Service Design for/in Transition - Cameron Tonkinwise & Terry Irwin, Carnegie Mellon University

Service Design
for/in Transition
Terry Irwin| Carnegie Mellon University | @Terry_Irwin
Cameron Tonkinwise| Carnegie Mellon University |
@Camerontw
October 3rd, New York City

The evolution of Service Design has helped initiate a
trend toward values-based designing and has
heightened the awareness of design as a catalyst for
transformative, positive change in areas such as:
health/wellbeing
education
policy
energy
transport
and many others

Because of this, Service Design has become
a key component in designing for transition.
In addition, Service Design itself is undergoing a
transition…

Design school as service provider*
* with all of the associated tensions
and conflicts it brings…

We serve tuition-paying students and promise them earning
capacity in excess of the cost of their education

We serve society by creating designers who work to make the
world a better place

We are researchers trying to understand what befits the needs
of society (and the marketplace) now and in the future

We are experts with knowledge about what befits the needs of
society (and the marketplace) now and in the future

We are experts with knowledge about what befits the needs of
society (and the marketplace) now and in the future
We are critics with knowledge about the conflict between
the needs of society (and the marketplace), now and in
the future.

Our new curricula could be seen as a service-
oriented response to the current contexts in which
our graduates are designing.
It is also a values-based response intended to leapfrog
beyond current contexts and anticipate where
we can and should be designing in the long-term future

Our new curriculum could be seen as a service-
oriented response to the current contexts in which
our graduates are designing.
It is also a values-based response intended to leapfrog
beyond current contexts and anticipate where
we can and should be designing in the long-term future
Design for Transitions CarnegieMellon
Transition Design 2015
A new area of design research, practice and study that proposes
design-led societal transition toward more sustainable futures.
School of Design
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890
412.268.2828
You never change things by
ﬁghting the existing reality.
To change something, build
a new model that makes
the existing model obsolete.
—Buckminster Fuller
Fundamental change at every level of our society is
needed to address the issues confronting us in
the 21st century. Climate change, loss of biodiversity,
depletion of natural resources and the widening
gap between rich and poor are just a few of the
‘wicked problems’ that require new approaches to
problem solving.

New Program Framework
Design for Interactions
Designing for interactions between people, the built (designed) world,
and the natural environment
we are a
school of :

Products
Communications
Environments
Design Tracks
Sub-disciplinary specialty

Design for
Service
Design within current
business models
Products
Communications
Environments
Design Tracks
Areas of Design Focus
Inform courses, projects & research at all levels in the school
And represent increasing depth of socio-temporal context

Design for
Service
Design for
Social
Innovation
business models
Design for alternative
economies
Products
Communications
Environments
Design Tracks

Design for
Service
Design for
Social
Innovation
Transition
Design
business models
economies
Design for systems
level change
Products
Communications
Environments
Design Tracks

Design for
Service
Design for
Social
Innovation
Transition
Design
business models
economies
Design for systems
level change
Products
Communications
Environments
Social
& Natural
Worlds
Design Tracks
Context for
All Design

Design for
Service
Design for
Social
Innovation
Transition
Design
business models
economies
Design for systems
level change
Products
Communications
Environments
Natural
Environment
Design Tracks
Context for
All Design

Transition visions must be informed by new
knowledge about natural, social, and built
/designed systems. This new knowledge will,
in turn, evolve the vision.
New theories of change will reshape design-
ers’ temperaments, mindsets and postures.
And, these ‘new ways of being’ in the world
will motivate the search for new, more
relevant knowldege.
New ways of designing will help realize the
vision but will also change/evolve it.
As the vision evolves, new ways of designing
will continue to be developed.
Changes in mindset, posture and tempera-
ment will give rise to new ways of designing.
As new design approaches evolve, designers’
temperaments and postures will continue to
evolve and change.
Living in & thru transitional times requires
a mindset and posture of openess,
mindfulness, self-reflection, a willingness to
collaborate, and ‘optimistic grumpiness’
The transition to a sustain-
able society will require new
ways of designing that are
characterized by:
• Design for‘initial conditions’, • Placed-based,
context-based design, • Design for next level
up or down in the system, • Network & alliance
building • Transdisciplinary and co-design
processes, • Design that amplifies grassroots
efforts, • Beta, error-friendly approach to
designing
• Living Systems theory, • Max-Neef’s theory
of needs, • Sociotechnical regime theory,
• Post normal science, • Critiques of everyday
life • Alternative economics, • Social Practice
theory • Social pyschology research
Theories from many varied
fields and disciplines inform
a deep understanding of the
dynamics of change within
the natural & social worlds.
• Shifting values: cooperation over competition, self-sufficiency,
deep respect and advocacy for‘other’(cultures, species etc.)
• Indigenous, place-based knowledge, • Goethean Science/ Phenom-
enology, • Understanding/embracing transdisciplinarity, • Ability to
design within uncertainty, ambiguity, chaos and contradiction,
• A committed sense of urgency (grumpiness) along with optimisim in
the ability to change
Visions for
Transition
Theories
of Change
New Ways
of Designing
Posture
& Mindset
7
TRANSITION DESIGN
FRAMEWORK
Four mutually reinforcing and co-evolving areas
of knowledge action and self-reflection

