Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Interaction design and service design
Interaction design and service design
Interaction design and service design
Interaction design and service design
Interaction design and service design
Interaction design and service design
Interaction design and service design
Interaction design and service design
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Interaction design and service design


Published on

Moreover, interactive artefacts are being …

Moreover, interactive artefacts are being
introduced into service settings in a larger degree than before. We tend to rely on these artefacts as one, or sometimes the sole, possibility to do
banking, to declare our taxes, etc

Published in: Technology, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. INTERACTION DESIGN ANDSERVICE DESIGN: EXPANDING ACOMPARISON OF DESIGNDISCIPLINES.BY STEFAN HOLMLIDHUMAN-CENTERED SYSTEMS, LINKÖPINGS UNIVERSITETLINKÖPING, SWEDENTEL: +46 13 28 5633STEHO@IDA.LIU.SEWhile product design and interaction design are INTRODUCTIONestablishing themselves as ordinary practices, Interaction design encounters service design in businessservice design is still largely not well understood. innovation, e-government, and a whole range of otherMoreover, interactive artefacts are being settings. There is a range of service settings in which interactive artefacts are used to perform service, and a setintroduced into service settings in a larger degree of business innovation strategies combining processthan before. We tend to rely on these artefacts as innovation and interactive technology. In the meetingone, or sometimes the sole, possibility to do between these the service perspective becomes a challenge to interaction design, and technology usagebanking, to declare our taxes, etc. becomes a challenge to service design. For design toIn this paper we seek to identify common ground work in an integrated manner in such situations, designers need to have an understanding of each other’sand differentiation in order to create supportive disciplines. By comparing the design disciplinesstructures between interaction design and service according to dimensions of a small set of areas, we willdesign. The analysis relies on two frameworks, in this paper provide a basis to share understanding, create common ground and identify provided by Buchanan, defining orders of First, service design will be explained briefly, then threedesign, and one provided by Edeholt and perspectives will be introduced to set a framework forLöwgren, providing a comparative framework the comparison. In the second section the actual comparative analysis will be made, and in the thirdbetween design disciplines. section the results will be discussed and in the fourthThe framework of Edeholt & Löwgren is amended section the conclusions presented.through the comparison, to include service design. Service designComparative dimensions added pertains to all Service design is, in contrast to service development,areas of Edeholt & Löwgren’s framework; Design described as a human-centered approach and an outside- in perspective (Mager, 2004; Holmlid & Evenson, 2006).process, design material and deliverable. It is concerned with systematically applying design methodology and principles to the design of services (Bruce & Bessant, 2002; Holmlid & Evenson, 2006). Service design integrates the possibilities and means toDesign Inquiries 2007 Stockholm 1
  • 2. perform a service with such qualities, within the it has developed into a multi-disciplinary field (seeeconomy and strategic development of an organization. e.g.Ehn & Löwgren, 1997), which is similar to theA service designer can “visualise, express and development described by Findeli & Bousbaki (2005).choreograph what other people can’t see, envisage HCI developed from the general theory focus over asolutions that do not yet exist, observe and interpret product focus into a focus on subjectivity andneeds and behaviours and transform them into possible contextuality (see e.g.Bannon & Bodker, 1991, Kyng &service futures, and express and evaluate, in the Mathiassen, 1997).language of experiences, the quality of design” During the last two decades design has become an(Service Design Network, 2005). important perspective within the methods- and experience-movements of user-centred systemsAs a discipline, service design should not be viewed in development. Interaction design and experience designisolation, but in the context of service development, were established during the 90’s, and have gained groundmanagement, operations and marketing (Edvardsson, within user-centred design, UCD, practices. As of today,Gustafsson & Roos, 2005; Mager, 2005; Edvardsson, they have reached a level of integration where it is hardGustafsson, Johnson & Sandén, 2000). Together these to tell whether they can or should be regarded as separateform the provisions for good service performance. User design