Skip navigation

Category Archives: Service Design

I have been working on developing my thinking on Service Capital and just today thought I would publish on Slideshare a brief few slides on what it is, how companies generate and maintain it.

I am half way through a fuller white paper on Service Capital , but thought I would starting putting it out there as a means to drive me to work harder on it. The reason I have been working on it, is that I believe Service Design in my opinion would benefit from more accountability, transparency and publishable) results driven culture.

You can see the Slideshare presentation here

Let me know what you think.

Every movement needs  two things, an enemy and a burning desire to change the status quo of something you see needs changing. Here is how I think Barbara Minto who wrote the hideously expensive but still great value book The Pyramid Principle, would approach how to sell the value of Service Design. It is designed to short.

The structure is as follows:

  • Situation
  • Complication
  • Question
  • Answer

You should nod with agreement with the core fact of each page, if not, lets call this a Prototype and build to learn as they say. I welcome your thoughts.

SD SCQA.001

click  here to see the presentation on Slideshare.net or cut and past the link below.

http://www.slideshare.net/damiankernahan/selling-the-value-of-service-design

I realised today that for Service Design to be successful, Service Design firms need to convince potential clients that they can change something or solve something that up until now hasn’t been able to be resolved.

That is, companies have been using product development and design tool-kits to solve service problems issues/opportunities. Only the Service Design methodology offers a tool-set and skill-set that is specifically designed and developed to solve and improve service based issues.

At the same time, it allows companies and customers to mutually benefit, to mutually access value without the exclusion of the other.

Maybe it is time to become more overt in communicating what has been lacking up until now, in order to clearly and confidently communicate to organisations, the significant benefits from using Service Design to achieve sustainable competitive advantage.

I am working on a Pyramid Principle(Barbara Minto) approach to trying to explain in 4 slides why Service Design solves Service based organisations problems unlike any company before them. And given this is the most expensive book i have ever bought,( USD$75 ten years ago) hopefully it will be convincing!!

More later

Working to dramatically transform the way service is delivered, the way corporations default to productivity without the balancing need for quality and the ambivalence of great customer service expectations in our society.

Our aim is to overhaul existing service experiences and create a major shift in the way service is not only delivered but experienced in the new millennium

This will require a major shift in the way people see the provision of excellent service from an almost grudging behaviour to something to be esteemed and admired.

Our enemy will be those that fail to understand in an economy that is dominated by Service based organisations, that to offer inferior or average service is to commit themselves to losing cutsomers and inferior or average profits in the future.

I have decided after listening to Seth Godin that Service Design needs a movement. It’s not enough to think that what you sell is so good that it is enough to convert your potential customers. Potential clients buy passion, energy and commitment as much as they buy what you are selling.

To that end I have designed my own corporate manifesto. I believe in what I am doing and as i read and believed a long time ago, communication is not just saying something, it is the recipient successfully comprehending your intended message.

So here is my manifesto, the reason that I believe Service Design has the power to help companies transform their service experience for companies and their bottom line through increased customer loyalty and increased revenues.

Proto Partners Manifesto
Working to dramatically transform the way service is delivered, the way corporations default to productivity without the balancing need for quality, and the ambivalence of great customer service expectations in our society.

Proto Partners Aim
Our aim is to overhaul the existing service experience and create a major shift in the way service is not only delivered but experienced in the new millennium.

I think this is a fantastic article that demonstrates the power of using Big ‘D’ design for the purpose of growing your business using focus and well…..elegance.

What Your Company Needs: More Elegance
By Jessica Stillman
May 19th, 2009

* The Find: It’s usually a quality associated more with evening wear than management, but one expert is arguing that businesses should up their elegance quotient to succeed.

* The Source: An interview with Matthew E. May, the author of In Pursuit of Elegance: Why the Best Ideas Have Something Missing, conducted by blogger and venture capitalist Guy Kawasaki and published on the American Express Open Forum blog.

The Takeaway: Whether it’s a mission statement, a strategy, the formulation of a goal or a product design, May argues you should aim for elegance in your ideas. First things first, what exactly does he mean by the term? “Something is elegant if it is two things at once: unusually simple and surprisingly powerful. One without the other leaves you short of elegant,” he says. Great, so why is this quality so important?