Visions for transitions to sustainable societies are based upon the
reconception of entire lifestyles. Communities are human scale,
place-based, globally connected in the exchange of technology,
information and culture.
Desired
future state
2050 & beyond
Current
state
Vision

Desired
future state
2050 & beyond
Current
state
Vision
Service Design Projects
Social Innovation Projects
Vision

Desired
future state
2050 & beyond
Current
state
Vision
Vision
Vision

Desired
future state
2050 & beyond
Current
state
Vision
Vision
Vision
Vision

Desired
future state
2050 & beyond
Current
state
Vision
Transition Design Solution
Vision
1. Amplifying & connecting
existing efforts
2. Developing narratives
& glimpses of the ‘not yet’

Transition solutions draw on transdisciplinary knowledge from a wide
range of disciplines that explain the dynamics of change within
complex social/natural systems. Understanding how change manifests
and how it can be catalyzed and directed.
Theories
of Change
Living Systems Theory
Self-Organization
Resilience
Chaos/Complexity
Emergence
Holarchy
Diversity
Symbiosis
Interdependence
Transition Management
Sustainability Transitions
Sociotechnical Regimes
Post Normal Science
Needs Theory (Max-Neef)
Everyday Life Critiques
Social Practice Theory
Social Psychology
Alternative Economics
Systems Thinking
Social Ecology
Ecology
Decentralization
Raskin, Paul et al. 2002. The Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead. Stockholm: Stockholm
Environmental Institute and Boston: Tellus Institute. Available online: http://www.world-governance.org/article90.
html.
Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network. 2010. Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International
Development. Available online: http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/ﬁles/bba493f7-cc97-4da3-add6-3deb
007cc719.pdf.
Sachs, Wolfgang. 1999. Planet Dialectics: Exploration in Environment and Development. pp. 105-107. London: Zed Books Ltd.
Sale, Kirkpatrick. 1980. Human Scale. London: Secker and Warburg.
Shuman, Michael. 2000. Going Local: Creating Self-reliant Communities in a Global Age. New York: Routledge.
Snyder, Gary. 1995. “Reinhabitation”. In Alan Drengson and Yuichi Inoue The Deep Ecology Movement: An Introductory
Anthology, pp. 67-73. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books.
Speth, James Gustave. 1992. “The Transition to a Sustainable Society”. Proceedings, National Academy of Science, USA, 89:
870–872. Available online: http://www.pnas.org/content/89/3/870.full.pdf.
Tonkinwise, Cameron. 2014. Design for Transition - From and to What? Available online: https://www.academia.
edu/11796491/Design_for_Transition_-_from_and_to_what.
Wilkinson, Angela et al. 2013. “How Plausibility-Based Scenario Practices are Grappling with Complexity to Appreciate
and Address 21st Century Challenges”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80: 699-710.
Damian, White. 2015. Future by Design. Forthcoming July 2015. London: Bristol Classical Press.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2010. “Vision 2050: The New Agenda for Business.” Available online:
http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/edocumentdetails.aspx?id=219.
Worldwatch Institute. 2013. State of the World: Is Sustainability Still Possible? Washington DC: Island Press.
Theories of Change
Augros, Robert and George Stanciu . 1987. The New Biology. Boston: Shambhala.
Benjamin, Barber. 2013. If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Benkler, Yochai. 2007. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Berkhout, Frans, Adrian Smith, and Andy Stirling . 2003. “Socio-technological Regimes and Transition Contexts.” Science
and Technology Policy Research Working Paper Series. Brighton: University of Sussex. Available online: http://www.
sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/publications/imprint/sewps/sewp106/sewp106.pdf.
Berry, Wendell. 2010. What Matters? Economics for a Renewed Community, pp. 186-188. San Francisco: Counterpoint.
Biehl, Janet and Murray Bookchin,. 1998. The Politics of Social Ecology. Montreal: Black Rose.
Boff, Leonardo and Hathaway, Mark. 2009. The Tao of Liberation: Exploring the Ecology of Transformation. New York: Orbis
Books.
Bookchin, Murray. 1999. The Murray Bookchin Reader. Janet Biehl (ed). Montreal: Black Rose.
Bookchin, Murray. 2005. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. Edinburgh: AK.
Briggs, John and David Peat. 1990. Turbulent Mirror: An Illustrated Guide to Chaos Theory and the Science of Wholeness.
New York: Harper and Row.
Briggs, John and David Peat. 1999. Seven Life Lessons of Chaos. New York: Harper Perennial.
Brown, Richard Harvey. 1989. A Poetic for Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Callenbach, Ernest. 2008. Ecology: A Pocket Guide. Berkeley: University of California.
Capra, Fritjof. 1997. The Web of Life: A New Scientiﬁc Understanding of Living Systems. New York: Anchor Books.
Capra, Fritjof. 2005.“Speaking Nature’s Language: Principles for Sustainability”. In Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow
(eds) Ecological Literacy: Educating Our Children for a Sustainable World, pp. 19-29. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Capra, Fritjof and Pier Luigi Luisi,. 2014. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Padstow, Cornwall: Cambridge
University Press.
Carson, Kevin A. 2010. The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low Overhead Manifesto. Booksurge.
de Sousa Santos, Bonaventura. 2006. The Sociology of Emergences, The Rise of the Global Left: The World Social Forum
and Beyond. London: Zed Books.
Delanty, Gerard. 2003. Community, pp. 1–21. London: Routledge.
Doordan, Dennis P. 2013. “Developing Theories for Sustainable Design”. In Stuart Walker and Jaques Giard (eds), The Hand-
book of Design for Sustainability. London: Bloomsbury.
Douthwaite, Richard. 1996. Short Circuit: Strengthening Local Economies for Security in an Unstable World. Totnes: Green
Books.
Ecologist Magazine. 1993. Whose Common Future? Reclaiming the Commons. Gabriola Island: New Society.
Key Topics
Living Systems Theory
Self-Organization
Resilience
Chaos/Complexity
Emergence
Holarchy
Diversity
Symbiosis
Transition Management
Sustainability Transitions
Sociotechnical Regimes
Post Normal Science
Needs Theory
Everyday Life Critiques
Social Practice Theory
Social Psychology
Alternative Economics
Systems Thinking
Social Ecology
Ecology
Interdependence
Decentralization
15