disciplines.orientation, contextualization and other service As a result of these developments, the rapid developmentdevelopment challenges are at the heart of service of WWW with its focus on community and experience,design (Holmlid, 2004; Edvardsson, Gustafsson, and divergence such as ubiquitous computing, UbiComp,Johnson & Sandén, 2000; Kristensson, Gustafsson & mobility, tangible interaction etc. interaction design hasArcher, 2004; Bruce & Bessant, 2002). established itself as one of the main user-centered design disciplines.Service design activities appear throughout a service With the advent of the UbiComp movement and thedevelopment process (see e.g. Lovelock & current development of mobile and wearable computing,Gummesson, 2004; Moritz, 2005; Dahlbom, 2005; interaction design has become a discipline that not onlyEvenson, 2005). In these processes service design has to relate to system development, but also has to relatecontribute with a set of modelling techniques for to product design and development (Edeholt & Löwgren,service experiences. Among these modelling 2003).techniques can be mentioned service-scape, customer Edeholt & Löwgren (2003) compare interaction andjourneys, service interface, etc (Bitner 55; Moritz, industrial design to highlight the challenge that design2005, Zeithaml & Parasutraman 1990; Shostack, 1984; for ubiquitous computing poses to the two areas. TheMager, 2005). basis for the challenge is that ubiquitous computing comprises both tangible and virtual material, both spatialDesign disciplines and areas and temporal dimensionality, and both visual andBuchanan (2001) defines four orders of design. They experiential aesthetic qualities.are distinguished by their design object. The design The radical design movement, e.g. as practiced at RCAobjects are signs, products, actions and thought. The (Gaver & Martin, 2000; Dunne, 1999), focus on othercorresponding design disciplines are graphic design, aspects than the interaction with technology as such,industrial design, interaction design, and environmental which have been the primary focus for interactiondesign. In classical Swedish design theory the design. To them, and to some game design, friction,classification finds support from Paulsson & Paulsson ambiguity and the physical product can be a central part(1957), as well as Hård af Segerstad (1957). Hård af of a concept. The radical design movement use design asSegerstad states part of an aesthetic, cultural and technological research “Artefacts around us function with maximum effect, discourse.only when they are appropriately organized into a totalmilieu.” Hård af Segerstad (1957), p 38 auth. transl. Furthermore, Dahlbom (Dahlbom, 2005; Dahlbom, 2003) argues that the basis for information systemsInteractive artefacts development is shifting from systems to services, fromThe field of human-computer interaction, HCI, have factory to market, from processes to situations, fromhad a rapid development during the last 40 years. improvement to innovation. Dahlbom argues that theBeginning as a field mainly developing general important aspects of these services will not be thosetheories, based on concepts from cognitive psychology, concerned with service processes. Instead, the importantDesign Inquiries 2007 Stockholm 2
  • 3. aspects are the ones that are related to the design of the areas as an analytic framework for this comparison:delivery of services, henceforth referred to as process, material and deliverable. As a coarse model forservuction (Edvardsson & Thomasson, 1991), rather comparison it is supported by other approaches, such asthan the organization of services. (Buchanan, 2001; Lilienthal & Züllighoven, 1997; Rosenman & Gero, 1998) and several others.Preliminaries Edeholt & Löwgren (2003) use the term industrial designThe framework used by Edeholt & Löwgren was to refer to the design of goods, rather than lettingdevised to analytically highlight the character of industrial refer to the conditions under which the designinteraction and product design, when challenged by the process is established. This definition is in accordancecombined tangible and intangible aspects of UbiComp with the framework suggested by Buchanan (2001).(Edeholt & Löwgren, 2003).Based on the three perspectives, services, design The statements on interaction and industrial designdisciplines, and interaction design, we can state some included below is gathered from Edeholt & Löwgrenpreliminaries; that interaction design from Buchanan’s (2003), and when needed enhanced with an analysis that(2001) model is more than interaction design with the relates to service design. Statements from Edeholt &digital material, that proponents of the information Löwgren, new statements and additions are distinguishedsystems area identify a shift in perspective towards from each other, through the indicated typographicalservices, and that interaction design with the digital conventions. The scale used in the