‘NSD and Service Design Integrated Process’ proposition
Before relating the NSD and service design stages and obtaining the integrated model, it is important to highlight the particularities of each process approach, as this will impact the role of each stage in the integrated model. On the one hand, service design has broad and unstructured user demands as a starting point under which several customer studies are conducted in the ‘Data Collection’ and ‘Data Analysis’ stages to transform user data into user insights. Afterwards, solutions are created, through creativity and codesign, in the ‘Creation’ stage; and the best solution is selected through prototype testing in the ‘Selection’ stage. On the other hand, NSD process has the company’s strategic planning as input, being focused on detailing and implementing the ‘Service Idea’ already defined by the strategy.
As can be seen in the Fig. 2, although service design is more commonly used in the front-office of innovation, it is primarily a way of thinking and working that can be applied at various scales and phases of the service innovation process. Then, the design object may change based on the project’s specific objective. When the objective is the development of the entire service, service design generally develops the ‘Service Idea’, ‘Service Concept’, and ‘Service Delivery System’ in a mixed way. Moreover, although the ‘Implementation’ stage is presented in several service design processes, its execution is not further specified in literature.
Considering these characteristics, in the focus group and brainstorming sessions, relations among the NSD and service design stages were based on the potential contribution of each service design process activity to the development of each NSD process service prerequisites. In this way, we aimed to understand which service prerequisites could have their development oriented towards the value cocreation through service design. Moreover, we filled a relationship matrix with the intensity level of these contributionsFootnote 1 (Fig. 3). Only the contributions assessed as ‘strong’ and ‘moderate’ were used to the proposed ‘NSD and Service Design Integrated Process’.
Relationship matrix of the Service Design archetype activities and the expected output from the NSD archetype.
The reasoning for the stages relation is presented as followsFootnote 2. We concluded that the three service prerequisites (i.e., ‘Service Idea’, ‘Service Concept’, and ‘Service Delivery System’) could be developed with value cocreation orientation by applying service design cycle of stages (Data Collection, Data Analysis, Creation and Selection) to develop each of them.
Furthermore, we defined the relations among the service design cycle of stages with the Definition of Idea as ‘strong’, because service design is more commonly applied to develop the ‘Service Idea’, then its cycle of stages can be applied without modifications from its original execution. On the other hand, we attribute the relations among the service design cycle of stages with the Concept Development and Service Delivery System Development as ‘moderate’, because the service design cycle of stages has potential to contribute to the definition of these prerequisites, but it is not so commonly applied in these phases. Therefore, adaptations should be made for proper execution. The reasoning is that service design is not traditionally used to develop the ‘Service Concept’ and ‘Service Delivery System’ explicitly, as these prerequisites require technical definitions and then are defined in a diffuse way in service design process execution, during the tests in prototypes to select the ideas. Finally, the focus group pointed that Data Collection and Data Analysis could also contribute to evaluate the service market performance after the Service Launch, but we concluded that it is more of a Marketing activity than a service design activity. Hence, such relation was classified as ‘weak’.
In sum, service design cycle of stages could be applied along the service innovation process to define and specify each of the service prerequisites. Figure 4 presents the integrated model proposed. The model highlights how service design cycle of stages can sequentially develop each NSD explicit service prerequisites. The aim of the integrated model is to apply service design principles (e.g., human-centered design, codesign, visualizations, and prototyping) and tools (e.g., contextual interviews, ethnography, customer journey map, and role playing) to develop each of the service prerequisites in order to result in a service with potential for value cocreation. Therefore, in each phase of the process, the object of the service design cycle of stages is a different service prerequisite: in the first phase, the object is the ‘Service Idea’; in the second phase, it is the ‘Service Concept’; and, in the third phase, it is the ‘Service Delivery System’.
‘NSD and Service Design Integrated Process’ model.
