GLOSSARY

Collection of essential terms for understanding some of the contents related to service design and design in general

 

Backstage

Backstage actions are all those actions that are not visible to the end user and are a responsibility of the service provider. These are different actions from those of frontstage, always visible, and from those of the service support processes.

References
Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation. California management review, 50(3), 66-94.

Katzan Jr, H. (2011). Essentials of service design. Journal of Service Science (JSS), 4(2), 43-60.

 

Concept Design Scenario

The scenario is a narrative tool whose main purpose is to make project ideas explicit and concrete by visualizing the future ways in which the output of the project will be used. The design scenario can be represented in different ways, and therefore, with different techniques. This is also due to the fact that there are many contexts in which the concept of scenario has been used, experimented and discussed, just as there are many meanings that the term "scenario" together with the term "design" can assume. However, when discussing scenarios and derivative tools, we tend to trace a context, a future scene, a panorama of solutions. Design-Orienting Scenarios (DOS), scenario-based design, Goal-Directed scenario, scenario planning, are just some of the ways in which to identify scenarios useful for the purposes of the project. However, an easy-to-use practical tool is proposed here that helps to explore and visualize project concepts and to feed these discussions within the project team and its interlocutors. Visualizing the concepts as scenarios allows you to highlight problems that did not emerge during the previous design phases and from this perspective it is as if they worked as the first test of the concepts in the real field.

References
Carroll, J. M. (2000). Making use: scenario-based design of human-computer interactions. MIT press.

Goodwin, K. (2011). Designing for the digital age: How to create human-centered products and services. John Wiley & Sons.

Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers.

Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. John Wiley & Sons.

Manzini, E. (2003). Scenarios of sustainable wellbeing. Design philosophy papers, 1(1), 5-21.

Manzini, E., Jégou, F., Meroni, A., (2006) Design oriented scenarios: Generating new shared visions of sustainable product service systems. In Design for Sustainability a practical approach for Developing Economies. United Nations Environment Programme, Dutch Delft University of Technology.

Rabin M.D. (2008). Scenario Planning. In M. Erlhoff & T. Marshall (Eds.), Design dictionary: Perspectives on design terminology (pp. 348-349). Basel: Birkhäuser.

 

Design ethnography

It is a set of methods inspired by those of immersion in traditional ethnography, whose goal is to understand the user's usual context to create empathy and design insight. While the figure of the ethnographer immerses himself for long periods in specific contexts and cultures, the figure involved in the design, in general, seeks adequate information from observations of the behavior of people in specific samples of time.

References
Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers.

Salvador, T., Bell, G., & Anderson, K. (1999). Design ethnography. Design Management Journal (Former Series), 10(4), 35-41.

Segelström, F., & Holmlid, S. (2015). Ethnography by design: On goals and mediating artefacts. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14(2), 134-149.

 

Design ethnography plan

Tool designed by the DRLab team in order to support the planning of design ethnography activities. (design ethnography).

References
Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers.

Salvador, T., Bell, G., & Anderson, K. (1999). Design ethnography. Design Management Journal (Former Series), 10(4), 35-41.

Segelström, F., & Holmlid, S. (2015). Ethnography by design: On goals and mediating artefacts. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14(2), 134-149.

 

Frontstage

The 'front-stage' actions, or even 'on-stage', are physical or logical actions performed by the service provider and visible by the service user that define the line of interaction between user and service, between visible and invisible parts of the whole service (see backstage actions).

References
Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation. California management review, 50(3), 66-94.
Katzan Jr, H. (2011). Essentials of service design. Journal of Service Science (JSS), 4(2), 43-60.

 

How might we ...?

This tool supports the development of a technique, sometimes called design method, of conception called "How might we ...?". It is a question that must inspire creative answers in the form of brainstorming. It is used when you have design data that allow you to support an ideation phase; or when it is necessary to iterate and return to consider needs and opportunities.

References
IDEO (2015). The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design. IDEO.org

Stickdorn, M., Lawrence, A., Hormess, M., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O’Reilly Media, Inc.

 

Insight

It is the set of information coming from observations, both objective and subjective, which influence and inform the design process by suggesting inspirations useful for the formulation of a new perspective.

References
Garber, J. (2014). Service Design Methodology. Innovation Unit.
Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design issues, 26(1), 15-28.
Kumar, V. (2013). 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization. John Wiley & Sons

 

Insights matrix

This matrix is a simple tool that allows you to give a direction to a flow of ideas that emerge in an exploratory brainstorming phase, from one or more questions that activate this phase, towards a first identification of elements useful for identifying design insights.