comparison is thematerial is constantly being integrated with other areas. scale used by Edeholt & Löwgren. It uses the termsTo differentiate between Buchanan’s interaction design highly, somewhat, and not significantly. The presentationand interaction design with digital material, the former will be structured according to the three analytic areaswill be called Interaction Design, and the latter will be Process, Material and Deliverable (Edeholt & Löwgren,called IxD. 2003).Moreover, for interaction design with the digitalmaterial the compilation of Buchanan (2001) and THE PROCESS AREADahlbom (2005, 2003), highlights the importance of See figure 1 for a summary of the dimensions for theunderstanding service design and interaction design Process area.with the digital material in relationship to each other.Edeholt & Löwgren (2003) provide a comparison Design process [explorative, analytical]between design orders, but the review of the Service design is a discipline that is influential inperspectives above call for a comparison of design innovation processes, in business and technologydisciplines within a design order. From Buchanan’s development, as well as in deployment of e.g. technology(2001) point of view service design and IxD both are (Moritz, 2005). With a process that covers so manywithin the Interaction Design order. aspects it would be easy to say that it is explorative as well as analytical. Depending on where in the processUnderstanding how IxD and service design differs and one situates the analysis one would find that one is morerelates to one another would allow us to better prevalent than the other, one is more needed than theaccommodate and acknowledge the different other to drive the process. At the time being, it is one ofdisciplines’ possible influences on each other. From a the main ideas behind service design, that one should beprofessional design perspective this will provide a open to both problem reframing and changing solutions.starting point to discuss and build a repertoire for The service design processes drive and supportinteraction and service designers to understand what a divergence, convergence as well as selection.service design problem is and what an IxD problem is. > Service design processes are highly explorative,This paper is a starting point for that, an attempt to and somewhat analyticalhighlight some important aspects. > Industrial design processes are highly explorative, and somewhat analytical (Edeholt & Löwgren, 2003)ANALYSIS > Interaction design processes are not significantlyThe comparison will be made primarily between explorative, and highly analytical (Edeholt &interaction and service design. The comparison will be Löwgren, 2003)performed relying on the framework presented in Design representation [depictive, symbolic, enactive]Edeholt & Löwgren (2003), where they compareindustrial design and IxD. They identified three general Representations used in the service design processDesign Inquiries 2007 Stockholm 3
  • 4. include drama, scenario, storyboard sketching, service Explorative PROCESSinterface analysis, etc. (see e.g. Shostack, 1984; 1987; Ongoing AnalyticalKalakota & Robinson, 2004; Moritz, 2005, Holmlid &Evenson, 2007). Depending on who uses therepresentation for a specific purpose their nature willshift between depictive and symbolic. A storyboard, Virtual Depictivee.g., will only show a specific perspective of a service PRODUCTIONprocess, which from that perspective will be depictive,but from other perspectives will be symbolic. As Physical Symbolicservice design often deal with physical space, goodsand products as part of the service process, models, REPRESENTATION Enactivesketches etc are frequently used. Moreover, servicedesign representations often are enacted, such as when ID IxD SDusing dramaturgy or choreography to represent the Figure 1. The dimensions of the Process areaservice process. Service design representations arehighly enactive, somewhat depictive and highly from Edeholt and Löwgren (2003) untouched, that is,symbolic. that they refer to the production processes before theRecent research (Arvola & Artman, 2006, 2007) show usage or consumption. For a service this will mean thatthat IxD representations are not enough depictive in the physical process will refer to goods and products,relationship to some of the dynamic material aspects, while the virtual process will refer to software,which results in that designers use enactive manuscripts etc.representations to compensate for this. Industrial design For IxD the concept of an ongoing production process isrepresentations support an experiential relationship to valuable to point towards the immateriality of thethe designed object but this can hardly qualify them as artefact, and the focus that IxD has on usage, as well asbeing enacted representations. e.g. end-user created content. This relates to a> Service design representations are somewhat contemporary discussion within IxD theory, where the depictive and highly symbolic, and highly idea of the existence of an IxD artefact and the idea of enactive the use of the IxD artefact are frequently discussed> Industrial design representations are highly (Hallnäs & Redström, 2002; Holmlid, 2002). Moreover, depictive, not significantly symbolic (Edeholt & the concept of an ongoing production process should not Löwgren, 2003), and not significantly enactive be mistaken as continuous quality development.