in which “citizen-centred design for the social good’” is both used as a
response to and as a measure of neoliberal austerity, or the obscuring thereof (Story,
2021: 205).
The objective of our study is to explore and discuss the application of relational
service design in public administration. We focus on two particular aspects: the
context in which relational service design is practised - in this case the dominant
organisational paradigm of New Public Management (NPM) - and the design
practices applied within. Through a case study we demonstrate that public relational
service design practices cannot fully take root unless the influence of NPM practices
are recognized and openly challenged, as NPM inherently fosters 'unrelationality',
leading to a paradox. We propose to enable public service designers and managers
to become more aware of and intentional in what types of public relational design
they are practicing and the contextual constraints at play in order to make way for
3
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
more relational public service outcomes. We introduce two essential elements of a
bi-directional (inward-outward) design practice to address the paradox: first, a
systemic design practice that considers the complexity and layers of the challenge at
hand and second, a reflexive relational design practice. This practice requires public
managers and service designers to reflect both on their context and their own
thought and position when relating to people in need of public services.
This chapter unfolds in four sections. The first section discusses the current literature
on relational service design and public administration and introduces an original
typology of relational public service design: design for relational service and service
designing as relating. The second section presents an auto-ethnographic case study
of the application of relational service design in a public administration in British
Columbia, Canada. In discussing the case and the entangled role of the public
relational service designer in the third section, we identify the paradox between the
need for relational service design and the anti-relational nature of public
administration that is embedded within an NPM paradigm. We discuss what it
requires from the relational public service designer to overcome this paradox. The
fourth section contains our conclusion: although relational service design sits
uncomfortably along an organisational paradigm like NPM, there are systemic and
reflexive design practices that actively transcend the status quo, however more
practical examples and future research are needed. We close out with suggesting
future research directions.
2. State of the art literature review
2.1 Design in public sector research
Design is a field of practice with a connected academic discipline of design studies.
While design practice originated in architecture and product design, it is increasingly
used as a process that leads to the creation of any type of intervention that – as
Herbert Simon (1996) stated - changes existing situations into preferred ones,
including services, procedures, strategies and policies. Designing is both a way of
reasoning or ‘thinking’ and a way of ‘doing’ supported by a set of practices. Design
reasoning is distinct from scientific reasoning, and has been described using terms
such as ‘abductive reasoning’ and ‘framing’ (Dorst, 2011), ‘co-evolution of problem
and solution’ (Dorst & Cross, 2001), and ‘synthesis’ (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012).
This reasoning process is supported by a wide variety of principles and practices.
The most well-known and applied principles and practices in the context of the public
sector include human-centred design, iterative design, and co-design.
Human-centred design is a group of methods and principles aimed at supporting the
design of useful, usable, pleasurable and meaningful product or services for people,
by gaining and applying knowledge about human beings to design products or
services that meet their needs (van der Bijl-Brouwer and Dorst, 2017). Iterative
design is the incremental improvement of designed interventions and the generation
of knowledge about the problem domain by developing and testing prototypes (van
4
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
der Bijl-Brouwer, 2019). Co-design or ‘participatory design’ is the involvement of
citizens, end-users and other relevant stakeholders in the design process
(Blomkamp, 2018).
While design reasoning requires a certain level of expertise, it is also acknowledged
by various scholars that ‘everybody is a designer’. Manzini refers to this natural
human ability to adopt a design approach as ‘diffuse design’ (Manzini, 2016). In the
context of the application of design in the public sector, Junginger (2015) argues that
design is already present in everyday organisational life and part of the
organisational DNA, ”long before any service designer or other design professional
enters the scene”. Beyond the organisational context, Vink et al., (2021) recognize
the agency of all actors, highlighting that many actors are involved in an ongoing
process of collective designing.
Over the past two decades, design has been increasingly adopted within
governments and public institutions as a way to improve policy and service
innovation and create value for society (Junginger, 2013 & 2015; Bason, 2014).
Designers are embedded within innovation labs working alongside government
organisations (McGann et al, 2018) but also increasingly hired and embedded as
design professionals within government agencies (Kim et al, 2022). Design is used
both to improve public services and to address more open and complex or ‘wicked’
challenges (Rittel and Webber, 1973). A growing body of literature speaks to design
as politics. Design is a matter of choices—of what will be and thus what will not be
(Fry, 2010). From this perspective it is important to note that “design tends to
express itself from the point of view of the people involved” (Manzini, 2015, p. 93).
2.2. Relational views in service design research
One of the sub-disciplines of design studies is ‘service design’. Sangiorgi and
Prendiville (2017) explain how the term service design originates in service
marketing literature from the 1980s (Shostack, 1984) and later appears as a phase
in new service development (Edvardsson & Olsson, 1996). In this book chapter we
draw on a more recent literature that views service design as a human-centred
design approach, aimed at investigating “people’s experiences, interactions and
practices as a main source of inspiration for redesigning or imagining new services.”
(Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011, p. 203).
An important shift in the service design literature is the move from seeing service
design as being about design of services to design for service (Kimbell, 2011).
Rather than seeing services as objects that can be prescribed and controlled through
for example the design of a service blueprint, Kimbell describes how designing for
service is aimed at the creation and development of “proposals for new kinds of
value relation within a socio-material world” (ibid, p.49), and sees “service as
enacted in the relations between diverse actors, rather than as a specific kind of
object to be designed” (ibid, p. 42).
5
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
This relational view on service design has also been promoted by Cipolla and
Manzini (2009), who proposed a framework to reinforce the ability of the service
design discipline to deal with the interpersonal relational qualities in services, which
they refer to as a relational service. They suggest that relational services cannot be
designed; they can only be enabled, i.e., “they need to be designed in such a way as
to support, and continuously sustain interpersonal encounters between the
participants” (p. 50).
Human relationships have been considered in service staff-consumer relationships,
but also relationships between service users (see for example Postma & Stappers,
2006; Snelders et al., 2014); between staff in collaborative services (see for example
Baek et al., 2017); and between heterogeneous actors in service networks (Carvalho
& Goodyear, 2017). The personal characteristics of such relationships are
highlighted by Cipolla and Manzini (2009). The explicit value proposition of relational
design lies in prioritising relationship-building as an outcome of design, with a deep
focus on the relationship of the designer to what is designed (Manzini, 2015).
Relational design thus challenges the perceived duality between the design expert
and the designed (Nielsen & Bjerk, 2022). Awareness of positions of power of the
designer in relation to the designed is of special importance in service design
(Escobar, 2018; Goodwill et al., 2021). “In any service there will always be someone
with a need and someone with the capacity to help with fulfilling this need”, write
Akama and Tonkinwise (in Blomkvist, et al:2023: 46). Awareness of these
interactions is thus an essential ‘service design material’ (Blomkvist, et al: 2024).
While the relational view on service design has been widely adopted in the literature
(see e.g. van der Bijl-Brouwer, 2022), there remains a gap between academic
conceptualizations of relational services and its application in practice, both in the
public and private sectors.
2.3. Practising relational service design in public administration
The emergence of relational public services is increasingly explored, ie. in the
context of social innovation (Barvalho & Engler, 2022), relational welfare states
(Mulgan, 2012; MacKenzie, 2021; Cottam 2018, Mendoza and Vernis, 2008), public
administration and non-profit services (Bartels and Turnbull, 2020; French et al.,
2023; Wilson et al., 2024;) and healthcare innovation (Neuhoff et al., 2022). However
a typology and a description of relational service design practice in a public
administration context is specifically lacking, while patterning different types of
relations (Story, 2020: 211) and design practices (Bjerk and Nielsen, 2022: 1068)
could benefit the field. To generate greater conceptual clarity and celebrate diversity
in approaches, we introduce an original typology for relational public service design
practice and describe design practices and outcomes within. We make a distinction
between two types of relational public service design: 1) design for relational public
service (building on Cipolla and Manzini’s framework), and 2) public service
designing as relating. The former focuses on how relationships impact public service
outcomes, like increased trust or citizen agency. The latter focuses on the designer's
6
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
relationality (role, positionality and practices), and how the public service design
process affects people involved, such as changes in power dynamics or cultural
beliefs.