Transition Design asks designers themselves to transition. To adopt
a mindset and posture more conducive to working in and with
complex systems: openness, mindfulness, self-reflection, collaboration
and a kind of ‘optimistic grumpiness’
Mindset
& Posture
Newton as the Divine Geometer, William Blake Circa 1795 Sudama Approaching the Golden City of Krishna, Circa 1785

Mindset
& Posture
Indigenous, place-based wisdom
Respect/advocacy for ‘other’
Goethean Science/phenomenology
Comfort w/ambiguity, uncertainty
Committed sense of urgency & optimism
Holistic worldview (ability to see/understand
interdependency/interrelatedness
Mindset & Posture
Abram, David. 1996. “The Mechanical and the Organic.” In Peter Bunyard (ed) Gaia in Action: Science of the Living Earth,
pp. 234-242. Floris: Edinburgh.
Abram, David. 2012. The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World. New York:
Vintage.
Abram, David. 2010. Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology. New York: Random House.
Alexander, Christopher. 1974. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Amrine, Frederick, Francis Zucker and Harvey Wheeler. 1987. Goethe and the Sciences: A Reappraisal. Dordrecht: D. Reidel
Publishing Company.
Anderson, M. Kat. 2005. Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural
Resources. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bateson, Gregory. 1979. Mind and Nature. London: Wildwood House.
Bannon, Bryan E. 2014. From Mastery to Mystery: A Phenomenological Foundation for an Environmental Ethic. Athens,
OH: Ohio University Press.
Benkler, Yochai. 2011. The Penguin and the Leviathan: How Cooperation Triumphs Over Self-Interest. New York: Crown.
Berman, Morris. 1981. The Reenchantment of the World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Berry, Thomas. 2011. The Great Work: Our Way into the Future. New York: Crown.
Bohm, David. 1996. On Dialogue. London: Routledge.
Bortoft, Henri. 1996. The Wholeness of Nature: Goethe’s Way Toward a Science of Conscious Participation in Nature.
Aurora, CO: Lindisfarne Books.
Bortoft, Henri. 1999. “Goethe’s Organic Vision” in David Lorimer et al (eds) Wider Horizons: Explorations in Science and
Human Experience. Leven: Scientific and Medical Network.
Bortoft, Henri. 2012. Taking Appearance Seriously: The Dynamic Way of Seeing in Goethe and European Thought.
Edinburgh: Floris Books.
Capra, Fritjof. 1983. The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture. pp. 362-366, New York: Bantam Books.
Clarke, Mary E. 2002. In Search of Human Nature. London: Routledge.
de Quincey, Christian. 2002. Radical Nature: Rediscovering the Soul of Nature. Montpelier: Invisible Cities Press.
Drengson, Alan. 1995. “Shifting Paradigms: From Technocrat to Planetary Person.” In Alan Drengson and Yuichi Inoue (eds)
The Deep Ecology Movement: An Introductory Anthology. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books.
du Plessis, Hannah. 2014. “The Importance of Personal Transformation in Design Education.” Presented at the Cumulus
Johannesburg Conference, September 22–14 [du Plessis].
Ehrenfeld, John R. 2013. “The Roots of Unsustainability.” In Stuart Walker and Jaques Giard (eds) The Handbook of Design
for Sustainability, pp. 15-26. London: Bloomsbury.
Evernden, Neil. 1992. The Social Creation of Nature. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Fleming, David. 2013. Design Education for a Sustainable Future. London: Routledge.
Freire, Paulo. 2013. Education for Critical Consciousness. London: Bloomsbury.
Goerner, S. .J. 1999. After the Clockwork Universe: The Emerging Science and Culture of Integral Society, pp. 13-25. Floris:
Edinburgh.
Greenleaf, Robert K. 1991. Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature and Power of Greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Griffiths, Jay. 2006. Wild: An Elemental Journey. London: Tarcher.
Grudin, Robert. 1982. Time and the Art of Living, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Harding, Stephan. 2009. Animate Earth: Science, Intuition and Gaia. Totnes: Green Books.
Hayward, Jeremy W. 1997. Letters to Vanessa: On Love, Science and Awareness in an Enchanted World. Boston: Shambala.
Hillman, James. 1992. The Thought of the Heart and the Soul of the World. Dallas: Spring Publications.
Hoffman, Nigel. 2007. Goethe’s Science of Living Form: The Artistic Stages. Hillsdale: Adonis Books.
Holdrege, Craig. 1998. “Seeing the Animal Whole.” In David Seamon and Arthur Zajonc (ed) Goethe’s Way of Science:
A Phenomenology of Nature, pp. 1-6. Albany: SUNY.
Holdrege, Craig. 2005. “Doing Goethean Science.” Janus Head, 8: 1. Available online: http://www.janushead.org/8-1/
holdrege.pdf.
Ingold, Tim. 2011. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ingold, Tim. 2011. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ingold, Tim. 2013. Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. Abingdon: Routledge.
Irwin, Terry and Baxter, Seaton. 2008. “The Dynamical View of Natural Form.” In C.A Brebbia (ed) Design and Nature IV,
Key Topics
Worldview/Mindset
Goethean Science
Holism & Form
Beauty
Phenomenology
Mechanism/Reductionism
Collaboration
Self-Reflection
Indigenous Wisdom
Ecopsychology
Craft
New Ways of Being
Transdisciplinarity
Mind & Body
Relationality
Transition Design asks designers themselves to transition. To adopt
a mindset and posture more conducive to working in and with
complex systems: openness, mindfulness, self-reflection, collaboration
and a kind of ‘optimistic grumpiness’