Moreover, each service prerequisite defined in the previous phase is the input to the next phase and so on. The reasoning is that each service prerequisite is defined by the value cocreation lens based on a (i) human-centered design tools in the Data Collection and Data Analysis stages to deeply understand the customer demand and resources that inform the service prerequisite development; (ii) codesign and creativity tools in the Creation stage to propose several service prerequisite alternatives with some potential for value cocreation; and (iii) prototyping tools in the Selection stage to select (among them) the service prerequisite alternative with best potential for value cocreation. For example, in the Definition of Idea, the output is the ‘Service Idea’ that best suits the customer’s basic needs; in the Concept Development, the output is ‘Service Concept’ configuration that best suits to the ‘Service Idea’ previously defined; and in the Service Delivery System Development, the output is the ‘Service Delivery System’ elements that best suits the ‘Service Concept’ previously defined. In other words, as presented in subsection 3.1, NSD contributes to specify the ‘what’ (i.e., service prerequisites) while service design contributes to specify the ‘how’ (i.e., activities) in the integrated processFootnote 3. In this sense, service design is being applied sequentially way along the service development lifecycle, orienting the development of each service prerequisite by value cocreation perspective. In the Table 4, we present a description of each integrated process stage.
Proposed model application
The NSD and Service Design integrated model was applied to 3 cases to test the value cocreation orientation enhancement. As the Service Implementation and Service Launch phases were not in the scope of the case projects, we applied the proposed model up to the Service Delivery System Development phase. In each case, the application was carried out by a team of consultants and supervised by the researchers. In cases 1 and 2, the client company was a university. In case 3, the client was a travel agency. During the applications, researchers took field notes. Later, the researchers presented these field notes to specialists so that they could evaluate and propose improvements to the integrated process (see subsection 4.3). In Table 5, we present an overview description of each case. The results produced by each case are presented in Supplementary Fig. S3 online.
In general, the project teams of the 3 cases evaluated the application of the Integrated Process as positive. The application team pointed out that the proposed process had a less tacit characteristic than the original service design process as it makes the design object of each stage clearer. Considering the model evaluation criterion (i) in-depth understanding of customer resources idiosyncrasy, the application team pointed out that the process dynamics allowed for a deeper understanding of the customer needs, as several points of contact were made with the customer throughout the process. The Data Collection and Data Analysis stages, which focus on studying customer demands, occurred throughout Definition of Idea, Concept Development and Service Delivery System Development phases. Several tools were iteratively used in these stages to achieve the in-depth understanding of customer resources, such as: interviews, desk research, qualitative/quantitative questionnaires, and so on.
To make sure we understood customer resource idiosyncrasies, for each phase, we performed role play sections where the consultants impersonated the potential customers. Furthermore, since there was a different service prerequisite as the focus in each phase, the Data Collection tools could be customized for the characteristics of each prerequisite (e.g., the interview questions of the 3 cases were customized for each service prerequisite characteristics under development). The progressive study of customer needs throughout the phases resulted in an enhanced comprehension of customer resource idiosyncrasies. In essence, as the consultants progressed through the process phases, they gained a deeper understanding of customer needs, generating a snowball effect. This emphasized how the linear and sequential approach from NSD and the cyclical approach from service design complemented each other, leveraging the understanding of customer demands, which is essential for the development of a service enabled for value cocreation.
Considering the model evaluation criterion (ii) alignment of the service prerequisites proposition and selection with the customer resources idiosyncrasy, the application team provided positive feedback for the Creation and Selection stages. These stages presented a hybrid characteristic of creativity with technical analysis, especially in the Concept Development and Service Delivery System Development phases. This allowed the application team to obtain ‘out of the box’ service execution elements. To achieve the alignment of the service prerequisites proposition and selection with the customer resources idiosyncrasy we used several tools, such as: creativity brainstorming sessions, morphological matrix, pugh matrix, among others. We evaluated the developed ‘Service Ideas’, ‘Service Concepts’ and ‘Service Delivery System’ elements in a role play sections again due to the difficulty of accessing a significant number of customers to test. The progressive and interdependent definition of ‘Service Ideas,’ ‘Service Concepts,’ and ‘Service Delivery System’ elements resulted in service prerequisites aligned with each other and tailored to customer idiosyncrasies. Again, a snowball effect was observed, as each service prerequisite was defined based on the preceding one. This dynamic enhanced the alignment of the defined service prerequisites with the customer idiosyncrasies. It also emphasized how the linear and sequential approach from NSD and the cyclical approach from service design synergistically complemented each other, enhancing the value cocreation orientation in service innovation.
