This paper was presented in September 2012 in the International Conference on Materiality and Knowledge in Nottodem, Norway.

1. What and When? 1 (14)
What and When?
A Visual Synthesis of Service Design Methods and the phases for
Implementing them
Salgado, Mariana
Ahvenainen, Mirja
Laurea University of Applied Sciences
This paper presents a set of methods, instantiated as "info-cards", to help guide design
processes. The derived methods are based on interviews with, and subsequent design-
feedback from design-researchers focusing on service design. Our focus was to find a set
of methods that describe and aid different key design process phases. The methods were
instantiated as six cards; physical boundary objects to open design processes and
discussion.
We describe possible uses of the cards in learning, research and development
environments. Also, we compare our cards to other design research methods-cards.
The uses of our method-cards are multi-fold. They open discussions of design-methods,
their characteristics, possibilities and limitations. In doing so they are differently relevant
at different levels of design. They introduce beginners to design methods, including the
public, and, they open up design processes for discussion and analysis with design
teams, as well as to co-deciding users. To aid co-deciding users in design processes, the
cards help share understandings of design processes and methods, enabling users to
further understand the realm of possibilities and be more informed in helping find relevant
co-determined paths through design processes.
KEYWORDS: service design, methods, design process, boundary objects,
visualizations
Introduction
This paper is based on the material gathered for thesis work carried out in the
User Centered Design MBA, at the Kerava unit of Laurea University of Applied
Sciences. Our main research question was, what methods are currently used in
service design processes, and when are these methods are applied during the
design process? In order to answer this question, we produced a set of cards that
are a kind of visual synthesis of the results.
Our interest in discussing methods comes from the impression, that the amount
of user-centred design methods is confusing for people not familiar with them.
This was the case for students and professionals with a Business background.
ServDes2012 paper submission

2. What and When? 2 (14)
Researchers have tried to classify methods achieving different results (see for
example Tassi, 2008 or UsabilityNet, 2006). As Service Design methods are in
constant development by many different fields of knowledge, understanding both
the design process and the multitude of service design methods has been felt as
a challenge.
In certain cases, participants of the design process and students were lost
amongst the possibilities of the methods and their characteristics. In other cases
they had difficulties understanding the possible outcomes of certain method. In
addition, during this research process we discovered that even designers have
problems navigating the sea of methods. This is why we decided to create a set
of cards that works like an inspirational artefact that bring ideas on the most used
methods in service design, rather than try produce a exhaustive classification of
all possible methods.
For reference and inspiration, we have reviewed other sets of similar cards, such
as the ones created by Ideo (2002) and Moritz (2005, pp. 106-107). Amongst the
reviewed cards, the main goal was to present methods, rather than linking them
with a particular phase in the design process. Ideo's cards set includes 51 cards.
Each introduces one method. They are an inspiring tool which might have the
same functionality as ours: working as a reminder of the possibilities. The info-
cards presented in this paper do not merely present the methods, but link them
with a particular phase of the design process. The metaphors are a reminder of
the phase in question. On the other hand, each visual representation of the Ideo
cards, gives material for better understanding the method. A further difference is
that the Ideo cards are sold commercially while ours are a free online resource.
Design work is characterized by gathering and mobilizing a great quantity of
materials in different forms (Binder et al, 2011, 79). Designers seek for materiality
in their practice, even when their work is focus into the digital world. This is why
we believe that our cards could serve the needs of beginners not familiar with
design processes and also to participants that do not necessary have had design
education. The type of visualizations we have chosen for our cards relate to the
visuals that business experts and engineers are using at the moment. We see
these cards as a compass that could help all the participants in the design
process map possibilities, appropriate these methods, and make more informed
choices. They are a creative synthesis of research results. There are six cards
ServDes2012 paper submission

