Advertisement

Service Design During the Later Development Phases: Introducing a Service Design Roadmapping Approach

  • Frida AlmqvistEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

User centricity and user involvement is increasingly emphasized in Norwegian legislations related to service development in the health and public sectors. The service design discipline has emerged as a relevant and popular alternative to accommodate the requirements of user involvement. At the same time, the service design discipline has been criticized for lacking implementation competence. So far, there has been a focus on the earlier phases of service development both in service design practice and academia, while the later phases have received less attention. This chapter focuses upon the later development phases, in other words implementation and the transition from testing and piloting to an operationalized service. In this transition, the focus lies on the handover from service design consultants to the client. The topic of service design handovers is explored through an interview study with Norwegian service designers and civil servants. The interviews point toward a key challenge related to handovers, namely, how the clients can be supported in their further work, after the service design consultants have left, more specifically, how clients can make use of the service design material during implementation. This chapter presents a promising direction for service design handovers, by introducing the concept of roadmapping for service design. By combining findings from the interviews and technology roadmapping (TRM) research, the chapter introduces an approach I call service design roadmapping. Lastly, issues that are important to consider when further exploring service design roadmapping are discussed.

References

  1. Ahlqvist, T., Valovirta, V., & Loikkanen, T. (2012). Innovation policy roadmapping as a systemic instrument for forward-looking policy design. Science and Public Policy, 39(2), 178–190.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alam, I. (2006). Removing the fuzziness from the fuzzy front-end of service innovations through customer interactions. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(4), 468–480.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almqvist, F. (2017). The fuzzy front-end and the forgotten back-end: User involvement in later development phases. The Design Journal, 20(1), 2524–2533.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Almqvist, F. (2018). Service design in the later project phases: Exploring the service design handover and introducing a service design roadmap. Paper presented at the 6th ServDes Conference: Service design proof of concept, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
  5. Arshed, N., Finch, J., & Bunduchi, R. (2012). Technology roadmapping and SMEs: A literature review. Paper presented at the DRUID 2012 Conference Copenhagen, 19–21 June 2012, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  6. Bruce, M., & Cooper, R. (2000). Creative product design: A practical guide to requirements capture management. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Carvalho, M. M., Fleury, A., & Lopes, A. P. (2013). An overview of the literature on technology roadmapping (TRM): Contributions and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(7), 1418–1437.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clatworthy, S. (2013). Design support at the front end of the new service development (NSD) process. Dissertation, The Oslo School of Architecture and Design (Ed.), Norway.Google Scholar
  9. Engström, J. (2014). Patient involvement and service innovation in healthcare. Dissertation, Linköping University (Ed.), Sweden.Google Scholar
  10. Garcia, M. L., & Bray, O. H. (1997). Fundamentals of technology roadmapping. Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories (Ed.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerdsri, N., Kongthon, A., & Vatananan, R. S. (2013). Mapping the knowledge evolution and professional network in the field of technology roadmapping: A bibliometric analysis. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(4), 403–422.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.774350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giorgi, A. (2012). The descriptive phenomenological psychological method. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 43(1), 3–12.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156916212X632934 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Helse-og omsorgsdepartementet. (2013). Morgendagens omsorg. Meld. St. 29 (2012–2013). Oslo: Helse-og omsorgsdepartementet.Google Scholar
  14. Helse-og omsorgsdepartementet. (2014). HelseOmsorg21. Et kunnskapssystem for bedre folkehelse: Nasjonal forsknings- og innovasjonsstrategi for helse og omsorg. Oslo: Helse-og omsorgsdepartementet.Google Scholar
  15. Hussain, M., Tapinos, E., & Knight, L. (2017). Scenario-driven roadmapping for technology foresight. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 124, 160–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kerr, C., & Phaal, R. (2015). Visualizing roadmaps: A design-driven approach. Research-Technology Management, 53(3), 45–54.  https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5804253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kerr, C., Phaal, R., & Probert, D. (2012). Cogitate, articulate, communicate: The psychosocial reality of technology roadmapping and roadmaps. R&D Management, 42(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kerr, C. I. V., Phaal, R., & Probert, D. R. (2014). Depicting the future strategic plans of the Royal Australian Navy using a roadmapping framework as a visual composite canvas. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 26(1), 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.843663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koen, P. A., Ajamian, G. M., Boyce, S., Clamen, A., Fisher, E., Fountoulakis, S., et al. (2002). Fuzzy front end: Effective methods, tools, and techniques. In P. Belliveau, A. Griffin, & S. Somermeyer (Eds.), The PDMA toolbook for new product development (pp. 5–35). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Martins, R. (2016). Increasing the success of service design implementation: Bridging the gap between design and change management. Touchpoint, 8(2), 12–14.Google Scholar
  22. Morrison, C., & Dearden, A. (2013). Beyond tokenistic participation: Using representational artefacts to enable meaningful public participation in health service design. Health Policy, 112(3), 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mulgan, G. (2014). Design in public and social innovation: What works and what could work better. Available via NESTA. Accessed January 3, 2018, from https://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/design-public-and-social-innovation
  24. Overkamp, T., & Holmlid, S. (2017). Implementation during design: Developing understanding about service realisation before implementation. The Design Journal, 20(1), 4409–4421.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P., & Probert, D. R. (2004). Technology roadmapping: A planning framework for evolution and revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71(1–2), 5–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(03)00072-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P., & Probert, D. R. (2009). Visualising strategy: A classification of graphical roadmap forms. International Journal of Technology Management, 47(4), 286–305.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.024431 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Phaal, R., & Muller, G. (2009). An architectural framework for roadmapping: Towards visual strategy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), 39–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.03.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ringard, Å., Sagan, A., Sperre Saunes, I., & Lindahl, A. K. (2013). Norway: Health system review. Health Systems in Transition, 15(8), 1–162.Google Scholar
  29. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2013). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. Amsterdam: BIS.Google Scholar
  30. Segelström, F. (2010). Visualisations in service design. Dissertation, Linköping University (Ed.), Linköping, Sweden.Google Scholar
  31. Segelström, F., & Holmlid, S. (2009). Visualizations as tools for research: Service designers on visualizations. Paper presented at the 3rd Nordic Design Research conference 2009, The Oslo School of Architecture and Design (Ed.), 30 Aug–1 Sept 2009, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  32. Simonse, L. W. L., Hultink, E. J., & Buijs, J. A. (2014). Innovation roadmapping: Building concepts from practitioners’ insights. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 904–924.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M. E., Lawrence, A., & Schneider, J. (Eds.). (2018). This is service design doing. Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
  35. Stickdorn, M., & Schneider, J. (Eds.). (2011). This is service design thinking. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Sundby, I. J., & Hansen, L. U. (2017). Brukerne i sentrum: En kartlegging av statens fellesføring om brukerretting. Oslo: Difi.Google Scholar
  37. Tassi, R. (2009). Service design tools: Communication methods supporting design processes. Accessed December 3, 2015, from http://www.servicedesigntools.org/
  38. Yu, E., & Sangiorgi, D. (2014). Service design as an approach to new service development: Reflections and future studies. Paper presented at the 4th ServDes conference, 9–11 April 2014, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Oslo School of Architecture and Design, Center for Design ResearchOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations