Upload
jethro
View
22
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Comparing Service Design Approaches. Peter J Wild Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom [email protected] With Giuditta Pezzotta University of Bergamo, Italy [email protected]. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Comparing Service Design Approaches
Peter J Wild Institute for Manufacturing,
University of Cambridge, United [email protected]
With Giuditta Pezzotta
University of Bergamo, Italy
“Agreement merely upon common names for phases, steps, and structural elements alone
would assist greatly in the transfer of knowledge among the professions (Hall 1969).”
Introduction• Marked increase in explicit approaches for the Design of
Services • Services marketing• Design theory (esp. user centred design)• Operations Management • Engineering• Variety of claims are made for generality, novelty, etc.,
but these are often without evaluation • Claims about the general applicability of methods and
concepts from, established design fields
Service Design Approaches
• Should we fall into the trap of assuming that because they use the terms “Service” and “Design,” that the term is used in the same way across different language communities and research cultures
• Embody a disparate range of Design: – Foci– Activities – Phases– Perspectives– Participation levels
Project context: S4T • Service Support Systems: Strategy and
Transformation – Five Workpackages – 1: Organisational Transformation– 2: Service Information Strategy– 3: Risk and Cost Assessment– 4: Combined Maintenance and Capability Enhancement– 5: Integration
• How do the methods and findings relate to each other?– D-FAPPP is one strand of the overall Integration strategy
D-FA
PP
Clas
sifica
tion
S4T
Out
puts
Direct Exploitation (Consultancy)
Systematic Mapping…….
Practitioner Approach 1
Practitioner Approach 2
Practitioner Approach N
Therefore
• Provide brief overview of D-FAPPP Classification
• Highlights of current analysis against methodologies
• Elicit feedback from Participants… • If pressed I might come to some conclusions…
D-FAPPP
• Design Foci, Activities, Phases, Perspectives and Participation
• Facetted Classification– Analytico / Synthetic
• Design as forward looking activity creation of artefacts / procedures / general behaviours – People follow formal and informal methods
Foci (what is being designed)
• A service system is variously described as being a combination of people, organisations, products, activities etc (e.g., Goedkoop et al. 1999, Mont 2002)
• Previous work has developed a high-level framework for comparison of approaches to the definition of services
Service Domain (composed of Intangible &
Tangible objects)
Service Activities
Affect or Maintain
Service Goals
Sco
ped
toReflect Values
Service Actants(with Structures &
Behaviours)
Artefacts(with
Structures & Behaviours)
Performed by
Held by
Ser
vice
Sys
tem
B
ound
ary
Performed by
Service Environment Social, Political, Cultural, Physical
Service System Effectiveness
Function of
Desired Service Quality
against
Resource Costs
to achieve Value / Benefit
At least two systems
• Domain:• Goals: goals for the Service System, not of the
System • Activities: Two big clusters:
– Explicit: Enable and Core– Implicit
• Actants: Explicitly declared in the process – Individuals (Customers) Groups and Service and Supply Chain. – In some case it is reported explicitly– in most of the case it is implicitly considered
• Artefacts & Technologies: – Some models report the tools and techniques used to carry out the
service.
• Values: – How to evaluate effectiveness is not reported or
elicited • Environment:
– Only PSS consider this as relevant.• Structures & Behaviours:
– not particular considered ,only in some case models standards and knowledge base
Foci:
• Different elements are being designed • Designed elements have different
predictability levels and controllability– This is not being fully reflected in varying
perspectives • Heavy emphasis on elements of Service
Blueprints • Little actual systems thinking for designed
elements
Phases:• Macro and Micro Phases
– Macro BOL MOL EOL • Reflects our product legacy
– Micro • Consistent terminology across Service Product
and Service for Phases
• Lifecycle types • Iteration (after Wynn et al. 2007 )
Phases: Broad Findings
• Very few through life approaches are through life. • Broadest coverage of micro-phases is within Systems
Engineering • Is Life the responsibility of (Service) Operations
Management community , or should a user centred design ethos permeate this area?
• Bulk use waterfall with Iteration• Little “correlation” between Micro lifecycle issues
and Iteration types
Perspectives:• Design perspectives “Design As…. ”
– after Hendry and Friedman (2008) • Service
– Service In , Product-Out , Communication Goods/Service -Dominant Logic
• Knowledge Prescription (after Long and Dowell 1989)– Craft, Applied Science, Engineering Principles.