3. What and When? 3 (14)
and each of them represents a design phase. In many design processes the
phases are not clear and the roadmap for going through them is not linear.
Although this fact does add some challenge for answering our research
questions, we believe that a deep understanding of these phases has to
necessary relate to the methods involved in each of them. But this classification
does not pretend to be extensive taking in consideration all the possible methods,
but just merely inspirational.
Drawing and Thinking
Research in Service Design has lately been increasingly implemented qualitative
methods. Therefore, to use thematic interviews within a small but selected group
of experts it was considered a suitable method for answering the research
question. At the same time it seems to us natural to ask them to draw while
thinking, as they are designers and they tend to do both activities at the time.
Thematic interviews were done to four design-researchers in the area. Their
background and level of experience within the field of service design varied.
These interviews focused on innovative service design methods but started with
some background questions about the designers and questions about service
design process: 1) Which methods could be selected in developing a service?, 2)
In which phases of the service design process certain methods could be used?
(Ahvenainen 2011, p.10).
For discussing about phase, the model presented by Stefan Moritz (2005) was
proposed. Though, the model is not well known within designers, it is still in our
opinion a good one because of its simplicity and clearness. Moreover, of the
interviewed designers, even those unfamiliar with the model, found it easy to
work with. Moritz's model (2005, p.123) brings several service design processes
together. The six phases Moritz suggests present a sufficiently detailed
explanation of service design process requirements.
During the interviews, drawing was used for visualizing service design process
and phases. Particularly in this paper, the aim is to give an account on our
discussions regarding when in the design phases the methods were implemented
and why. We do not analyse why certain methods are considered and others are
taken out of the selection, but all the methods mentioned in the interviews are
present in the cards.
ServDes2012 paper submission

4. What and When? 4 (14)
The visualizations that interviewers made were helpful for establishing out
understanding that our research questions were not going to be answered only
with words, but also with images. One of the interviewees said:
”The process evolves in the same way that the ISO-standard describes it.
At the beginning there is a design problem and then there are certain
circles of iteration. For example we can interview users at the beginning.
From these interviews we can get some preliminary idea of what the
solution could be. Afterwards, we do a meeting within designers where we
develop this preliminary idea. In a later phase we can call the users to
participate and discuss with us possible solutions. We continue in this way
and at a certain point a prototype appears. Again we call the users for
another iteration cycle. These iterative cycles are described according the
ISO-standard. Many iterations till we get to the final solution in which both
users and designers are at ease with the design solution1”.
Another of the interviewers said that the process is never linear, but is
going ahead tracing cycles. ”We do, learn, ideate, and we realize that we
need to test a bit more and we go back here (he pointed a place in his
drawing) to the understanding phase. The iterative process does in a way a
loop ”2.
We got different visualizations but there were certain recurrent topics and
elements, such as the iterative cycle and the loops. The design process,
according to our interviewers, goes forward in the constant dialogue with users
and different methods were combined to feed this dialogue.
Methods and Phases
User knowledge about a certain service has different levels. Therefore, we need
different methods in order to get to these levels (Sanders 2002). In each moment
of the design process we also need information with different degree of detail.
For example, at the beginning we need information on the service offerings and
the environment or context in which the service will be implemented. When we
grasp the big picture related to the service in question, we go into the specifics
regarding users and special characteristics of the new design proposal. In order
1 This is a free translation of the authors from the original version in Finnish.
2 This is a free translation of the authors from the original version in Finnish.
ServDes2012 paper submission

5. What and When? 5 (14)
to be accurate we clarify why each method was linked with a certain phase.
However, the choice of a certain method in a phase, does not necessary lead to
another specific methods in the following phase. Therefore, info-cards where
suitable to visualize the results.
Although there are many nuances in the complexity of service design processes,
it is important to recognize some key phases and methods in order to ensure that
the design is based on user research. According to the design-researchers
interviewed, it is seldom that designers go through all these phases and
implement a certain method for each of them. In most of the design processes
some methods are implemented in two or three of these phases. In this paper we
do not want to discuss the relevance of each phase, but describe them in relation
to the other phases.
1.1 Phase One: Understanding
In this phase the materials gathered, for example from the context and the users
are analyzed, taking in consideration the design problem. This is the moment of
learning, in which we get to know about other services, context and point of views
regarding the service or possible future ones. The materials could have been
gathered using different methods such as observations, mystery shopper
(Goodwin, 2009, p. 187), surveys, focus group , card sorting (Goodwin, 2009, p.
196), contextual workshops (Hultcrantz & Ibrahim 2002), interviews, diaries
(Goodwin, 2009, p. 188), cultural probes (Garver, Dunne & Pacenti, 1999),
drama or theatrical methods (Iaccucchi, Kuutti, & Ranta, 2000) and design
probes (Mattelmäki, 2006) or games (Brandt, 2006; Vaajakallio 2012). One of the
most popular methods with designers, to give sense to background research
material that have different formats (photographs, videos, voice recordings,
sound, text etc), are affinity diagrams (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 2005). This analysis
does not only give the possibility to better understand the data, but also to arrive
to a common perspective and interpretation of it by all the participants in a
service design research project. Other methods for interpreting material coming
from user studies in this phase are: actors map, concept maps, system maps,
SWOT analysis (Hill & Westbrook, 1998) and customer journey map. The
analysis of the material can be done also with users (see for example Hyökki,
2011) and invite them to these sessions in which designers go through the
material together. Certain interpretations can contrast with the opinions of the
ServDes2012 paper submission