References
Garber, J. (2014). Service Design Methodology. Innovation Unit.
Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design issues, 26(1), 15-28.
Kumar, V. (2013). 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization. John Wiley & Sons

 

Personas

In a design process, personas allow you to analyze the types of potential users and organize them by shared attribute sets. It is useful to think of the personas profile as a type of personality; not a stereotype, but an archetype based on real research. It represents a particular group of people, such as a user group, a market segment, a subset of employees or any other group of stakeholders. It is based on research previously carried out in the design process, or on which the design process draws. In practical terms it is a matter of building a finite number of profiles which consolidate archetypal descriptions of user behavior to make the project’s focus concrete, test the scenario and simplify communication at the project level. The construction of a limited number of personas allows to focus the attention on their characteristics and needs, compared to the focus of the project, also effectively summarizing the diversity of users. In the context of policy-making, personas are considered characters, fictitious users, created to represent the different people who can use a particular policy or can be influenced by it.

References
Cabinet Office (2016). Open Policy Making toolkit. UK Government. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-policy-making-toolkit

Clarkson, P.J., Coleman, R., Hosking, I., & Waller, S.D. (2011). Inclusive
Design Toolkit, Second Edition. Engineering Design Centre, University of Cambridge. Retrieved from www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com

Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers.

Kumar, V. (2013). 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization. John Wiley & Sons.

Stickdorn, M., Lawrence, A., Hormess, M., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O’Reilly Media, Inc.

Problem tree

The "problem tree" model designed by the DRLab is based on the logic of the traditional diagram used in contexts where people works in favor of development projects, both in Europe and globally. The problem tree is a form of displaying problems through a diagram also called the 'problem hierarchy' which helps analyze and clarify cause-effect relationships. This analysis generally presents itself in a schematic form and shows, above, the effects of a problem and, below, its causes. It is used during the project cycle planning phase and is useful for developing and / or reviewing a logical framework and obtaining clarity on the project outputs that will be monitored.

References
European Commission (2004). Project Cycle Management Guidelines: Volume 1. Brussels: EuropeAid Cooperation Office. Retrieved from European Union website https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/dear-programme/documents/europeaid-project-cycle-management-guidelines

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (n.d.). Capacity-focused Problem Tree. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/capacity-development/resources/practical-tools/capacity-assessment/problem-tree-tool/en/

United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (2012). The Logical Framework. Technical Note, Number 2, Version 1.0. USAID.

 

Prototyping

Prototyping is a set of actions that allow you to try, test and verify ideas before creating further pilot actions. In policy-making contexts, the prototype is particularly important in the initial stage of policy development, from the moment a problem is not defined, or even from the moment when there are many possible solutions and changing idea is not too expensive. While in other contexts, the prototype represents one of the last actions of the design process, where before a new project enters a regime of actual use, its characteristics, functionality and other indicators are tested to help understand how to improve the final output. It is therefore a tangible concretization of a design idea that can take different forms more or less faithful to how a design idea should actually be implemented. In fact, the design prototypes are defined according to their level of fidelity; low-fidelity prototyping is generally used in the process concept stages and often takes the form of conceptual sketches, storyboards. Furthermore, deciding which is the right approach for the realization of a prototype depends on the questions to be answered, on the project phase and on the available resources; Also based on this, prototypes can take many forms, from simple physical models to role-playing games and more elaborate digital or physical models.
Based on these variables, the purpose of the design and the specificity of the objective for which a prototype is needed, there are different techniques, methods and tools defined in the context of prototyping; such as - Behavioral Prototype, Concept prototyping, FASPE (fast service prototyping and simulation for evaluation), Exploratory prototyping, Live prototyping, Micropanoramic, Organisational prototyping, Service prototypes, Slow prototyping - just to name a few.

References
Botsch, M. (2008). Prototype. In M. Erlhoff & T. Marshall (Eds.), Design dictionary: Perspectives on design terminology (pp. 317). Basel: Birkhäuser.

Cabinet Office (2016). Open Policy Making toolkit. UK Government. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-policy-making-toolkit

European Commission (2013). Guide to social innovation. European Commission DG Regional and Urban Policy and DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.

Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers.

IDEO (2015). The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design. IDEO.org

Kimbell, L. (2015). Applying design approaches to policy making: discovering policy lab. Brighton: University of Brighton.

Kimbell, L., & Bailey, J. (2017). Prototyping and the new spirit of policy-making. CoDesign, 13(3), 214-226.