> Interaction design representations are not > Service design production is highly physical, highly significantly depictive, highly symbolic (Edeholt & virtual, and highly ongoing Löwgren, 2003), and somewhat enactive > Industrial design production is highly physical, not significantly virtual (Edeholt & Löwgren, 2003), andProduction process [physical, virtual, ongoing] not significantly ongoingWhat sets services apart the most from the perspective > Interaction design production is not significantlyof Edeholt and Löwgren (2003), is that they focus on physical, highly virtual (Edeholt & Löwgren, 2003),artefacts. A service is not an artefact in the sense they and somewhat ongoinguse the word. A service often is composed of ready- THE MATERIAL AREAmade artefacts, inventory, IT-systems, artefactsproduced during the process, the meeting as such, etc. See figure 2 for a summary of the dimensions for theThe distinction between production, manufacture and Material area.distribution is not clear-cut for services. While Edeholt Material [tangible, virtual]and Löwgren (2003) assume that there actually is anartefact à-priori, for service design the artefacts of the Following the same argument as service designservice are produced during the servuction. In some production, the material that services are made of, can besense it is in itself a physical production process, where both tangible and non-tangible. In service design it isthe client is a co-producer involved in the larger value- essential to establish service evidence, and to have aadding process. But, instead of giving the physical clear service interface, but also to have software,process a wider meaning, we will refer to this as an manuscripts and other virtual material (Mager, 2004;ongoing production process. This leaves the concepts Moritz, 2005; Zeithaml & Parasuraman, 1990).Design Inquiries 2007 Stockholm 4
  • 5. > Service design materials are highly tangible and Tangible MATERIAL highly virtual Active Virtual> Industrial design materials are highly tangible, and not significantly virtual (Edeholt & Löwgren, 2003)> Interaction design materials are not significantly tangible, and highly virtual (Edeholt & Löwgren, Experiential Spatial 2003) AESTHETICDimensionality [spatial, temporal, social] Visual TemporalAgain, the specifics of services play an important rolefor dimensionality. A service is always produced in a Social DIMENSIONALITYsocial and physical setting. Adding a social dimensiongfinds support from design theory (Hård af Segerstad, ID IxD SD1957; Paulsson & Paulsson, 1957). How the physical Figure 2. The dimensions of the Material areaenvironment is layed out can be of major importancefor the service. Moreover, a service is temporal in its aesthetics of activity for services (Maffei, Mager &nature. It is hard to imagine a service that does not Sangiorgi, 2005; Holmlid, 2002).unfold over time. For Edeholt & Löwgren, temporal In contrast to the experiential aesthetics, that is stronglydimensionality entails concepts such as story and related to technology usage, and thus directs the attentioninteraction, but there is a tendency (which will be more towards the relationship between the human and thenoticeable when the aesthetic criterion is analysed) to computer, or even directs the human attention towardsneglect the social aspects. Services always have a the computer, an aesthetic focus which is active, re-social (or relational) dimension. The most basic establish the social relationship between the humanservices are tasks performed by someone for someone agents in the service process.else, while in more complex service settings there are > Service design aesthetics are somewhatchains of dependencies not always visible or legible for experiential, highly visual, and highly activethe customer. In service design there are direct > Industrial design aesthetics are highly visual,customer related service encounters and service somewhat experiential (Edeholt & Löwgren, 2003),interfaces on-stage, and there are other service and not significantly activeencounters and service interfaces back-stage, beyond > Interaction design aesthetics are not significantlythe line of visibility (Shostack, 1984; Shostack, 1987). visual, highly experiential (Edeholt & Löwgren,Some IxD is also concerned with the social dimension, 2003), and not significantly activebut far from all is, while industrial design seldom THE AREA DELIVERABLEdirectly extends into social space.