2.3.1 Design for relational public service
Design for relational public service focuses on design for the delivery of relationships
as the public service. There are several different relational design dimensions in this
type of design. First, there is design that enables human-to-human relationships in
public services, e.g. more personal interactions between service users and service
providers, or between communities and public service actors in a public service
system. These interactions are aimed at creating resonance, openness, trust and
connection reflective of the complexity, ambiguity and entanglement of human lives,
and are aimed towards creating conditions for people to access their own capability
to thrive. This perspective draws on Cipolla and Mazini’s Buberian understanding of
“interpersonal relational qualities” in which people are seen neither as users or
clients nor as theoretical “humans” but as “relational” beings (2009). Such a
viewpoint draws our intention to the whole social system of related humans, and the
effect that positive relationships can have on the knowledge flows, creativity,
collective care, and resilience of communities, organisations, families and other
social systems (van der Bijl-Brouwer, 2022). A relational design approach thus marks
a clear departure from the transactional nature of traditionally designed services. An
example of this type of relational public service design in practice is the “Liberated
Method”, a change methodology that was developed in a series of prototypes and
which focused upon freeing up the creativity and compassion of front-line
case-workers to address citizen needs in Northumbria (UK).1
The second dimension enables improved human-service ecosystem relationships
aimed at reducing system complexity, e.g. an integrated instead of a fragmented
service experience based on a life-experience, such as child birth, retirement, or
injury. Also described as ‘life event design’, or ‘government-wide customer
experience design’, the relational service designer reasons from a citizen’s
significant ‘life experience-event’ and designs for a series of connected service
experiences across silos: within and across (government and non-government)
agencies, even across levels of government (federal, provincial, city) — rather than
reasoning from within bureaucratic silos and pre-conceived, individual solutions. In
this type of relational service design there is an opportunity to enable the redesign of
institutions from within and eco-systemically. An example of this type of public
ecosystem design is found in The Office of Management and Budget’s “Customer
Experience” design team in the US2 and in New Zealand around a life-journey based
2 https://www.performance.gov/cx/projects/
1
https://www.changingfuturesnorthumbria.co.uk/rethinking-public-service#:~:text=The%20'Liberated%2
0Method'%20has%20been,Method'%20comes%20from%20them).
7
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
design called “SmartStart” for parents with young children3. A recent study
emphasises the importance of self-organising “communities of service” in this work
to connect capabilities of service-providing organisations and allow them to build
relationships across “life event service ecosystems” (Gros, 2020: 95).
A third dimension covers human-planet relationships. This type of relational public
service design takes into account and strengthens a “do no harm” relationship
between people and other living and nonliving beings (Shafafi & Bazoli, 2023).
More-than-human design, life-centred design or regenerative design approaches
have emerged in response to the pressing issues of climate change, species
extinction, and the rise of autonomous technologies (Thackara, 2006). These
challenges invite designers to account for the needs of all living and nonliving beings
(i.e. animals, rivers, plants) and their interactions with humans, aiming to develop
climate-resilient and life-generating environments for the future. One example of a
public service design is a “more-than-human” exhibition, a collaboration between the
Town of Victoria Park and students of the University of Western Australia’s School of
Design. In the exhibition citizens were invited to think about their role in creating a
town where both humans and “more than human” inhabitants can co-exist and
thrive.4
2.3.2 Service designing as relating
The outcomes of design processes depend on how the designer sees the world and
what their position is in relation to the people, communities and places they design
with and for (Manzini, 2015). The second type, service designing as relating, is
concerned with whom or what designers are relating to in their design processes.
There are several characteristics of service designing as relating.
The first characteristic concerns the consideration of power relationships within the
design process (Goodwill et al., 2021). Relational public service design can be a
facilitated process led by an expert designer who is mindful of their privilege,
empathetic to the challenges through lived experience, and committed to divesting
power with the community. Yet, they are aware that power within civil society
communities is not homogeneously distributed: ambiguous filters such as privilege
and chance shape which ideas are emphasised. The “Relationship Project”5 in the
UK aims to design an infrastructure to support a thriving field of relationship-centred
practice with policy makers, academics and community action groups. Within a
case-study in the Barking and Dagenham borough of East-London describes how
“hopeful disruption” has been a helpful relational practice for public servants (ie.
social workers) to connect to people. Hopeful disruption is “the willingness to take
5 https://relationshipsproject.org/case-maker/
4
https://www.victoriapark.wa.gov.au/news/first-of-its-kind-more-than-human-exhibition-shows-the-possi
bility-of-creating-a-town-for-all-living-beings-to-thrive/10062
3 https://smartstart.services.govt.nz/
8
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
risks and disrupt norms in order to create possibilities for meaningful connection,
such as lowering formality in a conversation with youth.” The project acknowledges
that “the service manager, policy maker, commissioner, political leader invariably is,
or has been, a patient, a service user, a carer, a parent.” (Lloyd-Rose et al., 2024:
63). Alternatively, relational public service design may be performed by community
members instead of ‘expert’ public service designers in order to further challenge
existing power imbalances. In this type of relational design there is attention for
reducing the use of extractivist, transactional, non-relational research methodologies,
such as surveys, observations and interviews as they could reinforce and perpetuate
patterns of division and oppression (Udoewa and Gress, 2023: 101).
The second characteristic is concerned with pluriversal design, or the inclusion of
other ways of being and thinking (Escobar, 2018). In pluriversal design the designer
is aware of and applies different worldviews within design processes, i.e. colonial,
western, deductive, objective worldviews and decolonial, indigenous, subjective,
generative worldviews. An example of this growing body of work is presented by
design practitioner-academic Manuhuia Barcham. Manuhuia, who was raised on a
marae and speaks Maori, shares a case study focused on the restoration of a
riverine system in Aotearoa | New Zealand. He demonstrates how different ways of
being influence our ways of designing. He advocates for a pluriversal, culturally
diverse design approach where “worlds—Māori and non-Māori—can come together
to create new ways of governing our relationships with ourselves and the natural
world” (2022:16).
A third element is relating to place and strengths. In place-based services for-with
whole communities the designer does away with the idea of individual service
‘consumers’ in need of separate services but instead reasons from ‘place’ (i.e. a
neighbourhood, a river estuary) in connection to the whole community in terms of
their strengths and needs. An example is a design project involving sport and
physical activities teams in the borough of Camden (UK) to understand the barriers
to physical activity. Instead of looking at ‘the needs’ of the community in relation to
leisure centre services, the designers mapped ‘assets’ and identified what the
system of physical activity is across the entire borough, asking themselves, “how can
we strengthen it?”. By stimulating what is already working, they encouraged a
system-wide approach to increasing physical activity in the borough that has
designed itself to be unique to the individual needs of the diverse community it
serves (Drummond, 2019).