• “Philosophical” positions (after Wilber)– I, It, We, Them
SD
LG
DL
Service IN Product OUT
V-Model
LegendSystems EngineeringMKTFunctional Products
SM Hall 1969
Edvardsson, 1996
Alonso-Rasgado et al 2004
Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006
Fast-track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006
Bullinger et al 2003
Service EngineeringService DesignPSS
Engine
IDEO
Smith et al., 2007
Magnusson, 2003
MEPSS
Morelli 2002
Aurich et al., 2006
Yang et al, 2009
Sakao and Shimomura, 2007
Waterfall Royce 1970Spiral Boehm 1986 Unified Process Lifecycle Schmidt 2008Hartson and Hix 1989
SoftwareSupply Chain MngMng
dCOR
Goldstein et al., 2002
Herrmann et al., 2000
Service As communication
CMMI
SD
LG
DL
Service IN Product OUT
V-Model
LegendApplied Science Engineering
SM Hall 1969
Edvardsson, 1996
Alonso-Rasgado et al 2004
Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006
Fast-track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006
Bullinger et al 2003
Engine
IDEO
Smith et al., 2007
Magnusson, 2003
MEPSS
Morelli 2002
Aurich et al., 2006
Yang et al, 2009
Sakao and Shimomura, 2007
Waterfall Royce 1970
Spiral Boehm 1986
Unified Process Lifecycle
Schmidt 2008
Hartson and Hix 1989
Design Craft
dCOR
Goldstein et al., 2002
Herrmann et al., 2000
Service As communication
CMMI
SD
LG
DL
Service IN Product OUT
V-Model
LegendApplied Science Engineering
SM Hall 1969
Edvardsson, 1996
Alonso-Rasgado et al 2004
Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006
Fast-track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006
Bullinger et al 2003
Engine
IDEO
Smith et al., 2007
Magnusson, 2003
MEPSS
Morelli 2002
Aurich et al., 2006
Yang et al, 2009
Sakao and Shimomura, 2007
Waterfall Royce 1970
Spiral Boehm 1986
Unified Process Lifecycle
Schmidt 2008
Hartson and Hix 1989
Design Craft
dCOR
Goldstein et al., 2002
Herrmann et al., 2000
Service As communication
CMMI
Participation:
• Represents my own HCI legacy • Service-Dominant Logic and related work have
refined the concepts of Co-production and Co-creation
• Design, Operations, Marketing and Engineering communities have varying depths of participation in their approaches.
• Bekker and Long (2000) and Reich et al (1996)
Participation: Bekker and Long (2000); Reich et al (1996)
• Motivation for participation.– Economical : V-Model, Edvardsson& Olsson1996, Alonso-Rasgado et al
2004, Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006, Fast-track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006, Engine Coarse Grain, IDEO, Magnusson, 2003, Morelli 2002, Aurich et al., 2006 ( Technical service design), Yang et al, 2009, Spiral Boehm 1986 , Schmidt 2008, dCOR, Goldstein et al., 2002, Herrmann et al., 2000, Fischbacher and Francis , 1999, Glushko, 2008
– Economical and Environmental: MEPSS, Sakao and Shimomura, 2007 - scenario model
Participation: • Duration of participation
– long-term:V-Model; Edvardsson& Olsson1996, Engine, IDEO, Magnusson, 2003, MEPSS , Sakao and Shimomura, 2007 - scenario model, Schmidt 2008, dCOR
– Short-term: Alonso-Rasgado et al 2004, Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006, Fast-track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006, Morelli 2002, Aurich et al., 2006 ( Technical service design), Yang et al, 2009, Spiral Boehm 1986 , Goldstein et al., 2002
• User Involvement Timing– Early: Alonso-Rasgado et al 2004; Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006; Fast-
track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006; Morelli 2002; Aurich et al., 2006 ( Technical service design); Yang et al, 2009; Spiral Boehm 1986
– early and late: Goldstein et al., 2002– throughout: V-Model; Edvardsson& Olsson1996; Engine; IDEO; Magnusson,
2003; MEPSS; Sakao and Shimomura, 2007 - scenario model ; Schmidt 2008; dCOR
SD
LG
DL
Service IN Product OUT
V-Model
LegendCo-Design Subject-Co-Design
Edvardsson, 1996
Alonso-Rasgado et al 2004
Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006
Fast-track - Alonso-Rasgado and Thompson 2006
Bullinger et al 2003
Engine
IDEO
Smith et al., 2007
Magnusson, 2003
MEPSS
Morelli 2002
Aurich et al., 2006
Yang et al, 2009
Sakao and Shimomura, 2007
Spiral Boehm 1986
Dialog Information
dCOR
Goldstein et al., 2002
Herrmann et al., 2000
Service As communication Co-producer
Codesign = Service IN
Codesign = SDL
Codesign =No in Product OUT
CMMI
Conclusions• Differences in Service Design methods across a
range of dimensions • Influence of Marketing on Operations, Design
and Engineering brings a user focus to work– Is this deep enough?– Where does customer focus stop?
• What perspectives can be legitimately combined?
• What foci can be designed, vs. engineered, vs, crafted
Future Work
• Fuller evidence trace • Confirmation with independent subject
experts• Expand the range of HCI approaches used• Attack methods / techniques, not just
methodologies
Open Questions
• Are five dimension enough? • What additional cross comparison do you
need?