Kumar, V. (2013). 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization. John Wiley & Sons.

Maguire, M. (2001). Methods to support human-centred design. International journal of human-computer studies, 55(4), 587-634.

Meroni, A., & Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Design for services. Gower Publishing, Ltd.

Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation. London: National endowment for science, technology and the art.

Stickdorn, M., Lawrence, A., Hormess, M., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O’Reilly Media, Inc.

 

Prototyping plan

The 'prototyping template’ is a tool designed by DRLab to support practical prototyping actions in the design phase, with guidelines that allow, on one hand to trace the roadmap of the necessary actions and develop and use a prototype, and on the other hand to check the status of the basic conditions to develop the prototype.

References
Botsch, M. (2008). Prototype. In M. Erlhoff & T. Marshall (Eds.), Design dictionary: Perspectives on design terminology (pp. 317). Basel: Birkhäuser.

Cabinet Office (2016). Open Policy Making toolkit. UK Government. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-policy-making-toolkit

European Commission (2013). Guide to social innovation. European Commission DG Regional and Urban Policy and DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.

Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers.

IDEO (2015). The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design. IDEO.org

Kimbell, L. (2015). Applying design approaches to policy making: discovering policy lab. Brighton: University of Brighton.

Kimbell, L., & Bailey, J. (2017). Prototyping and the new spirit of policy-making. CoDesign, 13(3), 214-226.

Kumar, V. (2013). 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization. John Wiley & Sons.

Maguire, M. (2001). Methods to support human-centred design. International journal of human-computer studies, 55(4), 587-634.

Meroni, A., & Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Design for services. Gower Publishing, Ltd.

Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation. London: National endowment for science, technology and the art.

Stickdorn, M., Lawrence, A., Hormess, M., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O’Reilly Media, Inc.

 

Semi-structured interviews

These are interviews which need the application of a previously designed protocol which in most cases has a more or less flexible / rigid structure based on the expectations of the interview.

References
Brinkmann, S. (2018). The interview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Fifth Edition, (pp. 997-1038). Sage Publications.
Kumar, V. (2013). 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization. John Wiley & Sons

 

Service Blueprint

This tool is a system that allows you to map the structure of a service in an objective and explicit way. Technically, a flowchart used to describe the design of a service process that operates at two levels, that is, on the way in which the designer and the customer collaborate to establish the design objective; and on the steps in which the customer will be involved to receive the service.
In practical terms, this tool allows a holistic representation of a service in order to manage the complexity of the service system. From the user's perspective, the experience of the service is mapped and then the actions and processes that the organization must carry out to support this experience are mapped. Although there is no standard service blueprint with commonly agreed visual language and terminology, there is an increasingly well-known tendency to consider some areas constantly present in this tool. That is, the area relating to the user experience, the area that describes the frontstage interactions and the one that describes the backstage interactions; and the latter two, in turn, describe the line of visibility that separates the actions visible to the user from the invisible ones. From some perspectives, the service blueprint can be understood as an extension of the user journey map.

References
Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation. California management review, 50(3), 66-94.

Meroni, A., & Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Design for services. Gower Publishing, Ltd.

Katzan Jr, H. (2011). Essentials of service design. Journal of Service Science (JSS), 4(2), 43-60.

Polaine, A., Løvlie, L., & Reason, B. (2013). Service design: From insight to inspiration. Rosenfeld media.

Shostack, G. L. (1982). How to design a service. European journal of Marketing, 16(1), 49-63.

Stickdorn, M., Lawrence, A., Hormess, M., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O’Reilly Media, Inc.

 

Stakeholder

It is an individual or an institution which, directly or indirectly, positively or negatively, influences or can be influenced by a project or program.

References
European Commission (2004). Project Cycle Management Guidelines: Volume 1. Brussels: EuropeAid Cooperation Office. Retrieved from European Union website https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/methodology-aiddelivery-methods-project-cycle-management-200403_en_2.pdf

 

Stakeholders Map

Visual tool that, highlighting the need to take a system perspective, provides a picture of the actors in the system at the level of roles, groupings and relationships. The stakeholder map is mainly used to identify who are the key components that could be interested in the results of the project; and therefore it is a tool to be used in the planning, study and definition of the design process. This tool is often created in a speculative way based on the information that the project team already has of all those people who may have an interest in the project, also identifying the end users, the people who will benefit from the project, those who hold power, those that could be adversely affected and even those that can thwart the results of the project. This speculation is then subject of confirmation, iteration, study and comparison with different types of data that come from different exploratory methodologies for design. The map of stakeholders also supports the subsequent phases of the design process in which it will be necessary to define what the project output must satisfy, ensuring that the needs of the different mapped stakeholders will be taken into consideration.