9
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
Type 1: Design for
relational public
service
Dimension 1:
enabling
human-to-human
relationships
Dimension 2:
enabling
human-service
ecosystem
relationships
Dimension 2:
enabling
human-planet
relationships
Designer action
Designer enables
interactive,
personal, relational
relationships
Designer connects
service experiences
based on people’s
life events
Designer includes
all living beings
Space
Between service
users and service
providers as
‘relational human
beings’, between
communities and
public service actors
Across and within
government and
non-government
agencies, across
government levels
(Federal, Provincial,
City)
Between humans
and other living and
non-living beings
Design outcome
To resemble the
relational complexity
at hand so that
people can access
their own capability
to thrive
To reduce system
complexity
To develop
climate-resilient and
life-generating
environments for
future generations
Type 2: Service
designing as
relating
Dimension 1:
Relating to power
Dimension 2:
Relating to
different
worldviews
Dimension 3:
Relating to place,
strengths
Designer action
Designer relates to
community and
divests power
Designer relates to
different worldviews
within design
processes
Designer applies
place and
strength-based
approaches tied to a
geographical area
Space
Between their own
power/privilege/lived
experience and that
of the people they
are designing
with-for
Between their own
worldviews and the
worldviews of
people they are
designing with-for
Between their own
histories tied to
place and the place
of communities in
need of relational
designing
Design outcome
In order to challenge
existing power
imbalances, address
oppression,
increase trust and
agency
To generate and
respect diverse
outcomes
To lift up a whole
community tied to a
place
Table 1: An original typology and description of design practice in relational public service
design. By: Kieboom and Van der Bijl-Brouwer (2025).
10
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
Introducing a relational service design typology (see table 1) offers public service
designers conceptual clarity on which type of relational design they are applying and
why in order to become more explicit in what kind of outcome they intend to achieve.
This typology is not meant to be exhaustive and other dimensions and
characteristics could be added in the future. We also acknowledge that one could
question whether all parts of a public administration within the concept of a
nation-state should become relational in the same ways. In “The Relational State”
(2012: 23), Geoff Mulgan points out that some services (ie. defence, foreign policy,
tax) might require less engagement and commitment from citizens, while other
services require “co-production” with citizens (ie. health, housing, education,
environment, family services).
Design for relational public service in which human-to-human relationships are
centralised currently appears to be the most common focus in public relational
service design. We believe that practising both types in tandem and in a
non-dualistic manner, which ultimately expands our understanding of relationality,
can offer better opportunities for positive and innovative outcomes for humans,
communities, and public service institutions. This approach mirrors the entanglement
and complexity of the socio-economic, ecological, or organisational context in
relation to the designer and what should be designed. However, the application of
relational service design practice of any type remains rare in public administration.
Conclusion
While the role of relationality is being explored and different types of relational design
practice are being developed, there remains a significant knowledge gap on
relational service design in a public administration context. What is the practice
challenged by? In the next section we introduce an auto-ethnographic case study by
the first author of this chapter, Marlieke, about an attempt to design relationally in a
complex service design challenge faced by a team of service designers in the Public
Service of British Columbia in regard of the unregulated drug poisoning emergency
in British Columbia | Canada | Turtle Island. The objective of the study is to further
explore the application of relational service design in public design practice and
demonstrate how the practice of design for relational service is intimately tied to
service designing as relating while being fundamentally challenged by (elements of)
its New Public Management context.
3. Methodology and auto-ethnographic case study
This case study was chosen to expose the high levels of plurality and complexity
present in the practice of designing relationally in a public service context. The three
anecdotes that follow are auto-ethnographic, post scriptum, personal reflections of
Marlieke, from her in-depth experience as a public service designer tasked with a
complex service design project. Auto-ethnography is a type of ethnographic
11
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
representation that consists of a blend of autobiographical and ethnographical data
formed into a text which is produced by an author who has been the subject of
ethnographic writing (Besio: 2009). Marlieke’s relational practice to a public service
design project thus includes her own personal, biased, subjective view and is
constrained by her own positionality, and as such is illustrative of the required
reflexivity for relational public service designers as argued for later in this chapter.
Reflexivity is here defined as “a dynamic process of cultivating an awareness of the
multiplicity of social structures internalised by oneself and others” (Vink, 2022: 6) to
generate “ongoing scrutiny of the choices that are made when identifying and
integrating diverse values, priorities, worldviews, expertise, and knowledge.” (Polk,
2015).
In addressing the potential critique regarding bias, it is important to draw on Lincoln
and Guba’s perspective on the trustworthiness of data in naturalistic settings
(Schwandt et al., 2007). To uphold qualitative standards of rigour, this study
emphasises trustworthiness, richness of data, and transparency. Recognizing that an
unbiased account is not the objective nor is it possible, this research leverages
personal experience as a source of rich, hard-won data and insight. By
acknowledging and reflecting on the researcher’s positionality, the study aims to
enhance the depth and credibility of its findings and provide richer and more
contextualised insight than a standard, detached study could achieve.
This account does not represent the views of the Government of British Columbia or
the British Columbia Public Service (BCPS). However, efforts were made to ensure
alignment with the BCPS Code of Conduct—particularly in regard to confidentiality
and public comments—as well as the Oath of Employment, specifically in terms of
impartiality. Furthermore, the account reflects the corporate values of integrity,
service, and courage, which public servants in British Columbia are required to
uphold. Advice from an ethics inquiry was also sought and implemented in the
preparation of this account.
The collection of auto-ethnographic, ‘voice from the field’ type anecdotes are aimed
at learning from, rather than critiquing government approaches, individual
government officials or current government policy. Part of the material for the
anecdotes stems from reflective conversations with design colleagues. Consent was
sought to publish the reflections where lived experiences of others were involved, yet
to adhere to a practice of auto-ethnography further cross-validation of data was not
pursued. We acknowledge that applying a relational research approach would further
strengthen argumentation towards a relational public service design approach. Due
to several constraints this approach was not in the realm of possibility for this study.
3.1. Context
This case study discusses stories that touch on sensitive topics such as drug use,
death and intergenerational trauma related to the drug poisoning and overdose
12
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
emergency in British Columbia, Canada | Turtle Island. The situation described is
ongoing: since the Province of British Columbia declared a provincial health
emergency in 2016, over 14.400 people lost their lives to a drug overdose.6 As of
March 2024, unregulated drug toxicity is the leading cause of death in British
Columbia for persons aged 10 to 59, accounting for more deaths than homicides,
suicides, accidents and natural diseases combined.7
In 2017 the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions was established. Soon after a
small team (2 service designers, a co-op student and a service design manager) was
tasked to perform a 6-month service design project, which spanned into 2018. Their
initial design brief was to inform the design and development of a digital application
to lower the number of overdose deaths, specifically of people who were using drugs
at home alone. At the time the statistics showed that over 90% of the overdoses
occurred indoors, of which more than 50% in private homes. People who were most
at risk were men, aged 30–59 and Indigenous (in Canada | Turtle Island: First
Nations, Métis and Inuit) peoples.
What follows are Marlieke’s auto-ethnographic anecdotes. At the time of the events,
the design team applied service design and systemic design principles from a more
transactionally oriented and scientifically informed design perspective as they were
not yet familiar with the concepts of relationality or New Public Management. In the
anecdotes the authors signal relational and relating practices [in brackets] to aid the
reader in recognizing different types of relational service design in outcomes and
processes [relating, relational]. If there were contextual factors at play that in their
view constrained relationality, the authors indicate them with [non-]. Please note that
these indicators were subjectively assigned by the authors to provoke a discussion
about relationality, further underlining how the perspectives and positions of public
service designers influence the process of relationally designing public services. In
reality the level of relationality might be more of a sliding scale rather than a binary
setting.
Anecdote 1 - Expanding the design brief and collaboration
I - Marlieke - was tasked by a senior executive at the time to investigate how to build
a digital application that could monitor if someone was overdosing, and alert
emergency services if needed [relational]. Not strange, given our Ministry’s
department was concerned with creating ‘good digital service experiences’ for
citizens to encourage ‘self-service’ [non-relational]. After some initial consultations,
my colleague and I questioned if a product-driven service was the right approach.