Elegance cuts through the noise, captures our attention, and engages us. The point of elegance is to achieve the maximum impact with the minimum input. It’s a thoughtful, artful subtractive process focused on doing more and better with less.

Certainly it’s easier to remember an idea that’s short and punchy and minimalist products – think of all those little iPods nestled in everyone’s pocket or purse – certainly seem to earn consumers’ loyalty and love, but have other companies succeeded by focusing on elegance? May offers the surprising example of “freakishly popular” hamburger chain In N’ Out Burger – an establishment not usually associated with elegant dining. He explains:

The menu offers only five items: a hamburger, cheeseburger, double burger, French fries, and a short list of beverages. By keeping things simple, founder Harry Snyder says he is able to provide the highest quality food in a sparkling clean environment.

In ‘N Out understands that seduction, and that subtraction can simply mean “not adding.” By resisting formal menu expansion they’ve avoided the self-defeating overkill seen in consumer electronics, with its “feature creep,” and the resulting “feature fatigue.

Microsoft Word, famous for its seemingly endless features most users never needed nor wanted, is cited as a classic example of a feature fatigue inducing product, but how many managers have induced a similarly sleepy feelings in their teams by failing to reduce their aims down to a simple, streamlined and compelling idea and instead throwing a messy list of duties, goals and responsibilities at their employees?

I found this article by Bernhard Schindlholzer and thought it was pretty good advice on customer touch-points and ensuring you focus on the right customer touch-points at retail.

Every retailer has at some point thought about the design of his retail stores in order to create a remarkable customer experience with the goal to maximize revenues. The design of retail stores with customer experience in mind is a complex task and usually a lot of focus is put on the stores environment, the stimulation of the customer’s senses and extraordinary service.

With all these different areas that provide opportunities to design remarkable experiences, the ultimate question remains: What are the areas of customer experience design that will have a direct impact on your sales?
Let them touch and they will buy

A recent study has shown that the longer people touch certain products, the higher is the probability that they will actually buy the product. The researchers from Ohio State University and Illinois State University discovered this by asking participants about their willingness to pay for a product in a bidding process depending on the time they have hold the cup in their hands. In case your products are locked away in a glass showcase or – even worse – have a sign that says “don’t touch” you should think if there might be a better solution to present your products and give customer a chance to experience them. You might be missing out significant amount of sales.

Thinking about these findings, I asked myself: What is really the essence of a remarkable shopping experience? What drives people to buy instead of just look around?
The reason why people enter your shop

It is clear that not every potential customer enters a shop to make a purchase. Sometimes people enter your shop just to look around and collect information. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the underlying reason why people enter your shop:

Customers enter your shop because they want to experience your products, not your shop.

The focus of designing retail shopping experiences is therefore on designing opportunities for the customer to experience the product as realistically as possible and not to design the shop so that it creates a better experience.

Customer want to experience what it is like to own your products – your shop should be designed to help create these “product discovery experiences”.

Exclusive interior is overrated

Following this approach, it becomes obvious that exclusive and expensive interior does not necessary lead to a better shopping experience. Potential customers will enter your shop because they want to experience your products, not to see a nice shop. Just ask yourself how this exclusive wood boarding will influence the “product discovery experience”.

“But what about exclusive fashion boutiques?” you might ask. “They have nice shops with expensive interior so it must have an impact, right?”. Yes, they have expensive interior but the interior is secondary. The primary experience driver is the interaction with the sales clerk who will “simulate” real world experiences by telling you how great this new suit or dress looks on you. This is a simulation of the real-life effect that you want to achieve with your exclusive clothes, handbag or watch, created by employees in a personalized “product discovery experience”. A pleasant environment plays a role to create a remarkable experience, but it is not the key driver of the experience.
The implications for your business

If you are responsible for designing a retail experience or shop for your business, you should ask yourself the following question: Are you designing a “shop experience” or are you designing a “product discovery experience”? If you approach the design problem from a “product discovery experience” perspective, you should identify the design elements that contribute to a simulation of the effects of owning your products. Let your customers feel what it is like to own your products.

Approaching the retail shopping experience problem from this perspective, I am sure you will come up with countless opportunities to create a truly remarkable customer experience that will not just make shopping more fun, but also influence your bottom-line.