The transition to sustainable futures will require new ways of
designing that are informed by transdisciplinary knowledge and new
behaviors and postures and the ability to design for long horizons
of time
New Ways
of
Designing
Service Design
Social Impact Design
Permaculture
Indigenous Design
Ecological Design
Wicked Problems
Co-Design processes
Biomimicry
Transformation Design
Toulmin, Stephen. 1990. Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. New York: Free Press.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1974. Topophilia, pp. 79-91. New York: Columbia University Press.
Turnbull, Colin M. 1983. The Mbuti Pygmies: Change and Adaptation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Wadddington, C.H. 1968. “The Character of Biological Form.” In Lancelot Law Whyte (ed) Aspects of Form, pp. 43-56. London:
Lund Humphries.
Watkins, Mary and Helen Shulman. 2010. Toward Psychologies of Liberation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wheatley, Margaret, and Myron Kellner-Rogers. 1996. A Simpler Way. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Whitt, Anne-Laurie. 2001. “Indigenous Perspectives.” In Dale Jamieson (ed) A Companion to Environmental Philosophy.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Williams, Christopher. 1974. Craftsmen of Necessity. New York: Random House.
Williams, Christopher. 1995. Origins of Form: The Shape of Natural and Man Made Things — why they came to be the way
they are and how they change. Stamford: Architectural Book Publishing Co.
Wymer, Norman. 1946. English Country Crafts, London: Western Printing Services.
Yanagi, Soetsu. 1989. The Unknown Craftsman: A Japanese Insight into Beauty. Tokyo: Kodansha Wymer, Norman. 1951.
New Ways of Designing
Amatullo, Mariana. 2014. “Codifying Practices in an Emergent Space: Insights from the LEAP Symposium on the New
Professional Frontier in Design for Social Innovation.” Design Principles and Practices Journal Annual Review, 7:
55–67. Available online: http://ijgar.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.282/prod.18.
Benyus, Janine. 1997. Biomimicry. New York: William Morrow.
Berry, Wendell. 2005. “Solving for Pattern.” In Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow (eds) Ecological Literacy: Educating our
Children for a Sustainable World. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Brown, Azby. 2013. Just Enough: Lessons in Living Green From Traditional Japan. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle.
Buchanan, Richard. 1995. “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.” In Victor Margolin and Richard Buchanan (eds) The Idea
of Design: A Design Issues Reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Crowe, Norman. 1999. Nature and the Idea of a Man-Made World. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Day, Christopher. 2002. Spirit and Place. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Day, Christopher. 2003. Consensus Design: Socially Inclusive Process. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Drenttel, William and Michael Mossoba. 2013. “Winterhouse Fourth Symposium on Design Education and Social Change:
Final Report.” Change Observer, November 8. Available online: http://www.networkedblogs.com/QTA7Z.
Forlizzi, Jodi and John Zimmerman. 2013. “Promoting Service Design as a Core Practice in Interaction Design.” Paper
presented at the IASDR Conference, Tokyo, Japan, August 26–30. Available online: http://design-cu.jp/iasdr2013/pa
pers/1202-1b.pdf.
Fry, Tony. 2011. Design as Politics. Oxford: Berg.
Fuad-Luke, Alastair. 2007. “Re-deﬁning the Purpose of (Sustainable) Design: Enter the Design Enablers, Catalysts in
Co-design”. In Jonathan Chapman and Nick Gant (eds) Designers, Visionaries, and Other Stories: A Collection of Sus
tainable Design Essays. London: Earthscan.
Hester, Randolph T. 2010. Design for Ecological Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hodder, Ian. 2012. Entangled: An Archeology of the Relationships Between Humans and Things. Chichester: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Holmgren, David. 2011. Permaculture: Principles and Pathways beyond Sustainability. East Moen: Permanent Publications.