What was behind the overdose statistics? With support of the senior executive we
7 Source:
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024PSSG0001-000069#:~:text=Unregulated%20drug%20toxicity%2
0is%20the,accidents%20and%20natural%20disease%20combined
6 Source:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/toxic-drug-deaths-march-2024-1.7196617#:~:text=
More%20than%2014%2C400%20people%20in,first%20declared%20in%20April%202016
13
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
gathered our project team at the partnering Ministry. During the meeting we
proposed to expand our design brief towards better understanding why people are
overdosing alone, what are their (or their surviving relatives, friends) ideas for
change, and if an app should be built, what would be the considerations for such an
app? We framed our request as a risk-lowering approach, by not putting all our
service design eggs in one basket. The partnering Ministry somewhat reluctantly
agreed, but was worried we wouldn’t find people to talk to. After all, personal
possession and use of drugs was illegal at the time and we were ‘government
workers’. “I think we should outsource this work to a consultancy” [non-relating], said
a public manager during the meeting. I looked over to my leadership, who in return
looked at me and asked: “can we do this?”. “We can do this”, I said, “if the Ministry
can trust and support taking a new approach, an approach that will involve all of us.”
[relating].
We named our project “Behind the Numbers”. We took a systemic and
trauma-informed service design approach in which we intentionally looked across
organisational boundaries [relational]. We first prototyped research insights with new
relationships (ie. between people, academics, policy analysts, community
organisations, emergency service providers, Health Authorities). Second, we
prototyped our services taking a co-design, trauma-informed approach [relating]. In
image 1 we demonstrate how this approach resulted in a spiral-shaped research and
design methodology.
Image 1: a spiral-shaped research and design methodology in the Behind the
Numbers service design project in 2017. Image by: Marlieke Kieboom (2017)
The service design team ended up having over 100 conversations people with lived
experience (people who use illicit substances like cocaine, crack or heroin alone,
14
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
their family and friends), and with service providers across 30 different organisations
(Health Authorities, first responders, policy makers, community action groups,
academia) to better understand their experiences and the challenges they face8
[relational]. We also gained permission to work with a (paid) peer researcher with
lived experience using drugs, a first in the history of the BC Public Service [relating].
A significant, organisational design challenge remained: the brief and funding came
from just one team (Communications & Public Engagement) in one Ministry
[non-relational], while the social challenge at hand crossed, and continues to cross,
many policy areas (housing, income inequality, public safety, health), Ministries, and
even jurisdictions if we consider criminal law or the origins of the drugs [relational].
The brief was also severely time constrained and thus bounded: while the drug
overdose health emergency had decades to emerge, our service designing budget
reached as far as six months. This was in part due to the cost-recovery obligation the
service design was subject to. In this “fee for service” model a government unit
charges another government unit internally for a service delivered in order to
encourage cost effectiveness through competition [non-relational].
Anecdote 2 - Relating to each other
To meet our peer researcher - his pseudonym was ‘Voices’ - for his ‘job interview’, I
had to drive 40 kilometres out of town with my service design colleague and our
manager. I double-checked the address. It looked like there was just an abandoned
shack with a broken front door, and a trailer. Out came Voices though: in his 50’s,
stubble beard, hoarse voice. He reluctantly shook hands with us, “the government
ladies”, as he would call us for the first little while. I had dressed casually for the
occasion [relating], while my manager was wearing office attire [non-relating]. Voices
showed us around his squatted home, which to him was “a safe place to use drugs” -
heroin about twice a day, in his case. Voices and his friend ran a clandestine ‘safe
injection service’ for approximately 15 friends [relational]. They would use drugs in
their presence to lower the chances of dying alone from an overdose of deadly
fentanyl. In case it went wrong, they had naloxone (opioid reversal medication) kits in
every room, provided by the local harm reduction community organisation
[relational].
“So the government wants to build an app”, he asked, “and you wonder if I would use
it?”. He peered through his eyes, and scuffed: “you really think I would think about an
app when I take my shot [of heroin]? Or that I trust the government?”. An awkward
silence ensued. “I get it”, I said, “it’s fair to think that” [relating]. We decided to move
to a cafe and continue our conversation, while our manager stayed outside to take
some calls. We hear about Voices’ great uncle, who was a premier of BC in the
1910’s. “He’d be proud of me if he knew you wanted to hire me!”, he joked. “So,
have you ever used drugs?” [relating], while looking in all seriousness at us, service
8
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/services-for-government/service-experience-digital-
delivery/service-content-design/case-studies/why-do-people-use-substances-alone
15
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
designers. Was this a test, I wondered, a job interview in reverse? Reluctantly one of
us admitted to having some experiences with [..] [relating]. Voices looked up, folded
his hands on the table and said: “Allright, I'll work with you. How much are you going
to pay me?”. [relating]
Our team ended up working with Voices for the duration of the project. His lived
experience in using substances alone was invaluable to better understanding the
complexity of the toxic drug emergency. He co-designed questions, hosted and
facilitated conversations, connected the design team to folks with lived experience,
accompanied us at meetings, and held us accountable throughout with both his
knowledge and his undeniable wit and candour [relational].
Voices and I maintained a connection after the project ended [relational], however
his work ties to the Ministry abruptly ended with the project [non-relational]. Voices
often expressed jokingly how disappointed he was in the eventual outcomes of
“service design”, but also stressed how proud he was of building relationships “with
the government” and for bringing stories “deeper into government”.
Anecdote 3 - Designing with(in) ourselves and with each other
Our way of researching, through forming deep relationships with service providers
across organisations and through deeply relating with people with lived experience
using drugs, became reflected in our relational service designs, such as “design
safe, supervised, open spaces [at work places, in hospitals, beyond shelters for
people who are unhomed] to use drugs”, “design anti-stigma training for-with all
hospital staff, from doctors to security staff” and “design an awareness campaign to
open up a Province-wide dialogue in families, workplaces”. These relational service
designs in turn required creating and maintaining deep(er) relationships within
ourselves, as well as within public service managers and executives. In this regard I
had to reckon with my own assumptions and knowledge gaps. I learned to shift to
‘people-first language’ (i.e. from saying ‘drug users’ to ‘people who use drugs’)
[relating]. One time we co-hosted a prototyping workshop about designing safe
places to use drugs with people who use drugs, but our design team failed to provide
such a place - not in the least because illicit drug possession was illegal. Luckily we
found out later that our peer researcher Voices had provided his “clandestine
services” once again [relational], this time for our workshop participants behind the
workshop space in the garage. We remained “government workers”, after all, he
shared.
Relational design practice seemed far outside of the comfort zone of my ‘higher-ups’.
For instance my leadership at the time, who although very supportive of our work,
told me much later that one time I came close to “being fired” because my comments
had been “out of line” in a meeting with a senior Ministry executive [non-relating]. It
happened at a pivotal decision-making moment in which the executive appeared to
lean towards prototyping a few low-hanging fruit-type service designs. In an attempt
16
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
to redirect attention back towards evidence that more complex, long-term service
opportunities could yield higher impacts, I decided to speak up about “social stigma”
from a personal point of view and invited people in the room to also come forward
and speak to their personal experiences with stigma, grief, loss and drug use
[relational, relating]. My point being: if we, in this room, can’t talk about our own
personal views and problems on pain, trauma and drug use, then how could we
relate or connect to and thus impact the entangled problems we are trying to work
with? But the response to my action - dead silence in the room and later the threat of
expulsion from the public service [non-relational]- indicated that I had crossed an
invisible but firmly drawn boundary, either between cultural and organisational
hierarchies or between being a designing public service innovator and being an
entangled, compassionate human.