Outside-In Thinking

Outside-In Thinking

This week the second edition of The Australian Innovation report was published in Fast Thinking magazine, australia’s answer to Fast Company. In it I took the opportunity to provide a point of view on user centered design and human centred design.

You can read the article below or click here to download it . I would love to hear your feedback.

In our first article of The Australian Innovation report in the Summer edition of Fast Thinking magazine we spoke of customer centric innovation being the management discipline for the new millennium and  provided an inside look into a number of Australian companies that have excelled as a result of taking a customer centred approach.

In the Second edition of the Australian Innovation Report we will take a step further and delve into the emerging discipline of user centred innovation or user centred design as it has come to be known and investigate how some of Australia’s leading companies are using it to advance their growth agenda.

Web Designers have had a focus on user centred design and have used it successfully as a discipline for many years and any Google search you care to undertake will be littered with web page and digital references. So what is “user centred design” and why hasn’t it taken off in the mainstream of Australian business? Why hasn’t Australian business embraced using a methodology which allows them to get up close and personal with their customers and truly understand their customers unmet needs and wants for both products and services? And what is the process for User Centered Design and how can Australian companies employ it to keep hold of their most valuable customers in a market where every customer is increasingly precious?

This report intends to examine the answer to all those questions and hopefully shed some light on an increasingly powerful process that is driving substantial growth for some companies ahead of their competitors.

The term User Centred Design, was coined by Donald Norman from the University of Southern California in the ninety eighties. He defined it as “the process in which end-users influence how a design takes shape. It is both a broad philosophy and a variety of methods.” The most important concept he believed was that users were involved one way or another along the entire journey and not just at the end of the process.

Over the past two decades User Centred Design has developed greater recognition and is now see as  “a philosophy and a process in which the needs, wants, and limitations of the end user are given extensive attention at each stage of the design and development process.”

From a commercial perspective, IDEO, the leading innovation consultancy globally, have successfully employed this approach for over twenty years and call it “Human Centered Design” defining it as “a process and a set of techniques used to create new solutions for the world. When we say solutions, we mean products, services, environments, organizations, and modes of interaction.”

The reason the process is called “human-centred” (user centred) is because it starts with the people who the products or services are being developed for. The starting point of the process is to examine the “needs, dreams, and behaviours of the people we want to affect with our solutions.” This is a very different lens than most companies start with. Normally they only use a business lens that asks “how can I sell more phones/insurance/movie tickets etc to my current and future customers”.

In comparison user centred design seeks to listen to and understand what customers may want. Once it is clear what customers are looking for from the universe of what is Desirable, the next phase is to view the solutions developed through the lenses of Feasibility (what is technically and organisationally possible) and finally Viability (what is financially viable for the business).

It is the solving of the business problem through these three lenses that creates significantly increased value for the companies employing the methodology.

Early users of user centred design included Proctor & Gamble back in the seventies. As a pioneer of  ‘in-situ’ or user centred research, they sent researchers into customers’ homes to observe them directly as they went about their daily chores. Interestingly, what they found was that P&G’s ‘in-situ’ market research helped in solving problems which the customers themselves were not aware of.

In one of the earlier examples, P&G when conducting in home research observed that some of the liquid laundry detergent, when poured ran down the front of the bottle. Soon, P&G came up with a simple redesign of the spout that funnelled any drips back into the bottle. This simple user centred innovation led to a dramatic increase in sales.

As with most of these things, customers had been happy to use a workaround and to wipe the drip away with a piece of cloth. This is a classic case of being able to improve the product based on user needs, something that will unlikely come out of a traditional research program that employs focus groups. Why? Because often the elements that make for an inconvenience, are perceived as so small, that they never bubble to the surface using traditional research methods.

For an approach that sounds so compelling and has produced so many commercial successes overseas, why hasn’t it taken off in Australia and why aren’t companies using it to advance their growth agenda?

Interesting research conducted by David Tunnicliffe of Arnold & Bolingbroke last year went some of the way to answering that when he found that there is not much in the way of innovation in research methodology in Australia. In his findings, dynamism was rarely a quality attributed to market research. Across the sample, there was a palpable sense of there being little drive, from within the research community, towards genuine innovation.

At worst, respondents felt, qualitative research methods in particular, to be verging on hackneyed and predictable but also a more general feeling of there being “little new under the sun” was commonplace. The perceived absence of methodological innovation served to increase reliance on individuals.