References
Clarkson, P.J., Coleman, R., Hosking, I., & Waller, S.D. (2011). Inclusive
Design Toolkit, Second Edition. Engineering Design Centre, University of Cambridge. Retrieved from www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com

Hanington, B.; Martin, B. (Eds.) (2012). Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Rockport Publishers

Morelli, N., & Tollestrup, C. (2007). New Representation Techniques for Designing in a Systemic Perspective. In Design Inquiries, Nordes 07 Conference

Stickdorn, M., Lawrence, A., Hormess, M., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O’Reilly Media, Inc.

 

S.W.O.T. analysis

The S.W.O.T. analysis - from the English acronym of the terms strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats - is used to analyze the internal strengths and weaknesses and the external opportunities and threats that an organization has to face. This tool can be used for general analysis or to examine how an organization could face specific problems or challenges. Specifically, it focuses on the relationship between the organization involved in the design and the objectives it sets with respect to a project. In fact, completing a S.W.O.T. analysis involves identifying and mapping internal and external factors that help or hinder the achievement of a goal, also providing a framework for reviewing strategies or testing an idea while exploring solutions.

References
European Commission (2004). Project Cycle Management Guidelines: Volume 1. Brussels: EuropeAid Cooperation Office. Retrieved from European Union website https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/dear-programme/documents/europeaid-project-cycle-management-guidelines

Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. John Wiley & Sons.

SWOT Analysis (n.d.). DIY Development Impact & You: Practical tools to trigger & support social innovation. Retrieved from https://diytoolkit.org/tools/swot-analysis-2/

 

System map

A system map is a visual or physical representation of the main components of the system in which an organization, service or physical or digital product fits. The term "system map" can represent a term that encompasses different views that often rely on systems theory and / or systemic thinking. In the design of services, through the visualization of the main interactions and flows between key partner organizations and final users, the system map is a visual tool used to draw and represent the working model of the service system.

References
Meroni, A., & Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Design for services. Gower Publishing, Ltd.

Segelström, F., & Holmlid, S. (2011). Service design visualisations meet service theory: strengths, weaknesses and perspectives. Proceedings of Art & Science of Service, San Jose, California.

Stickdorn, M., Lawrence, A., Hormess, M., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O’Reilly Media, Inc.

 

Touchpoint

It is that point of interaction between the user and the service that acts as an element of information exchange between the provider and the user of the service. This type of exchange, of contact, can be expressed in different forms; the best known are those that consider a person-to-person interaction or interactions from person to some form of technology (e.g. a web application). Intensity and duration are the two metrics of the touchpoint; the first is the number of contact points in the process that characterize the service, the second is the length of the different contact points measured on a temporal basis.

References
Katzan Jr, H. (2011). Essentials of service design. Journal of Service Science (JSS), 4(2), 43-60.

 

Unstructured interviews

These are interviews which, according to the application of a previously designed protocol, do not foresee a structure to follow to submit the questions and therefore leave flexibility both for the interviewer and the interviewee. However, since the complete destructuring of the interview is not entirely possible, there is a tendency to consider the unstructured interview as a very flexibly-structured conversation. The main role of the interviewer, after facilitating the opening of a conversation, will therefore be to remain a listener who occasionally asks questions in favor of clarifications of what is exposed by the interviewee.

References
Brinkmann, S. (2018). The interview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Fifth Edition, (pp. 997-1038). Sage Publications.

 

User journey map

This tool allows a mapping that helps to understand the experience that the user has with a service or policy in a given period of time. It is an instrument adopted in different sectors, also known as the "customer journey map". In design terms, the user path mapping practice refers to the mapping of his experience divided into steps. A division into components of the path that the user carries out in order to obtain insights relating to problems that at the same time can represent opportunities for innovation through the project.

References
Cabinet Office (2016). Open Policy Making toolkit. UK Government. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-policy-making-toolkit

Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers.

Meroni, A., & Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Design for services. Gower Publishing, Ltd.

Richardson, A. (2010). Using customer journey maps to improve customer experience. Harvard business review, 15(1), 2-5.

Stickdorn, M. and Schneider, J. (2011). This is Service Design Thinking: Basics ‐ Tools ‐ Cases. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: BIS Publishers.