The invisible line was far more visible for our peer researcher, for whom we didn’t
find a formal way of paying him a salary and who wasn’t invited to meetings with
executives, potentially out of fear that he could be ‘disruptive’ [non-relational]. Within
my position of privilege and power, I found relational ways to design with Voices
[relating], by paying him with VISA gift cards, by pre-recording a speech he wrote, or
by writing down his life story in our research material [relational]. While I, as a
service designer, was accommodating for and committed to building (personal and
professional) relationships and relations between people, between organisations
through care, empathy, trust and connection, our public service managers,
executives and organisational cultures and structures acted from a contradicting
frame - a paradox I had yet to understand and explore.
3.2 Relational and non-relational service outcomes
The design project surfaced new yet more standard (transactional) service
opportunities for government services (i.e. better access to health care, stable
housing and employment) and recommendations for new laws and policy, such as
the decriminalisation of drugs for personal use and the safe supply of
uncontaminated drugs. Here we focus on the relational and non-relational service
outcomes that could be attributed to the relational service design approach that was
taken.
3.2.1 Relational public service outcomes
Our project resulted in a ‘reframe’ of a province-wide media campaign that is
ongoing to date.9 Originally set to promote abstinence from using drugs, it was
redirected towards reducing social stigma by encouraging open conversations about
mental health and drug use within social circles. The project cautioned against the
design of a digital app. Our research found it could promote further social isolation
and deepen inequality. Second, working with paid peer researchers and providing
safe places to use drugs at gatherings became a more established practice for the
9 https://www.stopoverdose.gov.bc.ca/
17
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
Ministry of Mental Health and Addiction. Third, a relational service design model of
co-designing collaborations across organisations prior to co-designing services
enabled for a set of service opportunities that could be adopted by the
collaborations, instead of executed by and owned by the Province. For example, a
few years later a set of support services was set up for construction workers by their
workers union in collaboration with harm reduction organisations.10 Fourth, openly
published relational service design learning materials—such as visualizations of the
problem landscape, a story booklet featuring 25 stories from people with lived
experience and service providers, an opportunities booklet, a case study, and a
blog—continue to support engagement with other public service designers and
providers in learning about the complexity of designing within the toxic drug
emergency.11
3.2.2 Non-relational public service outcomes
First, the cost-recovery “consultancy” model we worked in and the position of this
work within a communications team led to actioning on the anti-stigma awareness
communications campaign service design only, while the opportunities pointed at a
multitude of cross-organisational service designs, also in the policy realm at a
Provincial and Federal public administration level (ie. decriminalisation). These
remained unactioned at the time of the project. Second, carefully built community
advocacy organisation-government relationships, which required ongoing deep
attention and trust from the Ministry(ies) post-service design, waned and soured over
time as deeply wished for policy changes weren’t actioned on. Third, since the
project heavily focused on understanding how to lower overdose deaths through
designing new services it may have missed an opportunity to investigate the deeper,
underlying, interconnected elements of the problem: pain and trauma as long
standing effects of industrialization and colonisation on society (Escobar et al, 2024),
a perspective that was also mentioned by research participants themselves via a
systems mapping exercise12. Could a design research question that was more
conscious of the complexity and relationality of the challenge at hand have
generated different service design outcomes? Fourth, within myself, as a human, the
project resulted in experiencing cognitive dissonance after the project ended. While
the situation was ongoing in public life, my professional ‘relating’ and relational
knowledge in this public service design project ended together with the end of the
project budget.
12
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-governments/services-policies-for-governm
ent/service-experience-digital-delivery/service-design/systems_map_aug2018.pdf
11
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/services-for-government/service-experience-digital-
delivery/service-content-design/case-studies/why-do-people-use-substances-alone
10 https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2022MMHA0003-000044
18
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
In 2023 there were more than 2,500 suspected illicit drug deaths in British Columbia,
the highest annual number recorded.13 While recent initiatives, such as the "safer
supply program," have been introduced, and both the BC Public Service Chief
Coroner and the Provincial Health Officer have recommended further exploration of
non-medical prescription approaches, the government has continued its focus on
enhancing the current medical model by expanding addiction and mental health care
services.14
4. Discussion
The case study illustrates how several elements of relational service design typology
were practised in tandem. While the designers introduced relational practices and
networked ways of working, the study depicts the challenge of designing relationally
in a complex public administration context that portrays elements of non-relationality.
Cottam (2011) points at the “dilemma of the welfare state” as a possible cause: a
service provider-recipient design frame leads to putting the onus on the individual to
figure out a complex maze of discrete, disconnected services available to them,
instead of making it the responsibility of the many service institutions involved who
help the individual improve their situation. Yet we suspect that another factor might
be at play: designers and public managers may act either unaware or unknowingly
under the shadows cast by dominant, non-relational management paradigms that
influence their design practices.
In this case the dominant organisational paradigm portrays apparent characteristics
of “New Public Management” (NPM). NPM is “concerned with a disaggregated state,
where policy making and implementation are at least partially articulated and
disengaged, and where implementation is through a collection of independent
service units, ideally in competition with each other.” (Osborne, 2006: 5). While the
service design project itself signals a shift towards a willingness to work in new,
un-siloed New Public Governance (NPG) ways, the case study portrays a dominant
mixture of traditional, bureaucratic public administration and NPM characteristics at
play at the expense of trust, relational capital and relational contracts. This was
prominently visible in the working relationship with peer researcher Voices, who was
welcomed in some spaces (ie. co-design, prototyping), yet was not fully invited in
others (ie. paid salary, executive meetings). This dynamic was also noticed in the
working relationships with partners: they were strengthened during the project, then
weakened after. See table 2 for further data points to support this observation.
14
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-bonnie-henry-report-prescribed-safe-supply-1.71
01874
13
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-sets-grim-record-with-2-511-toxic-drug-deaths-in
-2023-1.7093528
19
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
Context >
New Public Management
(NPM) Characteristics
New Public Governance
(NPG) Characteristics
Policy type
Public policy and service delivery
steered by hierarchy and competition
Public policy and service delivery
steered by networks
Data points from
anecdotes
Cost-recovery (“fee for service”) model
with strict lines and budget, threat of
disciplinary measures for designer,
top-down tasking and decision making,
distinction between ruler (e.g.
decision-maker, service provider) and
actor subjective to the ruler (e.g. citizen,
peer researcher)
Temporary systemic design project “Behind
the Numbers” brought together a network of
organisations
Organisational
structure
Disaggregate, separate entities
Cross-boundary collaborative activities
and multi-organisational arrangements
Data points from
anecdotes
Ministries each have their area of
expertise, policy team and service
delivery teams are separate
Temporary relationships and collaborations
formed in systemic design project “Behind
the Numbers”
Approach
Generate trust through contractual
control
Generate trust through care: people as
partners, co-producers of public policies
and services
Data points from
anecdotes
6-month contract, small budget,
professional team and deadline, peer
researcher not trusted to come to
executive meetings.
Work with people with lived experience
using drugs, peer researcher to provide
coherence, central value: care. Requires a
longer time frame.