One respondent from a well known Brand Consultancy said that “even the young clients tire of the routine of the groups behind the glass. I often feel this too; I’m not sure how to move toward more of an ongoing conversation with consumers rather than this artificial kind of intervention from time to time in a group discussion.”

Across the sample, there were calls for greater innovation from both marketing services companies and clients with one respondent saying “What I don’t want to do is some standard research that is going to result in the same old de-brief. I would welcome a more creative approach to methodology” and another looking for a more innovative approach “I’m always keen to see new methodologies; out-of-the-box thinking. What everyone does is no longer interesting. If I can see that someone would add to the pot, that’s more interesting.”

In addition to well worn and decreasingly valuable research method, we believe most Australian companies take a more confined approach in attempting new products innovation versus taking a wider more expansive view of how successful innovation can be achieved and where the greatest value for their organisation can be created. A trap a lot of companies fall into is to think of innovation too narrowly, they define it merely as the thing your firm offers. Another more powerful option and one which successful companies use is to use reframing as a tool, by using a different lens and turning that lens onto other aspects of their business to reveal new possibilities and value creation.

The Doblin Group help companies look at creating greater value by innovating not just in one area like “product”, but by applying a lens across ten different areas which then forms a multiplier effect when applied to a firm’s business problem.

Across the Ten Types of Innovation they include “inside-out” categories such as Core and Enabling Processes, Product/Service Performance, Service System and Customer Service.

There are also what they call “outside-in” categories which include Channel, Brand, Customer Experience, Business Model and Value Networks. The inside-out perspective is similar to the traditional understanding of value chains. It asks the question, “What strategic assets and/or core competencies does our organisation possess and what products or services can we produce with them?” This is the framework that a lot of companies use and is normally quickly followed with a generative project to develop a  range of  new products and services which the company hopes will be seen as innovative by the market.

What is missing is the “Outside-in” thinking that inverts and complements this traditional perspective, asking instead, “What do our customers want and need and how can our organisation construct new business models, a new ecosystem of partnerships or external relationships or a significantly improved customer experience to deliver it to them?”

This second step of truly understanding consumers unmet needs and wants is where the value is created and where user centred design plays a valuable role in helping organisations achieve that value.

Which draws the inevitable question of “why focus on needs?”

Dev Patnaik and Robert Becker who are the founders and principals of Jump Associates in the USA are probably among the leading experts in “Needfinding”, one of the key planks in delivering commercially successful user centred design.  They have proved that an understanding of people’s needs can be leveraged across an entire business activity, providing increased value beyond the development of any single product. They see four compelling reasons for companies to focus on uncovering needs as the starting point of user centered design approach.

The first is that Needs last longer than any specific solution that may be developed which is often the focus of most companies. They say that thinking of the company as a provider of a solution may encourage the company to continue improving that solution, but it rules out creating entirely new offerings that satisfy the need in different ways. Conversely,
focusing on needs encourages companies to continue innovating better ways to serve those needs, independent of current solutions.

Second, Needs are business opportunities waiting to be exploited by companies that understand that although solutions may come and go, needs are generally enduring and are satisfied by a range of solutions over time. A good example being the need for humans to enjoy music wherever they go. Over the past few decades that need has been satisfied by cassette players, Compact Discs, Walkmans, computers and most recently MP3 players. Same need, different solutions.

Third, focusing on Needs provides a roadmap for development and a method for determining what corporate skills and new offerings should be developed to grow their businesses. A company may not currently possess the capabilities necessary to satisfy all those needs, but by identifying the ones that cannot yet be satisfied and working toward meeting them, the company can plan the appropriate medium to longer term investment to be able to deliver against those consumer needs. Twenty years ago, Eastman Kodak realised through customer studies that people didn’t just want film and photo processing; their underlying need was to capture and enjoy images of daily life. As we know today, Kodak have maintained a strong competency in this area and where in the ninety nineties they found themselves facing significant contraction of revenue due to the introduction of digital cameras, they continue to be a dominant force in the imaging value chain.