> Service design dimensionality is somewhat See figure 3 for a summary of the dimensions for the spatial, highly temporal, and highly social Deliverable area.> Industrial design dimensionality is highly spatial, Scope of deliverable [product, use, performance] not significantly temporal (Edeholt & Löwgren, 2003), and not significantly social This follows from several of the other points above. The> Interaction design dimensionality is not significantly main deliverable of service design is based in a temporal spatial, highly temporal (Edeholt & Löwgren, structure where the experience of participation, action 2003), and somewhat social and contribution is at centre stage, but there will be artefacts and products embedded in this activity that areAesthetic focus [visual, experiential, active] central for the experience of the service. To make thisA service is mainly experienced as it is consumed or perspective justice one would need to find a way toused. In that sense the aesthetic focus is experiential. qualify the scope with respect to the customer, as well asBut, within that service there are products and goods the customer’s customer. For service design thethat contribute to the aesthetics of the service, which customer’s customer is as important as the customer,rely on visual aesthetics, e.g. the way a clerk at the while for interaction and industrial design, the customerbank is dressed. Moreover, the aesthetics of a service is is more important than the customer’s customer. Thiscreated and re-negotiated as the service unfolds in a co- difference is captured with adding performance (as in acreative manner. Therefore there need to be an performance) to the concept of useDesign Inquiries 2007 Stockholm 5
  • 6. > Service design deliverable scope is somewhat product, highly use, highly performance Product SCOPE> Industrial design deliverable scope is highly Customers customer Use product, somewhat use (Edeholt & Löwgren, 2003), not significantly performance Org. Support Performance> Interaction design deliverable scope is not CUSTOMER significantly product, highly use (Edeholt & Löwgren, 2003), not significantly performance Mass market Final Dynamic CustomisableFlexibility of deliverable [final, customisable,dynamic] FLEXIBILITYA service design deliverable is final, or static, in the ID IxD SDsense that when the service is over, it cannot be Figure 3. The dimensions of the Deliverable arearevoked or changed. For a service customer getting aservice once, the service is static, but over time the (Edeholt & Löwgren, 2003), and somewhatservice can be highly customisable. Given that the customer’s customerservice design is not finished until the service is > Interaction design customers are somewhat massperformed, there is a high degree of dynamicity in the market, and highly organizational support (Edeholt &deliverable. This dynamicity is not at all present in an Löwgren, 2003), and somewhat customer’sindustrial design deliverable, and only to some degree customerin an IxD deliverable. The difference is that for IxD thedynamics are preset through, e.g. limited number of DISCUSSIONways to perform an action, but in service design thedynamics are based on pre-established possibilities of In Buchanan’s (2001) framework the wider orders ofaction paired with human judgment in a situation. design would include the detailed orders. The deviations> Service design deliverables are somewhat final, from this are some aspects of the design representation, highly customizable, and highly dynamic. the design dimensionality, the flexibility of the> Industrial design deliverables are highly final, not deliverable, and the scope of the deliverable. Given significantly customisable (Edeholt & Löwgren, Buchanan’s (2001) framework the strong relationship 2003), and not significantly dynamic between service design and industrial design was> Interaction design deliverables are somewhat final, expected. somewhat customisable (Edeholt & Löwgren, 2003), Two reflections will be made here. The deviation in and somewhat dynamic design dimensionality is an effect of the definition of spatial in Edeholt & Löwgren (2003). It refers to aCustomer for deliverable [mass market, organizational micro-spatiality that is important for products, that is thesupport, customer’s customer] space on the product. For service design the kind of spatiality that makes the most difference is at a macro-Services are as common on a mass-market, as they are level. The deviation in flexibility of deliverable is anperformed as bespoke or contracting work for specific effect of the definition of final in Edeholt & Löwgren.and known customers. They refer to the fact that the design of the artefact isWhat is more important is that the deliverable from a finalized before it is produced. Edeholt & Löwgrenservice design point of view often is as influential for (2003) refrain from relating the different dimensions tothe customer’s customer, and her experience of the each other, but