Focus
Product
Network
Data points from
anecdotes
Focus on digital application as solution to
scale care anonymously
Focus on forming relationships as service
outcome to improve care in people’s
relations
Service type
Transactional service focussed on
cost effectiveness, performance
indicators, measurement
Relational service focussed on creating
public ‘good’
Data points from
anecdotes
Lower overdose deaths, provide objective
evidence for solutions, provide care
through ‘self-serve’ digital option
Human relationships and relating form core
design material for new services to
understand pain, trauma, care
Conceptual
framework
Imports business concepts,
techniques and values
Uses concepts from complexity sciences
and systems thinking
Data points from
anecdotes
Use of service design, talk of service
user-service provider dichotomy
Use of system design as a way to design
services
Design role &
engagement
Designer-as-public-servant (neutral)
Designer-as-human-public-servant
(reflexive)
Data points from
anecdotes
Designer acts as neutral facilitator of
service design process
Designer relates to service providers,
people with lived experience, different
worldviews, themselves
Table 2: Characteristics of New Public Management and New Public Governance in relation to service design
practice, including data points from anecdotes. By: Kieboom and Van der Bijl-Brouwer (2025).
20
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
We argue that NPM in its essence promotes and requires a certain ‘unrelationality’,
creating a paradox for the relational public designer. On the one hand they have to
adhere to the non-relational requirements of NPM to not be met with marginalisation
or career limitations within the public administration they work for. On the other hand
the designer has to meet the complexity of the problem with relationality and relating
in order to work with it and design services for it.
The paradox is further complicated by the unique, entangled role of the relational
public service designer. First, they are a public (or civil) servant who is bound by a
work contract (i.e. an oath promising impartiality and providing objective evidence to
elected officials, a salary paid by public taxes in exchange for work) within the
jurisdiction (i.e. a city, a country) in which the public administration resides (Altshuler
& Behn, 1997). Within this role exists a myriad of roles: service provider, service
designer, service manager, decision maker etc. Second, they are a designer who is
tasked with innovating services within this jurisdiction, or the facilitation thereof, while
being constrained by the public services, policies and laws that already exist (Bason,
2014 & 2017; Junginger, 2013). Third, as citizens of a state they agree to form a
‘collective care contract’: in return for paying taxes and giving up freedom to state
surveillance, constituents can vote and have access to public services when needed,
i.e. public health care, education, the justice system, border protection and
infrastructure (Wimmer, 2002). Fourth, they are a relational human-being, who are
part of and connected to places, communities, families, ancestors and
more-than-human beings and as such hold their own beliefs and views of the world
they design in (Haraway, 2016; Goodchild, 2021).
As such the performance of this entangled, quadruplet role play (public servant,
designer-innovator, citizen, human) poses constraints on the practice of relational
public service design, and faces the public service designer with a number of
dilemmas. First, public servants-as-humans are governed by the views of the ruling
government at the time, while public-servant-as-designers may receive feedback
from humans-as-citizens about the services that need innovating, creating tensions.
As such, public designer-as-citizens may even be (positively or negatively) affected
by their own designs (of policy, of services) in their personal lives. In addition, the
views of humans-as-citizens that public servants-as-designers design with, constitute
of their own designer-as-human view on the world and their position in society, which
in turn forms their designs. Furthermore, public service designs by public
servants-as-designers are bounded by its jurisdiction, while complex, deeply
relational design challenges such as climate change and international migration
often permeate geographical, judicial boundaries, or even bodily boundaries of
designers-as-humans (ie. inhaling smoke from human-induced wildfires,
micro-plastic in blood streams). Fourth, when public service is framed as ‘collective
care optimization’, it aims to design the need for relationships out of service provision
in order to scale (i.e. “self-service”, transactional service). This results in conflicting
21
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
accountabilities in the workplace. While the public servant-as-designer requires
intense relationship building (co-design, participatory design) and relating (to
differences in power, positionality, worldview) with humans-as-citizens in order to
enable a good (relational or transactional or otherwise) service, the public service
manager and executive decision-maker are held accountable in non-relational, less
designerly areas, ie. cost-efficiency, service delivery in a timely manner, competition
and risk management.
Not designing for this paradox or the entangled, inherently relational role of the
designer might explain why public relational service design attempts are met with a
certain level of institutional inertia: the system reverts back to its old state once the
pulse for change disappears as described in the service design outcomes of the
case study. To transcend the paradox and the dilemmas it poses, we propose to
expand the conceptual notion of relationality: relational public service design ought to
go beyond the pursuit of building mere relationships and view public designers
themselves as inherently complex and entangled, and thus relational. Arturo Escobar
(2020: xiii) conceptualises ‘radical relationality’: ‘the fact that all entities that make up
the world are so deeply interrelated that they have no intrinsic, separate existence by
themselves’. In this expanded view one can only attempt to understand a person, an
animal, the land, a public service in relation to oneself, to each other and to its
context. Yet we acknowledge that this view could pose philosophical or ethical
dilemmas to the designing public servant: how to deliver objective evidence for
decision-making?
Adjacent to the conceptual expansion, we argue that to achieve relational outcomes,
public service designers themselves must become more aware of the role of
relationality in their work and the complexities (ie. non-relationality, power dynamics)
their work context brings in order to design for both relational and non-relational
tendencies in tandem. To aid the designer in navigating this effort we introduce two
essential, bi-directional (inward-outward) elements of design practice to address the
paradox and dilemmas encountered: first, a systemic design practice that considers
the complexity and layers of the challenge at hand and second, a reflexive-relational
design practice that promotes relating in different ways and acknowledges the
choices made - and thus potential trade-offs - in a relational design practice (ie.
elevating the voice of peer researcher “Voices” over others).
A systemic design approach raises awareness to the context in which services are
designed and takes it into account as something to design with. Systemic design is
concerned with design for human and more-than-human connections to enable
systemic change, also referred to as system-shifting design (Drew et al., 2021). It is
a design approach which combines design practice with systems thinking theory in
practice, drawing on theories such as complexity science, cybernetics, ecology and
design studies (van der Bijl-Brouwer, 2022). The need to integrate service design
with systems thinking approaches has been argued for by various service design
22
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
scholars (Penin et al., forthcoming; Vink et al., 2021, Blomkamp, 2022). Public
relational service design that is integrated with such systemic approaches is an
emergent approach in practice. Kim (2023) for example identified such a practice in
local government that aimed for systemic change through intentional acts of building
relational infrastructures. Kim identified this practice in the case of the Southern
Initiative (TSI) established in 2012 by Auckland city council, “a place-based
innovation hub focused on local and system-level transformation to improve social,
economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing for current and future generations of
South and West Auckland” (Burkett & Boorman, 2020). TSI is linked to a relational
type of service designing through the integration of The Auckland Co-design lab. In
their design training, the Co-Design Lab taught “Whānau-centric co-design
principles” that emphasise the indigenous community’s decision-making power and
autonomy in design processes. In addition to this relational service design approach,
a systems change approach is enacted through infrastructural elements such as a
networked structure - facilitating a diverse portfolio of strength-based, community-led
initiatives -, and a comprehensive and culturally grounded learning framework
named Niho Taniwha (ibid). The infrastructure shows characteristics of networked
governance as explained in table 2, and as such suggests that the relational service
designing practice of the Co-Design lab and the relational, systemic and networked
governance structure of TSI mutually reinforce each other towards achieving
relational outcomes.
A relational systemic ‘outward looking’ approach, as described above, needs to be
complemented with a personal ‘inward looking’ approach. In relational systems
thinking, stemming from Indigenous knowledge paradigms, the act of relating is
included as an active component of critical systems thinking (Goodchild, 2021).
Here, the designer is part of, not separate from what ought to be designed and is
cognizant of the ontological aspects of design: what we think is what we design, and
in return designs us. The focus on the act of relating requires us to take a reflexive
approach in public service design contexts. In reflexive practice, designers,
citizen-humans and public managers are invited to reflect together. Within this model
the designer could reflect on the choices made in the relational design process: for
example in our case study, peer researcher “Voices” receives significant power and
attention in the design process, while other community voices might have been more
subdued.