6. What and When? 6 (14)
users, therefore to invite them to the sessions to analyze data can be useful.
Other design teams prefer to do this in two steps. One session is used to analyse
the data, free from the opinions of the users and another session to ask their
opinion. In this phase the users' and the designers' perspective come together.
The designer understand not only the users' needs and emotions involved in a
certain service but also her own position or prejudices with respect of the service.
This first contact with the users and their environment is crucial for arising
empathy towards them.
As in this phase might happen the first encounter with the user it is important to
discuss how to select users. Though we do not want to go deep in this
discussion, we want to mention some relevant considerations. Most of these
methods are qualitative therefore the participants, in the projects with the role of
users, are limited from five to twenty. The most common practice is to get a
people belonging to different demographic categories (age group, gender, family
situation, education, etc) of possible users of the service intended to be
developed. However, nowadays there are other possibilities that designers take
into account such as, mapping Living labs (Feuerstein et al 2008), Fab labs (Fab
Central 2011), panels of clients, or Lead users (Von Hippel, 1986), in the area
that could be interested in collaborating with the project. These networks of
collaboration can bring to the project a group of people already involved and
committed to innovation processes and even familiar with the methods that
service designers are using.
1.2 Phase two: Thinking
In this phase people involved in the design process realize the direction and
expansion of the project based on the understanding that has happened in
previous phase. The analysis of the material gathered will be the locomotive of
design concepts and will point the direction and expansion of the project. It is the
moment to give character to the project and make certain decisions that trace a
smooth path towards concept design.
Common interpretations can be visually represented in the form of moodboards
(Rith, 2007), storyboards (Vertelney & Curtis, 1990), maps, video scenarios
(Ylirisku & Buur, 2007), rapid or rough prototyping, metaphors or posters
(Moggridge, 2006) and used to elicit discussion during interviews or workshops.
ServDes2012 paper submission

7. What and When? 7 (14)
The discussion can be nurture by reinforcing the relationship with the users and
within the design team using these preliminary proposals. The design arena is
defined.
1.3 Phase three: Generating
In this phase designers make suggestions and expand the spectrum of
possibilities. New ideas, patterns and practices that the future service could bring
are analysed. It is the phase for innovation and creation. Methods used in this
phase are brainstorming (Jones, 1992, 274) and creative techniques such as the
six thinking hats (De Bono, 1985).There is a basis, or background material that is
required and it was gathered and analysed in the previous phase. In most of the
cases designers use visualizations in this phase as boundary objects (Star &
Griesemer, 1989). At this point there is a clear description of the characteristics
of the service based on the needs of the end-user. Challenges and opportunities
are also analysed for example using scenarios (Carroll, 1995; Bødker, 2000),
bodystorming (Oulasvirta, Kurvinen, & Kankainen, 2002), roleplaying (Iaccucchi,
Kuutti, and Ranta, 2000), service evidencing (Moggridge, 2006) and prototyping
(Ehn & King, 1991; Holmlid & Evenson, 2007). Contextual workshops where
users are invited to visualize ideal experiences or to give opinions towards certain
design concepts are also a part of this phase.
1.4 Phase four: Filtering
In this phase options are evaluated in respect to the end-users needs and
wishes; and socio-economical and environmental impact and conditions.
Depending on the service provider and its possibilities for delivering certain
outcomes in a sustainable way, choices are made. However, regarding this
phase, we only included the methods that allow to better understand end-users'
needs and emotional tights to a certain service. We know that in some cases
other issues might have more relevance in the decision-making agenda, but in
this paper we concentrate in methods coming from the user-centered design
field. Therefore, the most common methods in this phase are Wizard of Oz
(Kelley, 1984; Dahlbäck, Jönsson & Ahrenberg, 1993), paper prototyping and
other prototyping techniques (Buchenau & Suri, 2000) or mock-ups (Moritz,
2005), scenarios, contextual workshops for discussing on already well-defined
options, personas (Cooper, 1998; Grudin & Pruitt, 2002), SWOT analysis,
ServDes2012 paper submission