final could be considered to be a specialservice, as it is important for the customers possibilities case of give high quality service. In industrial design as well From the comparisons we may also observe that serviceas IxD, the concept of the user entails such notions, but design can not operate on its own. It depends onviewed as the customer’s customer it is only somewhat specialist competence from interaction as well asimportant industrial design. The areas identified through this> Service design customers are highly mass- comparison, where service design needs specialist market, highly organizational support, and competence, are analytic processes, depictive highly customer’s customer representations, experiential aesthetics, and product> Industrial design customers are highly mass market, deliverables. and not significantly organizational supportDesign Inquiries 2007 Stockholm 6
  • 7. Edeholt & Löwgren’s analysis (2003) of industrial aspects, such as dynamicity and temporality, anddesign and IxD, highlights the difference between them similarities of the design methods employed. Anotherin material. Service design, on the other hand, integrating aspect is that IxD focus on the design of thetranscends these materials, being dependent on many interactive artefact, while service design focus on thedifferent kinds of design objects and materials. design of the service that the interactive artefact is a partDahlbom’s analysis (Dahlbom, 2005, 2003), as well as of.Edeholt & Löwgren (2003) and Löwgren & Stolterman(2005), suggests that IxD is appropriate when a Future researchcompany views itself as a company that delivers Analytic frameworks are limited by the underlyingproducts or artefacts for use. In such cases a service values and the content being analyzed. Therefore, theredesign perspective might be difficult to argue for. will be a continuous need to develop powerful tools forWhen a company views itself as a service company, understanding and characterizing design disciplinesservice design will be easily adopted, while IxD has toaccommodate some aspects of the process, the material ACKNOWLEDGMENTSand the deliverables. The author wishes to acknowledge the InternationalIxD and service design share the view of themselves as Service Design Network, and Birgit Mager, Shelleyworking from the outside-in, rather than from the Evenson, and Daniela Sangiorgi, for discussion on theinside-out. insights in this paper. Mattias Arvola, Per Sökjer and Henrik Artman also have contributed with comments.Understanding Buchanan’s model as a partial model, it The author is grateful to VINNOVA, the MAVB andis valuable to interpret the design disciplines as SERV projects for making this possible.integrative disciplines or as boundary openers of themodel. Interaction design with the digital material then REFERENCESpositions itself as a discipline integrating, to varyingdegrees, design objects of symbols, things and actions. Arvola, M., & Artman, H. (2006). InteractionService design on the other hand integrates actions and Walkthroughs and Improvised Role Play. In Proceedingsthe thought governing the environment in which these of DeSForM 2006, Design & Semantics of Form andactions are performed. That is, IxD and service design Movement. Eindhoven, The Netherlands, October 26-27.together could function as integrating disciplines across Arvola, M., & Artman, H. (2007) Enactments inthe orders of design defined by Buchanan (2001). Interaction Design: How Designers Make Sketches Behave. Artifact - Journal of virtual design, no 1, 2007.CONCLUSION Bannon, L., J., Bødker, S. (1991). Beyond the interface: Encountering artifacts in use. In Carroll, J., M. (ed)The comparative framework provided by Edeholt & Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-Löwgren (2003) was adapted to a horizontal computer interface, p 227-251. Cambridge, MA:comparison between design orders. It was an Cambridge University Press.insufficient framework to describe and explain the Bitner, M,., J. (1992) Servicescapes: The impact ofsimilarities and differences between design disciplines physical surroundings on customers and employees.within a design order. For that purpose the comparative Journal of Marketing, 55(jan):10-25.framework was enhanced with yet a few dimensions. Bruce, M., Bessant, J. (2002). Design in business:We should expect such amendments to be common to Strategic innovation through design. Design Council,such a framework, especially with design disciplines UK.that are fairly young. Buchanan, R. (2001) Designing research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17(4):3-23.When it comes to design perspectives on these Dahlbom, B. (2005). From systems to services. Availabledisciplines, earlier challenges have been tied to system at processes, or other material based design Dahlbom, B. (2003). Producers or Consumers: Twodisciplines. With service design the challenge lie in its Ways of Looking at Technology. In T. Järvi & Pbusiness, innovation and strategy focus, and the holistic Reijonen (eds), People and Computers: Twenty-oneapproach of setting other design disciplines into a Ways of Looking at Information Systems. TUCS Generalwider social and action context. The possibilities to Publication, No 26, June 2003, Turku Centre forestablish a common ground between IxD and service Computer could be based on the similarities in material Dunne, A. (1999). Hertzian tales: Electronic products,Design Inquiries 2007 Stockholm 7