Despite the positive points presented above, the case applications provided insights into the decline in efficiency in the final phases of the proposed model, impacting criterion (iii) integrated model efficiency. It was observed that as the process advanced, it became increasingly difficult to collect new relevant data in the Data Collection stages. This characteristic was observed in the Concept Development and, mainly, in the Service Delivery System Development phases, where many repetitive data appeared in the interviews. Consequently, it was difficult to obtain new relevant insights in the Data Analysis stage of these phases. As shown in Table 5, in the 3 cases, it was not possible to further refine the persona in the Data Analysis stage of the Service Delivery System Development phase. Another issue observed is that, during the Concept Development phase, ‘Service Delivery System’ elements were involuntarily identified, although they should only be identified in the next stage (i.e., Service Delivery System Development phase). This may point out that, although the proposed process aims to carry out the service design cycle of stages sequentially for each service prerequisite, inherently, one service prerequisite can appear when another service prerequisite is under development. All these observations were registered in field notes and supported the proposal of a second version of the model, aimed at overcoming this decline in efficiency (see Section “Discussion”).
After the applications, all field notes were gathered and served as the basis for a discussion among the researchers. By observing the cases, the complementarities between NSD and service design that enhance value cocreation orientation in service innovation became evident. On the one hand, service design contributes by presenting a customer-centric perspective in order to result in a service able for value cocreation. The various points of contact with the customers in all cases illustrate this. On the other hand, NSD provides a linear structure to the inherently non-linear service design by defining a specific design object for each phase: in the first phase, the service design stages focus on developing the ‘Service Idea’; in the second phase, they focus on the ‘Service Concept’; and, in the third phase, the ‘Service Delivery System’.
Consequently, as the service prerequisites are interdependent, applying the service design cycle of stages to define each of them results in a snowball effect. As the ‘Service Concept’ is defined based on the ‘Service Idea,’ and the ‘Service Delivery System’ is defined based on the ‘Service Concept,’ if all these service prerequisites are developed in a customer-centric way, the resources that constitute the ‘Service Delivery System’ will have a greater potential for integration with customer resources. Therefore, the integration of the linearity from NSD with the nonlinear customer-centric focus of service design results in a process with a greater potential to yield a service enabled for value cocreation. In other words, these complementarities can be leveraged to enhance the value cocreation orientation in service innovation.
The integrated process characteristics aforementioned can be illustrated in the cases as follows. In each of the cases, consultants started with a general question to be answered in the Definition of Ideas phase, which became more specific as the model progressed to the Concept Development and Service Delivery System Development phases. For example, in Case 1, the consultants initiated the service innovation project, in the Definition of Idea phase, aiming to understand how to facilitate student transportation to campus, defining the ‘App that organizes rides among students’ as the ‘Service Idea’. Then, in the Concept Development phase, the consultants aimed to understand what app features students would like. Finally, in the Service Delivery System Development phase, the consultants aimed to comprehend how the interface should be and what functionalities the app should have, considering the app features previously defined.
Integrated process evaluation by experts
As mentioned in Section “Methodological procedures”, we interviewed 10 experts to evaluate the proposed integrated model. We present their evaluation and improvement suggestions in each topic of this section. We divided this section into six topics. The first three topics present the positive aspects of the proposed model. The following three topics present the points to be improved in the model. Experts’ evaluation indicated a good performance of the model mainly in relation to criteria (i) in-depth understanding of customer resources idiosyncrasy and (ii) alignment of the service prerequisites proposition and selection with the customer resources idiosyncrasy. However, experts pointed opportunities for improvement mainly regarding the (iii) integrated model efficiency.
Expert positive evaluation for the proposed model
Increased understanding depth of customer needs
Regarding the criterion (i) in-depth understanding of customer resources idiosyncrasy, the experts pointed out that the Integrated process model results in a deeper understanding of customer needs, as the study about the customer (performed in the Data Collection and Data Analysis stages), occurs throughout various process phases. According to Expert G, the integrated process model presents the ‘voice of the customer’ in many its phases, from the conceptual to technical phases: “…the main positive point in the model is that the customer is involved in several phases… not only in the idea phase, but also in the detailing of the service…” (Expert G).