Lastly and this is probably the most important, people become accustomed to their problems, often developing workarounds to circumvent a need. In doing this they become oblivious to the needs existence and as a result, traditional research and marketing approaches will never uncover this problem, which is potentially very valuable if companies are awake to the opportunity. A good example of this is the requirement for cooks over decades to either bend over or raise up the measuring cup to eye level to read the measurements on the side of the cup. The OXO measuring-cup now allows you to look straight down AND see the quantity of what you are measuring and is an excellent demonstration of developing a product which is truly human centred.

The feedback from the Australian marketing community on the lack of innovation in research approaches in combination with the lack of “outside-in” (or needfinding) focus by companies potentially presents a real issue for not only manufacturing companies but more importantly for service based companies that make up 80% of the G.D.P. of the Australian economy.

Unlike product based companies who can (but don’t always) invest significant attention and investment upfront into product development prior to manufacture, service based companies more heavily rely on needing to use a range of service innovations, because the very nature of services means they are intangible. As they are normally consumed over a passage of time across a number of interactions, consumers use these additional cues to judge the quality of the offering when they are consuming the service.

So how do companies who wish to develop more compelling products and services utilising user centred design on their own company’s business problems start?

The first step of the process is identify who are your users are by asking a number of simple “who” based questions. Some of which include who pays for it?, who uses is today?, who told someone else to buy it?, who installs it?, who sells it to the customer and who looks after it if it goes wrong?

Next companies need to spend some time observing their users and ask a lot more questions because you will find out things that consumers would never normally tell you using traditional methods. What patterns do you find from things that keep appearing; what opportunities present themselves; what things really surprised you; what are the things that people want or think they need?; what are the things that people find difficult about your product or service or cause them trouble when using it and finally what works and can be built upon to make the experience even better?

Too often consumers are asked to pass judgement on products and services that have been developed in isolation of them and as a result quite often they provide a failing grade. User centred design involves consumers from a very early stage and understands that there are core users and extreme users that are quite often looking for very different experiences. Seeking to understand both sets of needs can provide really rich input for the further improvement of your offer.

A key part of being user centered is about prototyping your ideas and having users start to show you how they would use them. IDEO, use the term, “build to think” to emphasise the value in undertaking prototyping, or doing whatever it takes to communicate the idea to users and allow the developers of new products and services to walk in the footsteps of the end users. Wisely, they say that the value lies in building very rough prototypes. Make them quick, dirty and early and don’t be afraid to throw away early prototypes and build new ones because at the end of the day, that’s what they are for.

And finally, understand and appreciate the value of a multi-disciplinary team that brings great breadth and depth to solving your business problem. Most companies have industry and company orthodoxies that are hard to see beyond. User centred design relies on assembling different points of view and people in order to solve your most pressing business issues.

So, if you are up for going on the journey, remember that success will require leadership that provides absolute clarity about which customer problems the firm is dedicated to solving; the ability to assemble deep insights into the unmet needs and wants for your customers; the skill and focus at developing new customer experiences along with new ecosystems and business models to deliver those experiences and a good change management processes and systems to turn unfamiliar business designs into fast-growth businesses that can scale quickly.

Damian Kernahan is the Managing Partner of Proto Partners, a growth strategy firm based in Sydney, Australia.
www.protopartners.com.au

I have been reminded recently about the famous Wayne Gretzky quote that “a good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.” It made me think that it can be adapted to Service Design as it applies to potential clients.

As an emerging discipline, Service Design is not for everyone and for every service company, not because they don’t need it or wont benefit from it, more so because they are not all ready for it.

So, in this environment where it is tough to get companies to invest any money unless they can clearly see a return, I have a sense that it is a more efficient and effective use of time for Service Design firms to “skate where the puck is going”, ie with those companies that believe that creating outstanding customer experiences is a way to increase their profitability in an environment that is generally struggling to grow through traditional methods.

So here are some qualifying questions I thought might help all parties ensure they are aligned from the outset.

1. Is your company committed to customer service as a growth driver of the business?
2. Do you believe that the company has the capability to systematically shape the customer experience?
3. Do you believe that you could improve your customer’s experience with some focus on it?
4. Do you believe that improving customer satisfaction will increase revenue and profitability?
5. Are yo open to a relatively new approach that can improve customer experience and profitability?

Given we are all pressed for time and results in this climate, it might be valuable to ensure that we determine very early on whether their is a potential marriage in the offing, or we should just leave it coffee.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 614 other followers