Irwin Terry et al. 2005. Design and Sustainability: A Scoping Report for the Sustainable Design Forum. London: Depart
ment for Environment, Food and Human Affairs. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/4655832/Design_and_
Sustainability_A_Scoping_Report_UK_Design_Council_DTI_2005.
Irwin, Terry. 2011. “Design for a Sustainable Future,” 2: 41–60. In Hershauer, Basile, and McNall (eds), The Business of Sus-
tainability. Santa Barbara: Praeger.
Irwin, Terry. 2011a. “Wicked Problems and the Relationship Triad.” In Stephan Harding (ed.), Grow Small, Think Beautiful:
Ideas for a Sustainable World from Schumacher College. Edinburgh: Floris Books.
Irwin, Terry. 2011b. Living Systems Theory and Its Relevance to Design: A Matrix. Developed for the 2011 AIGA Conference,
Phoenix. https://www.academia.edu/6076107/Living_Systems_Theory_Relevance_to_Design.
Irwin, Terry. 2015. “Transition Design: A Proposal for a New Area of Design, Practice, Study and Research.” Design and
Culture Journal, forthcoming July 2015.
Irwin, Terry, Cameron Tonkinwise and Gideon Kossoff. 2013. “Transition Design: Re-conceptualizing Whole Lifestyles.”
Head, Heart, Hand: AIGA Design Conference, October 12, Minneapolis. Available online: http://www.aiga.org/video-
HHH-2013-irwin-kossoff-tonkinwise.
Key Topics
Social Innovation
Service Design
Permaculture
Transition Design
Design Ethics
Indigenous Design
Biomimicry
Ecological Design
Wicked Problems
Co-Design
Indigenous Design
20

There are clearly overlaps between design for service,
design for social innovation and transition design…

Service Design emerged from Interaction Design as a distinct field
of practice. But digital ecosystems are forcing every field of design to
become Service Design.
Product
Service
Systems

To design in these systems, designers must set the boundaries of
these systems. These determinations require strong and clear
values and frames.
Product
Service
Systems

To design in these systems, designers must set the boundaries of
these systems. These determinations require strong and clear
values and frames.
Product
Service
Systems
Promoting Service Design as a
Core Practice in Interaction Design
Jodi Forlizzi and John Zimmerman
HCI Institute and the School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University
forlizzi@cs.cmu.edu, johnz@cs.cmu.edu
Abstract: With the growth of mobile and social computing, interaction designers are increasingly
being asked to design services and systems intended for societal change. In this paper, we argue
that current interaction design approaches, inspired by user experience and user-centered design,
are insufficient to appropriately take on these new challenges. We propose, instead, that our
community considers a service design framing to complement what is already being done in the
field. We describe the process of service design, and give examples of service design framings in
several projects. We show that a service framing offers a systemic approach that better address the
complex stakeholder relationships, yields outcomes in the form of product-service systems, and
focuses on how value can be co-produced between customers and stakeholders.
Key words: Interaction design, service design, user-centered design, user experience design
1. Introduction
Advances in information and communication technologies (ICTs) along with the growth of social and mobile
computing have created many new opportunities for interaction design (IxD). Interestingly, many of these
opportunities involve the design of services. The increasing penetration of ICT has also created opportunities for
IxD designers to take on societal level problems ranging from homelessness to sustainability to health and
wellness. Unfortunately, current IxD practices, grounded in user-centered design (UCD) and user experience
design (UX) with a tight focus on the needs and desires of “users”, were not developed to produce a service as an