8. What and When? 8 (14)
cognitive walkthrough (Polson, Lewis, Rieman & Wharton, 1992) and heuristic
evaluation (Nielsen & Molich, 1990).
1.5 Phase five: Explaining
In this phase designers take the last decisions that will develop the concept into a
real service. There were already a selection of options and the new service take
shape with its details. For describing the services in this phase the most common
methods are: prototyping (in this case some details of the system are described
and it is not only the rough idea of the whole), personas, scenarios, mock-ups,
use cases, system maps and usability testing. Ideas of the users are taken in
consideration in order to give shape to the details of the service.
1.6 Phase six: Realising
This phase takes place when we have already done a functional prototype and
the service happens. Evaluation is still needed for the constant development of
the service. The methods used at this moment are: blueprint (Bitner, Ostrom,
Morgan, 2007) maps and usability tests (UsabilityNet, 2006). Also, in this phase it
is important to involve people that are not using the service in question in order to
broad the spectrum of possible end-users. In this phase the service goes back to
the organization that has asked for it, in case it was outsourced.
Visualizing results
Visualizations are good, effective and natural complementation to show research
results within the framework of design-research. Most of the design teams are
nowadays working in a transdisciplinary environment. In some cases the work
environment is also multicultural. Therefore, visualizations are playing a big role
in finding common vocabulary for designing together. The cards aim to serve the
challenges of nowadays design teams that include end users, developers,
technicians, entrepreneurs, local institutions and civic society organizations.
Furthermore, the cards could be efficient in bringing new inspirational ideas in
regards of the methods to use. Sometimes designers work within the same array
of methods, as they are more familiar with them, or they have developed a
certain skill that the method implied. The cards show the variety and motivate
exploration regarding methods.
ServDes2012 paper submission

9. What and When? 9 (14)
Here are the cards.
Figure 1: Understanding. This card shows a person listening. The attitude in this
phase is receptive. Designers get inspiration and information that is vital for all the
phases that will come.
Figure 2: Thinking. This card shows the team working together. The idea is to put
emphasis in the collaboration that is the key element in this phase. It is the moment
to open the spectrum of possibilities and analyze them.
Figure 3: Generating. This image is based in the idea of that each method has a role
in a certain moment of the design process. But it is only in the combination of certain
methods, that it is possible to get clear picture of end-users' perspective. This is why
the methods form a construction, because they support each other. The selection of a
method is the vital question in this phase.
Figure 4: Filtering. The image plays with the metaphor of a card game. We have the
cards, or the elements from the user research to make the right choices. Therefore,
we have all the possibilities to win this game but still we need to play it to the end.
Figure 5: Explaining. This image shows a woman showing a panel with the methods.
Because this is the moment of explaining the others what has been done and reach a
ServDes2012 paper submission