Reflexivity can be defined as “a dynamic process of cultivating an awareness of the
multiplicity of social structures internalised by oneself and others” (Vink, 2022: 6) to
generate “ongoing scrutiny of the choices that are made when identifying and
integrating diverse values, priorities, worldviews, expertise, and knowledge.” (Polk,
2015). Reflexive practice reduces chances of “reproducing existing inequities by
keeping power concentrated in the hands of those that are already privileged—be it
more influential stakeholders or the designers themselves” (Goodwill et al: 2021: 45).
The practice of structured, reoccurring reflexive personal and group practices, such
23
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
as journaling, story telling and evaluative dialogue during innovation processes can
support liberating social constructs in innovation processes. It may also reduce the
chances of experiencing disciplinary measures, especially if practised collectively
across power hierarchies with people in leadership roles.
Reflexivity also has a role to play at the institutional level, such as in public
administration. Josina Vink (2021) demonstrates how service design methods such
as journey mapping and systems mapping in itself are reflexive tools that increase
people’s awareness of how institutional structures influence and shape both people’s
actions as well as the institutions they inhibit. Vink mentions three core processes in
which service design can play a “reflexive” role beyond merely producing an
“end-to-end-service”: revealing hidden (social) structures, noticing structural conflict
and appreciating the possibility of structural change. Feminist scholar and theorist
Donna Haraway offers a way to practise reflexive-relationality through “tentacular”
thinking (2016: 51). Tentacular thinking embraces complexity, interconnectedness,
and ambiguity, much like the movements of an animal's tentacles. It emphasises the
importance of staying open to multiple perspectives and being willing to engage with
the messy realities of life.
5. Conclusion: navigating the paradox of public relational design
“For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”
Audre Lorde, 1984
Public relational service design practice is complex, lacking definition, and fraught
with dilemmas. Practising relationality in service design within public administration
thus requires careful consideration to remain true to the intention and core values of
relational design. Yet a knowledge and practice gap exists in relational service
design approaches in public administration. This chapter aimed to contribute to its
development by introducing a public relational service design typology and by
analysing a case study on designing in a drug poisoning health emergency in British
Columbia, Canada | Turtle Island. This practical example illustrated the paradox and
constraints of relational public service design in an NPM-dominant context. The
performance of the public service designer, who navigates multiple roles as a public
servant, designer-innovator, citizen, and human, is particularly constrained. The
designer must navigate the paradox between the demands of hierarchical,
non-relational systems with the need for relational, participatory design practices.
Furthermore NPM creates a system in which public service managers remain far
removed (no relationships) from the service delivery and design domain. They are
not required to relate to the problem and not required to build relationships with
people or parties experiencing the problem.
Our research suggests a deeper awareness is needed of the inherent tension
between the need for relational approaches to address complex societal issues and
24
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
non-relational, organisational-managerial paradigms (ie. New Public Management) in
which design functions. Additionally there must be a deeper awareness of how public
leaders and designers relate to the people they design with and the relationships
they create. As designers, we can create conditions for relationships to be shaped
and shape our own relationship to the design context. As public leaders, we can
allow for designers and human-citizens to reside in a temporary place of ambiguity
and uncertainty to generate space for a collective design act for humanity, and be
involved in the process of creating knowledge and wisdom for our collective future.
To stay true to complexity, or “close to the trouble” in Donna Haraways’ words, we
propose acknowledging and intentionally designing for the dilemmas that relationality
poses in a public administration context. Expanding the conceptual notion of
relationality in public administration design—not only as the pursuit of building
relationships but as seeing ourselves as radically relational, as ‘service design
material’ (Blomkwist et al., 2024) -, is a way to explore this. Furthermore, we
examined two other practices: expanding our awareness outwards (to systems,
places, contexts) and inwards (our notions of ourselves and how we relate to the
world). By integrating systemic design approaches and reflexive practices, designers
can better navigate the paradoxes and dilemmas they face, even within the
constraints of existing public administration paradigms. Yet the role of power makes
a relational design process imminently more complex and ambiguous: there are both
oppressive and liberatory dynamics to be found within civil society communities,
designers and government. It is important that designers are aware of their privilege
and power with regard to shaping the design process, providing access to the design
process, decision-making within the design process and setting the rules of
designing (Goodwill et al., 2021). In addition, a non-binary view on the complexity of
power relations is required, overcoming a tendency to recreate binary dynamics: the
professional experts vs experts by experience, the powerful government vs the
powerless community.
We recommend further research to better understand how failure to recognize,
acknowledge, and consequently not design for, the complex paradox of relational
public service design, may be related to incremental public service innovations that
tend to maintain, not transform the status quo. Exploring the boundaries imposed by
nation-states through a lens that is imaginative, cosmopolitical, and radically open
could also invite new ways of seeing and thus designing (see Meyer 2019; Wimmer
2021). In addition, further research is required to explore how relational service
design practice may contribute to efforts for systemic change and shaping
infrastructure that is embedded within an NPG paradigm, for example by case
studies of emerging practices such as the above-mentioned The Southern Initiative
in Auckland, New Zealand | Aotearoa.
25
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
References
Altshuler, Alan A.; Behn, Robert D., eds (1997). Innovation in American Government:
Challenges, Opportunities, and Dilemmas. Brookings Institution Press.
Baek, Joon & Kim, Sojung & Pahk, Yoonyee & Manzini, Ezio. (2017). A
sociotechnical framework for the design of collaborative services. Design Studies.
Bartels. K. & Nick Turnbull (2020). Relational public administration: a
synthesis and heuristic classification of relational approaches, Public Management
Review, 22:9, 1324-1346.
Barcham, M. (2022). Weaving Together a Decolonial Imaginary Through Design for
Effective River Management: Pluriversal Ontological Design in Practice. Design
Issues 2022; 38 (1): 5–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00666
Barbalho, T., & Engler, R. (2022). Concepts and analysis of a relational service from
the design perspective. MIX Sustentável, 8(2), 31–44.
https://doi.org/10.29183/2447-3073.MIX2022.v8.n2.31-44
Bason, C. (2014). Introduction: the design for policy nexus. In C. Bason (Ed.),
Design for Policy (pp. 1-8). Gower Publishing Limited.
Bason, C. (2017). Leading Public Design: Discovering Human-Centered
Governance. Bristol: Policy Press.
Butz, D. & Besio, K. (2009). Autoethnography. Geography Compass. 3. 1660 - 1674.
Blomkamp, E. (2018), The Promise of Co-Design for Public Policy. Australian
Journal of Public Administration, 77: 729-743.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12310
Blomkamp, E. (2022). Systemic design practice for participatory policymaking, Policy
Design and Practice, 5:1, 12-31, DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1887576
Blomkvist J., Clatworthy, S. & Stefan Holmlid (2023). The Materials of Service
Design. Edward Elgar Publishing. .
Burkett, Ingrid & Cathy Boorman (2020). Review of TSI 2020 - strengths and
opportunity. Griffith University.
Carvalho, L. & Goodyear, P. (2017). Design, learning networks and service
innovation. Design Studies. 55. 10.1016/j.destud.2017.09.003.
26
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
Cipolla, C., & Manzini, E. (2009). Relational services. Knowledge, Technology &
Policy, 22, 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-009-9066-z
Cooke, G. & Muir, R. (2012). The possibilities and politics of the relational state
(essay).
https://www.ippr.org/articles/the-relational-state-how-recognising-the-importance-of-h
uman-relationships-could-revolutionise-the-role-of-the-state
Cottam, H. (2011). Relational welfare. Soundings, 48, 134-144.
Cottam, H. (2018). Radical Help: how we can remake the relationships between us
and revolutionise the welfare state. Hachette.