Product
Service
The Service Design Offering LandscapeProduct
Service
Systems

Product
Service
Product
Service
Systems
Smart Product
The Service Design Offering Landscape

Product
Service
Product
Service
Systems
Smart Product Robot

Product
Service
Product
Service
Systems
Smart Product
DIY
Robot

Product
Service
Product
Service
Systems
Smart Product
DIY Peer to Peer
Robot

Product
Service
Product
Service
Systems
Smart Product
DIY Peer to Peer Expert Full
Service
Robot

The Service Design Recipient Value LandscapeProduct
Service
Systems
People
Skill
Time Money

Product
Service
Systems
People
Skill
Time Money
The Service Design Recipient Value Landscape

The Service Design Provider Role/Power LandscapeProduct
Service
Systems
Freelance
Professional Facilitator Carer Servant
PrecariatSharing Economy

Service
Systems
Article
Service Research Priorities in a Rapidly
Changing Context
Amy L. Ostrom1
, A. Parasuraman2
, David E. Bowen3
,
Lia Patrı´cio4
, and Christopher A. Voss5
Abstract
The context in which service is delivered and experienced has, in many respects, fundamentally changed. For instance, advances in
technology, especially information technology, are leading to a proliferation of revolutionary services and changing how custom-
ers serve themselves before, during, and after purchase. To understand this changing landscape, the authors engaged in an inter-
national and interdisciplinary research effort to identify research priorities that have the potential to advance the service field and
benefit customers, organizations, and society. The priority-setting process was informed by roundtable discussions with research-
ers affiliated with service research centers and networks located around the world and resulted in the following 12 service
research priorities:
stimulating service innovation,
facilitating servitization, service infusion, and solutions,
understanding organization and employee issues relevant
to successful service,
developing service networks and systems,
leveraging service design,
using big data to advance service,
understanding value creation,
enhancing the service experience,
improving well-being through transformative service,
measuring and optimizing service performance and
impact,
understanding service in a global context, and
leveraging technology to advance service.
For each priority, the authors identified important specific service topics and related research questions. Then, through an online
survey, service researchers assessed the subtopics’ perceived importance and the service field’s extant knowledge about them.
Although all the priorities and related topics were deemed important, the results show that topics related to transformative ser-
vice and measuring and optimizing service performance are particularly important for advancing the service field along with big
data, which had the largest gap between importance and current knowledge of the field. The authors present key challenges that
should be addressed to move the field forward and conclude with a discussion of the need for additional interdisciplinary research.
Keywords
research priorities, service field, technology, transformative service research, innovation, cocreation, service design, big data
Introduction
The context in which service is delivered and experienced
has, in many respects, fundamentally changed. Advances
in technology, especially information technology, are lead-
ing to a proliferation of revolutionary services and changing
how customers serve themselves before, during, and after
purchase. As Rust and Huang (2014) discuss, rapidly evol-
ving information technologies (e.g., Internet of Things,
social network technology, mobile technology, and cloud
service research and the need for new service-related knowl-
edge have never been greater.
1
W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
2
University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA
3
Thunderbird School of Global Management, Arizona State University,
Glendale, AZ, USA
4
INESC TEC, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
Journal of Service Research
2015, Vol. 18(2) 127-159
ª The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1094670515576315
jsr.sagepub.com

Service
Systems
http://www.turnstoneconsulting.com/work/futureofwork/
Rachel Abrams: The Future of Work

Co-Evolving
Relational
Services
ORIGINAL PAPER
Relational Services
Carla Cipolla Ezio Manzini
Received: 10 November 2008 /Accepted: 3 February 2009 /Published online: 24 February 2009
# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract Recent research projects have looked for
social innovations, i.e., people creating solutions
outside the mainstream patterns of production and
consumption. An analysis of these innovations indi-
cates the emergence of a particular kind of service
configuration—defined here as relational services—
which requires intensive interpersonal relations to
operate. Based on a comparative analysis between
standard and relational services, we propose to the
Service Design discipline an interpretative framework
able to reinforce its ability to deal with the interper-
sonal relational qualities in services, indicating how
these qualities can be understood and favored by
design activities, as well as the limits of this design
intervention. Martin Buber’s conceptual framework is
presented as the main interpretative basis. Buber
describes two ways of interacting (“I-Thou” and
“I-It”). Relational services are those most favoring
“I-Thou” interpersonal encounters.
Keywords Service design . Interaction design .
Design for sustainability. Social innovation .
Philosophy. Martin Buber
Relational Innovations
Martin Buber (1878–1965) has profoundly influenced
those who are interested in interpersonal encounters.
Buber’s writings about what he discovered by living life
in relation to others can be misunderstood and ignored
due to its poetic complexity, but his voice is part of an
authentic “Copernican revolution,” a changing in the
“place of thought” from the “subject” to “otherness”
(Bartholo 2001). It corresponds to the affirmation that
the “I” without the “Thou”1
is impossible (Buber
1921).
This affirmation is part of his “dialogical principle,”
i.e., the distinguishing factor that makes us really
“humans.” The fundamental fact of human existence,
according to Buber’s anthropology, is man with man
(Buber 1947). This idea and sensibility is deeply
Know Techn Pol (2009) 22:45–50
DOI 10.1007/s12130-009-9066-z
C. Cipolla (*)