  • 8. aesthetic experience and critical design. RCA CRD enacting services: Lessons learned from human-centeredResearch Publications. London: Royal College of Art, methods. In proceedings from the 10th Quality inComputer Related Design. Services conference, QUIS 10, Orlando, JuneEdeholt, H., Löwgren, J. (2003). Industrial design in a Kalakota, R., Robinson, M. (2004). Services Blueprint:post-industrial society: A framework for understanding Roadmap for Execution. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.the relationship between industrial design and Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A. and Archer, T. (2004)interaction design. In Proc 5th Conf. European Harnessing the Creative Potential among Users. JournalAcademy of Design, Barcelona. of Product Innovation Management, 21(1):4-14.Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M., D., Kyng, M., Mathiassen, L. eds. (1997) Computers andSandén, B. (2000). New service development and design in context. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.innovation in the new economy. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lilienthal & Züllighoven (1997). Application-orientedEdvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A., Roos, I. (2005). usage quality: The tools and material approach.Service portraits in service research: a critical review. interactions, 4(6):35-41.International. Journal of Service Industry Management Lovelock, C., Gummesson, E.. (2004) Whither Services16(1):107-121. Marketing? In Search of a New Paradigm and FreshEdvardsson, B., Thomasson, B. (1991). Perspectives. Journal of Service Research, 7:20-41.Kvalitetsutveckling - ett managementperspektiv. Lund: Löwgren, J. & Stolterman, E. (2005). ThoughtfulStudentlitteratur. interaction design. MIT press.Ehn, P. and Löwgren, J. (1997). Design for quality-in- Maffei, S., Mager, B., Sangiorgi, D. (2005). Innovationuse: Human-computer interaction meets information through Service Design: From research and theory to asystems development. In Helander, M. et al. (eds) network of practice. A user’s driven perspective. PaperHandbook of Human-Computer Interaction. Second, presented at EAD 06, Joining forces, Helsinki.completely revised edition, pp. 299-313. Amsterdam: Mager, B. (2004). Service design: A review. KISD, Köln.Elsevier. Manzini, E., (1993). Il Design dei Servizi. LaEvenson, S. (2005) Designing for Service. Proceedings progettazione del prodotto-servizio, in Designof DPPI 2005, Eindhoven Management, n° 7, Giugno,Findeli, A., Bousbaki, R. (2005). The eclipse of the Moritz, S. (2005). Service design: Practical access to anproduct in design theory. Keynote at EAD 06. evolving field. MSc thesis, KISD.Gaver, B., Martin, H. (2000). Alternatives: Exploring Paulsson, G., Paulsson, N. (1957). Tingens bruk ochinformation appliances through conceptual design prägel. Stockholm: Kooperativa förbundets bokförlag.propsals. Proceedings of CHI ‘2000, pp 209-216. New [The use and qualities of things]York, NY: ACM Press. Rosenman, M., A., Gero, J., S. (1998). Purpose andHallnäs, L., Redström, J. (2002). From use to presence: function in design: From the socio-cultural to the techno-On the expressions and aesthetics of everyday physical. Design Studies 19:161-186.computational thing. Transactions on Computer Service Design Network. (2005). Service design networkHuman Interaction, 9(2):106-124. manifesto. Unpublished.Hård af Segerstad, U. (1957). Tingen och vi. Shostack, G.L. (1984). Designing services that deliver.Stockholm: Nordisk rotogravyr. [The things and us] Harvard Business Review, 62(1):133-139.Holmlid, S. (2002). Adapting users: Towards a theory Shostack, G.L. (1987) Service Positioning Throughof use quality. Linköping Studies in Science and Structural Change. Journal of Marketing, 51(jan):34-43.Technology Dissertation No. 765. Linköpings Zeithaml, V., A., Parasuraman, A., Berry, L,. L. (1990)universitet, Sweden. Delivering Service Quality: Balancing CustomerHolmlid, S. (2005). Service Design methods and UCD Perceptions and Expectations. New York, NY: The Freepractice. Presented at workshop on User involvement in Press.e-government development projects at Interact 2005,Rome. Available at, S., & Evenson, S. (2006). Bringing design toservices. Invited to IBM Service Sciences, Managementand Engineering Summit: Education for the 21stcentury. New York, October.Holmlid, S., & Evenson, S. (2007). Prototyping andDesign Inquiries 2007 Stockholm 8