Drew, C., Robinson, C. & Jennie Winhall (2021). System-shifting Design: An
Emerging Practice Explored. UK Design Council.
https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/fileadmin/uploads/dc/Documents/Systemic%2520D
esign%2520Report.pdf
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of
problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425-437.
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies
32(6):521-532.
Drummond, S. (2019). Service design: creating a relational state. Accessed
November 14, 2023.
Edvardsson, B. & Olsson, J. (1996). Key Concepts in New Service Development.
Service Industries Journal. 16. 140-164.
Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the pluriverse: Radical interdependence, autonomy,
and the making of worlds. London, England: Duke University Press.
Escobar, A. (2020). Pluriversal Politics: the real and the possible. Duke University
Press.
Escobar, A., Osterweil, M. & Sharma, K. (2024). Relationality: An Emergent Politics
of Life Beyond the Human. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Fry, T. (2010). Design as Politics. Bloomsbury Publishing.
French, M., Hesselgreaves, H., Wilson, R., Hawkins, M., & Lowe, T. (2023).
Harnessing Complexity for better outcomes in Public and Non-profit Services. (1st
ed.) Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781447364139
27
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
Gros, C. (2020). Life Events in the Design of Public Services: Creating Communities
of Service in the Finnish National AuroraAI Program. MA thesis, Aalto University.
Goodwill, M., van der Bijl-Brouwer, M., & Bendor, R. (2021). Beyond Good
Intentions: Towards a Power Literacy Framework for Service Designers. International
Journal of Design 15:3.
Goodchild, M. (2021). Relational systems thinking: That's how change is going to
come, from our earth mother. Journal of Awareness-Based Systems Change, 1(1),
75–103. https://doi.org/10.47061/jabsc.v1i1.577
Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene.
Duke University Press.
Hollstein, B., Matiaske, W., Schnapp, K., & Schnegg, M. (2017). Networked
Governance: A New Research Perspective.
Junginger, S. (2013). Public Foundations of Service Design. In S. Miettinen & A.
Valtonen (Eds.), Service Design with Theory: Discussions on Change, Value and
Methods (2nd ed., pp. 57-69). Lapland University Press.
Junginger, S. (2015). Organizational design legacies and service design. The Design
Journal, 18(2), 209-226.
Kim, A., van der Bijl - Brouwer, M., Mulder, I., & Lloyd, P. (2022, 25 June - 3 July). A
study on strategic activities to foster design practices in a local government
organization DRS2022, Bilbao.
Kimbell, L. (2011) Designing for Service as One Way of Designing Services,
International Journal of Design, 5(2): 41-52.
Mackenzie, P. (2021.) The Social State: From Transactional to Relational Public
Services. Accessed November 15, 2023.
Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for
social innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Manzini, E. (2016). Design culture and dialogic design. Design Issues, 32(1), 52-59.
McGann, M., Blomkamp, E., & Lewis, J. M. (2018). The rise of public sector
innovation labs: Experiments in design thinking for policy. Policy Sciences, 51(3),
249–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9315-7
28
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
Mendoza, X. & Alfred Vernis (2008). The changing role of governments and the
emergence of the relational state. Corporate Governance 8 (4).
Mulgan, G. (2012). Government with the people: the outlines of a relational state
(essay).https://www.ippr.org/articles/the-relational-state-how-recognising-the-importa
nce-of-human-relationships-could-revolutionise-the-role-of-the-state
Meroni, A. & Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Design for Services. Routledge.
Englert Corrêa Meyer, G. (2019). Strategic design, cosmopolitics and obscure
situations. Strategic Design Research Journal, 12(3), 417–426.
https://doi.org/10.4013/sdrj.2019.123.08
Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way - Intentional change in an
unpredictable world (Second Edition ed.). The MIT Press.
Nielsen, B., & Bjerck, M. (2022). Relational Design. Proceedings of the Design
Society, 2, 1061-1070. doi:10.1017/pds.2022.108
Neuhoff, R., Johansen, N.D., Simeone, L. (2022). Story-Centered Co-creative
Methods: A Means for Relational Service Design and Healthcare Innovation. In:
Pfannstiel, M.A., Brehmer, N., Rasche, C. (eds) Service Design Practices for
Healthcare Innovation. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87273-1_25
Osborne, S. P. (2006). The New Public Governance? Public Management Review,
8(3), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600853022
Lloyd-Rose, Matt, David Robinson and Immy Robinson (2024). Putting Relationships
First. The case for relationship-centred communities, organisations and systems.
The Relationships Project.
Penin, L., Prendiville, A. and Sangiorgi, D. (forthcoming). Handbook of Service
Design. Plural perspectives and a critical contemporary agenda. Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Polk, Merritt (2015). Transdisciplinary co-production: Designing and testing a
transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures, 65
(January 2015), 110-122
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.
Policy Sciences, 4(1973), 155-169.
29
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
Sangiorgi, D. & Prendiville, A. (2017). Designing for Service: Key Issues and New
Directions. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Schwandt, T. A., Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2007). Judging interpretations: But is
it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New directions
for evaluation, 2007(114), 11-25.
Shafafi, P., Bazoli, G., (2023). Do no harm framework in design: a valuable business
consideration. Point of View. Designit, Oslo, Norway
https://www.designit.com/stories/point-of-view/do-no-harm-in-design-part-one
Shostack, G.L. (1984). Designing Services That Deliver. Harvard Business Review,
62, 133-139.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd edition ed.). The MIT Press.
Sanders, E. & Stappers, P. (2008). Co-creation and the New Landscapes of Design.
CoDesign. 4. 5-18.
Snelders, H., van de Garde - Perik, E. & Secomandi, F. (2014). Design strategies for
human relations in services. Proceedings of the Fourth ServDes Conference: service
futures : 09-11 April 2014, Lancaster, UK.
https://research.tue.nl/en/publications/design-strategies-for-human-relations-in-servic
es
Story, C., (2020). Obscuring Austerity: The Politics and Practice of ‘Citizen-Centred’
Design. York University, PhD dissertation.
Thackara, J., (2006). In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex World. The MIT Press.
Torfing, J., & Sørensen, E. (2014). The European debate on governance networks:
Towards a new and viable paradigm?. Policy and Society, 33(4), 329–344.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.10.003
Vink, J., Koskela-Huotori, K., Tronvoli, B., Edvardsson, B., & Wetter-Edman, K.
(2021). Service ecosystem design: Propositions, process model, and future research
agenda. Journal of Service Research, 24(2), 168-186.
Udoewa, V., & Gress, S. (2023). Relational Design. Journal of Awareness-Based
Systems Change, 3(1), 101–128. https://doi.org/10.47061/jasc.v3i1.5193
van der Bijl-Brouwer, M. & Dorst, K. (2017). Advancing the Strategic Impact of
Human-Centred Design. Design Studies vol. 53: p1-23.
30
Final book chapter manuscript - pre-print - 15 January 2025
van der Bijl – Brouwer, M. (2019). Problem framing expertise in public and social
innovation.” She ji: The Journal of Design, Economics and Innovation 5 (1):29-43.
van der Bijl - Brouwer, M. (2022). Service designing for human relationships to
positively enable social systemic change. International Journal of Design, 16(1),
23-34. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.57698/v16i1.02
Wilson, R., French, M., Hesselgreaves, H., Lowe, T., & Smith, M. (2024). New
development: Relational public services—reform and research agenda. Public
Money & Management, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2024.2344902
Wimmer, A. (2002). Nationalist Exclusion and Ethnic Conflict: Shadows of Modernity.
Cambridge University Press.
Wimmer, A. (2021). Worlds without nation-states. Five scenarios for the very long
run. Nations and Nationalism 26, 1-16.
31
