Taking the less glamorous parts of our work seriously

As a fan of the Service Design Show hosted by fellow townsman Marc Fonteijn, I am often inspired by the reflections shared by his interviewees. Recently, I listened to his 2nd interview with Lou Downe, who was also on stage at one of our Service Design Days conferences a few years ago. During the interview, there were a few themes discussed that I have been thinking about for some time as well. I would like to briefly write about them.

Time to grow up

First, there’s the ongoing discussion about the role of service designers and “how difficult it is to explain what we do (and get buy-in)”. To me, this is becoming a case of Calimero syndrome. Other departments and related fields, such as HR, Communication, and UX, also share feelings of being unseen and misunderstood. Yet, others have found ways to overcome these challenges. Why not learn from that latter group? Why are we still having this conversation, as if the service design profession were still in its infancy?

It’s time to grow up and learn to talk about and understand the dynamics that come with competition, power, politics and budgets. For instance, from Wayne Thomas (Government of Alberta), I learned that not talking about design, let alone service design, opens doors and internal collaboration opportunities. And from a senior service design leader building a new internal service design studio, I learned that overcoming the internal competition with the CX department starts with giving that studio a more ‘neutral’ name.?

Zoom in and zoom out

You can imagine that my conversation with this design leader led to a discussion about Customer Experience Design vs Service Design as fields, disciplines, teams or departments. If organisations start (re)branding their service design departments as CX departments to appear more customer-centric, doesn’t that lead to a superficial focus on the frontstage of services, where our customers (service users) meet with our staff (service providers)? While frontstage improvements are essential, they may only address the symptoms rather than the root causes of customer experience issues. Yes, it is essential to focus on micro-level details (it’s one of Kimbell & Blomberg’s perspectives to describe the object of service design; the service encounter perspective, or service design’s zoom-in lens), but we also need to zoom out.?

So, what’s in a name when our organisations including ourselves believe that customer centricity is all about customers’ experiences? From my perspective, it’s interesting to see the rise of CX teams and departments in large corporations. Are services being reduced to mere experiences? Are we so enamoured with what happens frontstage? Do we still care about the internal processes, policies, people, systems, KPIs, OKRs, leadership styles, etc., needed to offer those services? And does it really make sense to separate the frontstage from the backstage of our services?

"The frontstage experience cannot be fully understood or improved without addressing the backstage processes and structures that support it." - Sangiorgi and Prendiville, Designing for Services, 2017.

Gaps in service delivery

Although overused, the iceberg metaphor accurately illustrates what happens when we only focus on (read: prioritise) the visible aspects of services. By doing so, we allow our organisations to simplify services as experiences that can be designed. Although I believe it isn’t possible to design these experiences at all (Vargo & Lusch, 2008; Kimbell, 2011; Sangiorgi, 2012), without integrating backstage processes all enhancements might be inconsistent or unsustainable. For example, a well-designed service desk is futile if the underlying logistics or support systems fail to meet the service standards promised at the frontstage. This may result in short-term gains in customer satisfaction but fail to build long-term customer relationships. Eventually, customers will encounter the underlying inefficiencies, inconsistencies, and gaps in service delivery, leading to dissatisfaction and mistrust.

"Service design requires a systemic perspective, where the relationships and dependencies between different parts of the service system—frontstage and backstage, human and non-human actors—are understood and addressed." - Sangiorgi and Prendiville, Designing for Services, 2017.

Create the conditions for services to happen

Designing for valuable, lasting, good, (or other positive words your organisation uses) experiences, is, to me, too one-sided and gives too much credit to a single service design professional or team.

A service design professional or team may be a service orchestrator, moderator, innovator, gatekeeper, or (you may have a better word), and for sure someone with a holistic view of service who can connect the dots. But there is more to it. Lou states: “Service design is 10% design; the fun stuff [...] where we spend time listening to users, understanding problems and interpreting this into ideas for new services or changes to existing ones.” The rest of the time is spent creating the conditions for services to happen; “understanding constraints, reading laws, building relationships with stakeholders, getting funding, winning buy-in…” I agree with Lou, and with that, I am beginning to question the word “designer” as it only highlights 10% of the work we (are asked to) do. Or is the other 90% also “design”?

All eyes on the other 90%

Let’s briefly consider what service or services are, as we may not often think about that. If “a service is something that helps someone to do something”, as some experts tell us, then a hammer, a car, or a toothbrush could also be considered services. Although this definition is too narrow for me, it brings to mind something I often mention during our trainings: we need to be aware of the fact that people have a larger pallet of tools they can use (“hire”) to find a solution for their problem (“a job to be done”). For that, several products and services are often combined or intertwined (either by the customers themselves or as part of a (product-)service system). These are not necessarily offered by one provider but by multiple providers. Moreover, they may also not always be used in the order the service encounters are intended in the first place.?

Understanding that our service may be just a small part of the solution people are searching for, puts our work into perspective. We need to excel in the part we (the organisation) are selected for. And that brings me back to the 90% of the work.

Organisations need holistic thinkers who connect the dots, resolve internal boundaries that hinder cross-functional collaboration, break down internal silos and ensure departments speak the same language and work well together. Thinkers who translate customer needs into clear perspectives, and find a balance between efficiency & costs vs human & planet-centricity. We may call these professionals and teams service designers, or we may not.?

But let’s not focus solely on the 10% “fun part” Lou refers to as the design work. If the experience of the service(s) your organisation offers obtains the highest NPS score, what then is there left for you if that is what you and your organisation think your job is? NPS, customer satisfaction (CSAT), and Customer Effort Score (CES) are valuable, but backstage metrics related with process efficiency, staff satisfaction, error rates, cost savings, and complaint handling are equally important. It’s time to team up with allies and take the less glamorous parts of our work seriously.

#servicedesign #cxdesign #servicedelivery #serviceinnovation #customerexperience