Additionally, Expert B emphasized the fact that the model allows customizing human-centered design techniques to the characteristics of each service prerequisites. Consequently, different customer need dimensions can be reached, which are not achieved in service design traditional processes. For example, in the Definition of Idea phase, techniques can be used to understand more general customer demands, while, in the Concept Development and Service Delivery System Development phases, techniques that aim to understand more specific needs to operationalize the already defined idea can be used: “The model allows for a change in the way people participate in each of its stages to maximize the contribution that the customer provides…” (Expert B).
Greater possibility of generating a service suited to customer needs
According to the experts, customers’ deep understanding reached with the proposed model increases the possibilities to achieve a service that properly addresses customers’ needs at each phase. It results in positive evaluation regarding the criterion (ii) alignment of the service prerequisites proposition and selection with the customer resources idiosyncrasy. According to Expert H, the greater understanding of the customer’s characteristics results in a better basis for proposing proper service characteristics: “…the model allows for more customer understanding possibilities, resulting in more potential to achieve the right marketing offering” (Expert H).
For Expert G, using the service design cycle of stages to define each service prerequisite allows the company to deepen service details. Therefore, the fact that the model allows a series of alternatives to be proposed for each service element in the Creation stage, and that, later, the best alternative is chosen, results in a greater model refinement when comparing the proposed model to NSD and service design traditional models. So, the possibility of generating a service that, in fact, meets the customer’s needs is increased, as evidenced in Expert G’s sentence:“…the customer will have the opportunity to interfere in various service… this is the great differential of the proposed model…all the details of the service will be developed from the customer’s perspective.”
The process can contribute to a qualified service implementation by detailing the specifications
The proposed process contemplates an extended analysis to achieve the best service to the user idiosyncrasy. According to expert B, this extended analysis can produce detailed specifications about the service that can be useful to Service Implementation activities. For Expert H, as the process presupposes many user understanding activities along each service prerequisite, the risk to implement a service that does not meet the user need is low: “This process reduces risks as it adds these stages within a clear framework of service innovation… thus, it is possible to move forward with more confidence towards implementation…” (Expert H).
Experts’ improvement propositions for the proposed model
User understanding and insights should be reused along the process
User understanding is enriched along the process. So, the data about users collected in the Definition of Idea can be reused in the next phases (i.e., Concept Development and Service Delivery System Development phases). For Expert A, as the process progresses, firms should collect and analyze just incremental new customer data about the prerequisites focused on that phase to obtain specific insights. All the improvement opportunities for the proposed model are related to the (iii) integrated model efficiency criterion, in experts’ perception. For example, Expert A argued that: “A large data collection in the service idea phase could be performed to produce input to the later phases” (Expert A).
The contribution of codesign activities decreases as the process progresses
The experts pointed out that the codesign with users becomes less contributive as the process progresses, since it becomes focused more on technical service prerequisites. Users generally do not have technical knowledge, which decreases their codesign potential contribution in the later phases. Therefore, as the process progresses, based on the inputs previously provided by the customer, the company’s personnel should predominantly execute the stages. Therefore, model efficiency can be negatively affected if customer active participation is not properly managed, which affects (iii) integrated model efficiency, as stated by Expert E: “… too much user involvement, depending on the phase, can also be problematic. Because, as users do not understand the technical details of development, they may not contribute and still perceive it as a waste of time.”
The execution order of the process’s phases should not be rigid
Although the proposed process model has an expected order of execution, it should be possible to return to any previous phases to adjust or refine prerequisites that were already defined. For example, if the designer identified that the defined ‘Service Idea’ is not the best to the customer idiosyncrasy during the Concept Development phase, it should be possible to return to the Definition of Idea phase to reidentify the best ‘Service Idea’. As the user understanding improves throughout the process, it is possible that some insights obtained in one phase can influence the decision made in the previous phases. A wrong dynamic of driving the process, not allowing necessary loops throughout the process, can result in problems of efficiency and effectiveness of the process. Then, this expert’s perceptions of improvement can impact all the three evaluation criteria. This required process flexibility was illustrated by Expert I: “… in a service design method, you can’t run the stages in a completely linear way… if you put rigidity into the design, it’s no longer design; you’re turning this into just a management process.”
link