10. What and When? 10 (14)
consensus in the team and with others that are not part of the team but can be key
decisions makers. We communicate the service and its characteristics.
Figure 6: Realising. This is the moment to play the game and see what happens. This
is why we use the metaphor of a puzzle. The last piece addition is a clear reference
to the fact that this is the last phase in the design process but also that now the game
is over and we have to let it grow and be in the hands of the end-users.
Discussion
The act of making these info-cards, as a synthesis of the outcomes of a thesis
project, contribute to the discussion on how materiality support appropriation of
knowledge. These material things can modify the space of interaction during the
design process, by explaining when and how to apply methods to non-designers.
Normally only designers choose which methods to use for a certain process.
However in many design projects, specially within the field of Participatory
Design, there is a wish to empower communities in decision making processes.
Thus there needs to be a means of communicating what the methods are about
to non-designers. We think that these info-cards, because of their playfulness,
could make it easier to include different actors in the decision of what methods to
choose. It is open to discussion how well these cards support the participation
and the communication between team members.
New methods are developed by design practitioners on daily basis, but little
resources are invested in mapping existing ones and understanding when to use
them. Info-cards are a way to map the methods in a flexible way where methods
are classified not in a fixed way, but in a malleable solution.
By using these cards designers could find out which phases needs new methods,
or which methods could be adjusted for another phase. For example, after
manipulating these info-cards, we found out that these methods concentrate in
producing a broad amount of data from/with users, but do not focus on how to
analyse this data. Many researchers use affinity diagrams to analyse this data in
teams. But little effort has been made in deepening on the criteria for this analysis
and for the understanding on how to get from the material gathered using these
methods to a design brief.
In parallel the cards could encourage designers to try out new methods. We
consider these cards under development and we need still to test them in
different environments to be sure of their possible use and suitability. We aimed
to share with people involved in design processes these info-cards that can work
ServDes2012 paper submission

11. What and When? 11 (14)
as: a reminder, an inspirational material for different moments of the design
process and a physical boundary object to discuss the choice of methods in a
design process.
References
Ahvenainen, M. (2011). Co-creation, Understanding and Synthesizing-Innovative
Research Methods in Service Design. Master’s Thesis. User-Centered
Design. Laurea University of Applied Sciences.
Beyer, H. and Hotzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: defining customer-
centered systems, San Francisco, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
Binder, T.; De Michelis, G.; Ehn, P.; Jacucci, G.; Linde, P. and Wagner, I. Design
Things. A.Telier. (2011). The MIT Press.
Bitner, M. J.; Ostrom, A.L. and Morgan, F.N. (2007). Service Blueprinting: A
Practical Tool for Service Innovation, AZ State University, Centre for Services
Leadership.
Brandt, E. (2006). Designing Exploratory Design Games: a Framework for
Participation in Participatory Design, 9th Conference on Participatory design.
Bødker, S. (2000). “Scenarios in User-Centred design”. Setting the phase for
reflection and action. Interacting with computers, 13, 1, pp. 61–75.
Buchenau, M. and Suri, F. (2000). “Experience prototyping”. Proceedings of the
conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods,
and techniques, p.424-433, August 17-19, 2000, New York City, New York.
Carroll, J. (1995). Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in
System Development.
Cooper, A. (1998). The Inmates Are Running the Asylum. Sams Publishing.
Dahlbäck, N.; Jönsson, A. Ahrenberg, L. (1993) Wizard of Oz studies — why and
how. Natural Processing Laboratory, Linköping, Department of Computer and
Information Science S-581 83.
De Bono, E. (1985). Six Thinking Hats: An Essential Approach to Business
Management. Little, Brown, & Company.
Feuerstein, K.; Hesmer, A.; Hribernik, K. A.; Thoben, K. D. and Schumacher, J.
(2008). Living Labs: A New Development Strategy. In: European
ServDes2012 paper submission