All service design, whether digital or personal is LX (learning
experience design). Any service design is also part of a wider
restructuring of how society cares for people.
Co-Evolving
Relational
Services
IxD
Learning
Service
LX
Based on Seitzinger 2015

All service design is also Social Innovation for Transition or what
Daniela Sangiorgi has already called Transformation Design.
Co-Evolving
Relational
Services
Introduction
Service design has recently been developing by enhancing
its capacity to facilitate change within both organisations and
communities. Burns, Cottam, Vanstone, and Winhall (2006)
defined this area of practice as transformation design. According
to their definition, the concept of transformation design suggests
that:
Because organisations now operate in an environment of constant
change, the challenge is not how to design a response to a current
issue, but how to design a means of continually responding,
adapting and innovating. Transformation design seeks to leave
behind not only the shape of a new solution, but the tools, skills
and organisational capacity for ongoing change (p. 21).
The fact that transformation design is aiming at radical
change is also emphasized. They suggest that transformation
design can be applied to radically change public and community
services, working for socially progressive ends, or can,
alternatively, trigger change in a private company introducing a
human-centred design culture.
Furthermore, service design has recently been considering
services less as design objects and more as means for societal
transformation. The intrinsic element of co-production of
thereby changing their roles and interaction patterns (Parker
Parker, 2007). In this way, service design is entering the fields
of organisational development and social change, with little
background knowledge of their respective theories and principles.
In this light, the questions which arise are: How can designers
working with communities affect and transform organisations or,
vice versa, how can designers working within organisations affect
and positively transform user communities? It is also necessary to
clarify the form of transformations, why these are desirable and
who will particularly benefit from them.
This article aims at providing a first framework for
transformation design, in the specific context of public services
reform, by suggesting the adoption of key concepts and principles
derived from research fields that have focused for decades on
the issues of transformational change within organisations and
communities, such as organisational development and community
action research. Participatory action research has been chosen in
particular as a possible integrating methodological framework that
characterises both research fields of organisational development
Received December 1, 2010; Accepted April 30, 2011; Published August 15,
2011.
Copyright: © 2011 Sangiorgi. Copyright for this article is retained by the author,
with first publication rights granted to the International Journal of Design. All
Transformative Services and Transformation Design
Daniela Sangiorgi
ImaginationLancaster, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
This article reports on the recent evolution of service design toward becoming transformational. Services are less discussed as design
objects and more as means for supporting the emergence of a more collaborative, sustainable and creative society and economy. The
transformative role of design is combined with the potential transformative role of services. The term “transformation design” as set forth
by Burns, Cottam, Vanstone, and Winhall (2006), has been associated with work within communities for socially progressive ends, but
also with work within organisations to introduce a human-centred design culture. The intrinsic element of co-production of services in
transformation design necessitates the concomitant development of staff, the public and the organisation. In this way, service design is
entering the fields of organisational studies and social change with little background knowledge of their respective theories and principles.
This article proposes the adoption and adaptation of principles and practices from organisational development and community action
research into service design. Additionally, given the huge responsibilities associated with transformative practices, designers are urged to
introduce reflexivity into their work to address power and control issues in each design encounter.
Keywords – Service Design, Transformative Services, Transformation Design, Transformational Change.
Relevance to Design Practice – Service design is increasingly oriented toward transformative aims. The concept of transformation
design has been proposed, but little research exists on its principles, methodologies and qualities. This article aims to provide some
foundations for clarifying the concept of transformational change and suggests a potentially useful bridge with the principles and practices
of organisational development and community action research.
Citation: Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Traansformative services and transformation design. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 29-40.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Co-Evolving
Relational
Services
from Sangiorgi, 2011
Transformative Services and Transformation Design
How this can happen, however, has not yet been discussed
in service design research. Junginger (2006), in her investigations
into the role of design for organisational change, suggests a link
between human-centred design and organisational learning:
For an organization, human-centered design offers two key
processes as shown in Figure 3. This is particularly true if we look
at the deep transformation being advocated in public services,
which involves moving from a delivery model that is associated
with a paternalistic and top down welfare paradigm, toward an
enabling model that is centred on the concept of co-creation
core processes
culture
mission
paradigm
Figure 1. Contents of second-order change
(source: Levy, 1986, p. 16).
core processes
culture
mission
paradigm
service transformation
service design interventions
service interactions design
Figure 2. Levels of change within service design practice
(adapted from Junginger Sangiorgi, 2009).
All service design is also Social Innovation for Transition or what
Daniela Sangiorgi has already called Transformation Design.

Co-Evolving
Relational
Services
Organizational
Design
Work-Life Style
Design
Service
Design
Transition
Design

Co-Evolving
Relational
Services
The dilemma is that this requires Services Designers to be
Mission-based.
Stand alone consultancies are too small to effect
long-term change (unless they are government service
contractors)
Teams within larger (management) consultancies must
deliver commoditizable deliveries, not longer-term
engagements.
Teams within corporations may not be able to service
beyond the corporation
•
•
•

Design for
Service
Design for
Social
Innovation
Transition
Design
business models
economies
Design for systems
level change
Products
Communications
Environments
Design Tracks
Context for
All Design
Social
Natural
Worlds
Inform courses, projects research at all levels in the school

CarnegieMellon
Transition Design 2015
A new area of design research, practice and study that proposes
design-led societal transition toward more sustainable futures.
School of Design
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890
412.268.2828
You never change things by
fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build
a new model that makes
the existing model obsolete.
—Buckminster Fuller
Terry Irwin
Professor Head,
School of Design
tirwin@andrew.cmu.edu
cmu.academia.edu/TerryIrwin
Gideon Kossoff
Social Ecologist Adjunct
Professor, School of Design
gkossoff@andrew.cmu.edu
independent.academia.edu/
GideonKossoff
Cameron Tonkinwise
Associate Professor
Director of Doctoral Design
Studies, School of Design
cameront@cmu.edu
cmu.academia.edu/cameron-
tonkinwise
Peter Scupelli
Assistant Professor
Chair, Environments Track
School of Design
pgs@andrew.cmu.edu
independent.academia.edu/
PeterScupelli
Fundamental change at every level of our society is
needed to address the issues confronting us in
the 21st century. Climate change, loss of biodiversity,
depletion of natural resources and the widening
gap between rich and poor are just a few of the
‘wicked problems’ that require new approaches to
problem solving.
Transition Design acknowledges that we are living in ‘transitional times’. It takes as its
central premise the need for societal transitions to more sustainable futures and
argues that design has a key role to play in these transitions. It applies an understanding
of the interconnectedness of social, economic, political and natural systems to address
problems at all levels of spatiotemporal scale in ways that improve quality of life.
Transition Design advocates the reconception of entire lifestyles, with the aim of making
them more place-based, convivial and participatory and harmonizing them with
the natural environment. Transition Design focuses on the need for ‘cosmopolitan local-
ism’, (Manzini 2009; Sachs 1999) a lifestyle that is place-based and regional, yet global
in its awareness and exchange of information and technology.
Everyday life is viewed as a potentially powerful, transformative space (Lefebvre 1984;
Gardiner 2000) where transition designers explore ways in which basic human needs are
satisfied locally, within economies that exist to meet those needs (Max-Neef 1992; Illich
1987; Kamenetsky 1992). This is in contrast to the dominant economic paradigm that is pred-
icated upon unbridled growth and an imperative to maximize profit (Korten 1999. 2010;
Mander 2012; Douthwaite 1996).
Transition designers are temporally aware and design for the ‘long now’ (Brand 1999).
They draw on knowledge and wisdom from the past to conceive solutions in the present
with future generations in mind. They study how large sociotechnical transitions
have manifested throughout history (Geels 2010; Grin, Rotmans, Schot 2010; Shove and Walker 2007)
and draw on the wisdom of pre-industrial indigenous societies who lived and designed
sustainably in-place for generations (Brown 2013; Papanek 1995;Whitt 2001).
Transition Design
Symposium Monograph
June 2015
Transition Design Article
Design Culture June 2015
Transition Design Edition
Design Philosophy Papers
Forthcoming early 2016
Transition Design Facebook
Currently Up
academia.edu: Transition Design
Cameron Tonkinwise, Terry Irwin,
Gideon Kossoff
Buenos Aires
Argentina
Masters Program
Barcelona Spain
Research Track
Devon, England
Masters Program
Melbourne, Australia
Research Track

Service Design for/in Transition - Cameron Tonkinwise & Terry Irwin, Carnegie Mellon University

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (13)

Semelhante a Service Design for/in Transition - Cameron Tonkinwise & Terry Irwin, Carnegie Mellon University

Semelhante a Service Design for/in Transition - Cameron Tonkinwise & Terry Irwin, Carnegie Mellon University (20)

Mais de Service Design Network

Mais de Service Design Network (20)

Último

Último (20)

Service Design for/in Transition - Cameron Tonkinwise & Terry Irwin, Carnegie Mellon University