12. What and When? 12 (14)
Living Labs (Schumacher, J. and Niitamo, V. P., Eds.), Berlin,
Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin pp. 1–14.
Garver, B.; Dunne, T. and Pacenti, E. (1999). “Cultural Probes”. Interactions,
January and February, 1999, pp. 21-29.
Goodwin, K. (2009). Designing for the Digital Age. How to create human-centred
products and services. Wiley Publishing.
Grudin, J. and Pruitt, J. (2002). “Personas, participatory design, and product
development: An infrastructure for engagement”. Proc. PDC 2002, 144–161.
Ehn, P. and King, M. (1991). Carboard computers: Mocking-it-up on the future.
In: J. M. Greenbaum and M. Kyng, (Eds.) Design at work: cooperative design
of computer systems.
Fab Central.(2011). Fab Central. Retrieved from on the 09 25, 2011, from
http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/labs/
Hill, T. and Westbrook, R. (1998). SWOT analysis: It's time for a product recall.
Long Range Planning. Volume 30 Issue 1. February 1997, pp.46-52.
Holmlid, S. and Evenson, S. (2007). Prototyping and enacting services: Lessons
learned from human-centered methods. Proceedings from the 10th Quality in
Services conference, QUIS 10. Orlando, Florida.
Hultcrantz, J. and Ibrahim, A. (2002). “Contextual Workshops: User Participation.
In: The Evaluation of Future Concepts”. Binder, T., Gregory, J., Wagner, I.,
(Eds). Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference. CPSR, Palo Alto.
Hyökki, S. (2011). Visual Eye Tracking Data as Medium in User Dialogue-
Service Design's Perspective. Master’s Thesis. User-Centered Design. Laurea
University of Applied Sciences.
Iaccucchi, G.; Kuutti, K., and Ranta, M. (2000). On the Move with a Magic Thing:
Role Playing in Concept Design of Mobile Services and Devices. Proceedings
of Designing Interactive Systems. New York, USA.
Ideo. (2002). Method Cards. Ideo. Retrieved on 09 25, 2011, from
http://www.ideo.com/work/method-cards/
Jones, J. C. (1992). Design Methods. Second Ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York.
Kelley, J.F. (1984). An Iterative Design Methodology for User-Friendly Natural
Language Office Information Applications, ACM Transactions on Office
Information Systems.
Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design Probes. University of Art and Design Helsinki.
ServDes2012 paper submission

13. What and When? 13 (14)
Moritz, S. (2005). Service Design. Practical Access to an Evolving Field. Köln.
International School of Design.
Moggridge, B. (2006). Designing Interactions. Boston. MIT Press.
Nielsen, J. and Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces, Proc.
ACM CHI'90 Conf. (Seattle, WA, 1-5 April).
Rith, C. (2007). Five reasons to design with moodboards. LifeClever. Retrieved
on the 09 25, 2011, from http://www.lifeclever.com/5-reasons-to-design-with-
mood-boards/
Oulasvirta, A. Kurvinen, E. and Kankainen, T. (2002). Understanding contexts by
being there: case studies in bodystorming. Personal and Ubiquitous
Computing. Volume 7, Number 2, 125-134.
Polson, P. G.; Lewis, C.; Rieman, J. and Wharton, C. (1992). Cognitive
walkthroughs: a method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces,
International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 36.
Sanders, E. (2002) From User-Centered to Participatory Design Approaches.
SonicRim. In Design and the Social Sciences. Frascara, J. (Ed.), Taylor &
Francis Books Ltd.
Star, S.L. and Griesemer, J.R. (1989). “Institutional Ecology, “Translations” and
boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of
Vertebrate Zoology”. Social Studies of Science, 19, 3 (August, 1989) 387-420.
Tassi, R. (2008). Design Service Tools. Retrieved on the 09 22, 2011, from
http://www.servicedesigntools.org/about
UsabilityNet (2006). UsabilityNet. Retrieved on the 09 22, 2011, from
http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/list.htm
Vaajakallio, K. Design Games as a tool, a mindset and a structure. (2012).
Doctoral Dissertation. Aalto University.
Vertelney, L. and Curtis, G. (1990). Storyboards and Sketch Prototypes for Rapid
Interface Visualisation, CHI Tutorial. Engine Group. Retrieved on the 09 22,
2011, from
http://www.enginegroup.co.uk/service_design/m_page/storyboarding
Von Hippel, E. (1986), "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts"
Management Science 32(7): 791–806.
Ylirisku, S. and Buur, J. (2007). Designing with video: focusing the user-centred
design process. Springer.
ServDes2012 paper submission

14. What and When? 14 (14)
Acknowledgements:
We wish to express our special thanks to the four design-researchers that
agreed to be interviewed for the complexion of this research project. We also
wish to thank the graphic designer; Mervi Lipp who gave shape to the cards.
ServDes2012 paper submission